Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill — First Reading 
Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1421] 
Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill 
First Reading 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I expect everyone in the House to support this bill because what New Zealand has in its legislative structure is a glaring glaring hole that is causing strife uncertainty and chaos. It goes back to 1986 when the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer inserted into the State-Owned Enterprises Act a section—section 9—that states: “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” It is one of those great phrases that lawyers use that sound great—that sound as though they mean a lot. 
Sir Geoffrey Palmer I think wanted to imply that. I am reliably informed that he told his Cabinet colleagues not to worry because the phrase was meaningless—that it could just sit there and mean nothing. Well of course it is very hard to pass a clause in a bill and then have judges say it means nothing. Lord Cooke of Thorndon got hold of this and it was like “make his day” because he was then in a position to decide what the principles of the Treaty were. There was no direction from Parliament no accountability to the people of New Zealand— 
Tariana Turia 
: Lucky for him. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Lucky for him. He was going to decide what all the principles of the Treaty were for all time. Well it was not for all time actually because the courts kept changing their minds as to what the principles might be— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What did they do? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: In all sorts of ways— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Give us a case. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Chris Finlayson is a bit lost on this. I could cite them. The first one of course was  
New Zealand Maori Council 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 [1987] in the Court of Appeal. It is in the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 Volume 1 at page 641. I will send it to Mr Chris Finlayson who has not seen it. He can look at that and bring himself up to speed with this important bill. 
Then not to be outdone the Waitangi Tribunal too wanted to have a hand in what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi might be. It started coming up with its own list—I ask members to bear in mind that no one votes the tribunal’s members in; they do not have any ability to make Acts of Parliament—and just invented them through the door Professor the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer had opened. Then successive Governments both National and Labour have just inserted this happy little phrase into bill after bill. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Then why blame the judges? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well exactly. This is why we are here. Chris Finlayson makes a very good point. He asks: “Then why blame the judges?”. Actually I am not blaming them. That is why we are here in Parliament tonight. I know it is late for Mr Finlayson and that he would rather be tucked up with a good book. We are here in Parliament to put this matter right so that we do not blame the judges because it is Parliament’s mistake. Without knowing what it means Parliament put this phrase into 36 Acts of Parliament. It voted for it. I have to say that Mr Finlayson is in the happy circumstance—probably one of the few in this Parliament—of never having voted for one of those clauses. 
We then had the experience of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who not having a lot to do for days on end— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why bring him into this? 
RODNEY HIDE 
:—well I cannot resist—would stand up in this House day after day and ask Ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister what on earth the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were. If members think they have seen Ministers dodge questions thus far they have seen nothing compared with when Ministers get that question. They cannot tell us what the principles of the Treaty are so no one actually knows. Robin Cooke’s work was work in progress. The Waitangi Tribunal stuff is work in progress. It is the stuff that we will slowly evolve over time to some undefined purpose. In the meantime Maori do not know what their rights are— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Yes we do. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: They say they do. They have to go to a court and convince Robin Cooke’s successor that they are right. No one knows what these principles of the Treaty mean. 
So here we are with the great ACT party. I am sure everyone will be supporting this bill because we are coming along—[ 
Interruption 
] Thanks Pita! Pita Paraone is saying that he will support the bill. I am very pleased because he knows it is very important. I will be proposing just for Pita Paraone that this bill go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Why? [ 
Interruption 
] They cannot even get a quorum—I would send it to the Maori Affairs Committee if its members could be bothered to turn up but I cannot trust them to turn up on any given day. We know that members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee all turn up and it is better off there because there are more members on that committee. At the Finance and Expenditure Committee every party in this great Parliament is represented bar Jim Anderton. Those are two pluses. Every party is represented on that committee bar Jim Anderton so the Finance and Expenditure Committee has to be the committee that considers this most important bill. 
I have had a crack at defining what I think the principles are and I am not saying that I have understood them perfectly. We could have the combined wisdom of Pita Paraone the Labour Party the Maori Party the National Party and Mr Chris Finlayson who could read till late then come down and help. But I want to tell members that I did an odd thing: I actually read the Treaty. I was quite surprised because in English it is as straightforward as anything. I cannot understand why there is all this confusion because I read the Treaty— 
Hon Member 
: That’s the problem. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well it is a problem; it is so clear. I admit it was the English version. But again we are in Parliament. The select committee can get the Maori version and add in those principles then we will actually know for once what the principles are and Parliament can pass the bill. 
I want to know who in Parliament is against the first principle. It is actually just taken off the first article. The principle of the first article is that there is just one New Zealand—that sort of seems a bit obvious—one sovereign nation and the Crown exercises sovereignty on behalf of Maori and non-Maori alike. I say that people who vote against this bill are voting against having one sovereign nation in this great country. I hear the Maori Party say: “Yes”. Its members are against one sovereign nation so we know where they sit. Where do Labour members sit? Are they in favour of dual sovereignty? 
Brian Connell 
: Over on this side. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Brian Connell says that they sit over there with him. That may be so but it is he who has moved from his seat not Labour members. Brian Connell might want to sit over there with the Labour members but tell him that that is not good for his career. Mind you I have given up trying to help Mr Connell with his career. I have helped him a fair bit so far. [ 
Interruption 
] We might be a small caucus but we are safe. 
Then we come to the second principle. The principle of the second article is that the Crown has a duty to uphold citizens’ property rights and that no property may be taken by the State without good cause and full market consideration. That is what the foreshore and seabed legislation was all about. Of course that was a breach of the Treaty so there has to be a breach of the Treaty principles. That is why I have No. 2. I come to the third principle and I would like to know who in this House will vote against this. I will be counting and reporting. The principle of article 3 is that everyone in New Zealand who is a citizen has the same rights and obligations as every other citizen. Is Mr Paraone against that? 
Pita Paraone 
: I’m waiting. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He cannot make up his mind as to whether he is in favour of every citizen having the same rights—the right to a fair trial to free speech to vote and to be treated equally before the law. 
This is a very very important bill. It sets the scene for what sort of a country we are. Are we to be a country that has one sovereign? Are we to be a country where property rights are held? Are we to be a country where every citizen is equal before the law? That is what this bill is about. I commend it to the House and look forward to its getting good support right across the House including from Mr Paraone. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
He Tirohanga o Kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi: A Guide to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi 
 is a good text. I recommend it to the member speaking previously and I want to start my contribution on this bill by reading a short piece from it. This is a book that really is about understanding perhaps some of the complexity of the Treaty and how it evolves. It states: “The differences in the Maori and English text of the Treaty of Waitangi have led to different understandings of the meaning of the Treaty. These differences coupled with the need to apply the Treaty in contemporary circumstances led Parliament to refer to the principles of the Treaty in legislation rather than to the Treaty texts. It is the principles therefore that the courts have considered when interpreting legislative references to the Treaty. As Justice McKay noted in the Broadcasting case (1992): ‘It is the principles of the Treaty which are to be applied not the literal words. The English and Maori texts in the first schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are not translations the one of the other’ ”—I say to Mr Hide—“ ‘and the differences between the texts and shades of meaning are less important than the spirit.’ ” 
I also want to draw to the attention of Mr Hide that as usual he has failed completely to do any real homework on this very inadequate legislation. He referred tonight to the Court of Appeal and to Sir Robin Cooke. I refer the member to the lands case in 1987 in which the Court of Appeal elaborated the principles of the Treaty as required by section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 he referred to. What he did not refer to was the judgment of the President of the Court of Appeal Sir Robin Cooke who wrote of the principles of partnership acts of protection and redress. Later on in 1989 the fourth Labour Government drawing on the principles that had been delivered to date included past judgments from the courts and published—I say to Mr Hide—a set of five principles to assist the Government when making decisions about matters related to the Treaty. I have referred to those previously in this House. I have made them available to the member and to all members. Clearly again despite putting legislation before this House that member has not bothered even to refer to that document. 
In April 2002 the then Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson advised Parliament that the following are the principles that the Government considers to be relevant—and they still are. I ask members who do care and who keep referring to them and asking what they are to please take note: first the principle of Government: the Government has the right to govern and make laws; second the principle of self-management: iwi have the right to organise as iwi and under the law to control the resources they own; third the principle of equality: all New Zealanders are equal under the law; fourth the principle of reasonable cooperation: both the Government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern; and finally the principle of redress: the Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur. 
I turn now to Mr Hide’s bill. The bill we are told is being introduced to provide greater certainty of and to reduce confusion about the principles of the Treaty. Unfortunately in my submission it does quite the opposite. Just as the courts have been required to establish what the current principles are the principles in this bill will also require significant interpretation by the courts and like any bill they will get it if it proceeds. 
The bill could have a particularly significant impact on the Waitangi Tribunal by removing its ability to consider claims against its understanding and application of the Treaty principles. That in turn would change the basis on which future claims were considered and lead to inconsistent treatment of those claims that have already been heard compared with those that are still to come. Furthermore the compensation requirements in the bill may leave the tribunal to apply a standard of full market consideration in exercising its binding powers. Consequently the compensation requirements would pose a significant risk to the affordability and durability of previous Treaty settlements. Settlement claims could be compromised to such an extent they would need to be renegotiated. 
Clause 7 prevents the Crown from interfering with property rights without good cause. First that would require the courts to define what is included in the definition of property. Using the two texts of the Treaty—which are included of course as schedules to the bill—as aids to interpretation as the court would a court could reasonably apply a very wide definition to that term to include things such as taonga. The strong property protection proposed in the bill would apply to things such as language Maori family structure and Maori customary knowledge. The member included those as part of his bill—at some unknown cost of course—to all of the above which would mean more uncertainty generated by the bill. 
Secondly the courts would be required to define the term “without good cause” or rather what constituted sufficiently good cause. Members can imagine a court being asked to review a decision to take land under the Public Works Act and trying to decide whether the proposed public work was worthy enough to meet the requirements of this bill. As a matter of fairness the courts would be bound to apply the property protections in clause 7 to any matter involving property rights. In other words the principles of the Treaty as set out in the bill would apply to more situations than they do at present. I seriously doubt whether that was Mr Hide’s intention. 
Clause 8 sets out a number of very worthy rights shared by all New Zealanders equally. Many of these rights mirror those already contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. However whereas the rights affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are subject to other enactments the rights in this bill have no such restrictions. Parts of existing statutes that require references to the Treaty and are inconsistent with rights in this bill could therefore be impliedly repealed. Surely I say to Mr Hide that is not the intention of his bill. 
Clause 9 tells us there are no Treaty principles other than those included in the bill but it is unlikely that that will truly restrict the courts to those principles alone. Other principles articulated by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal such as good faith and the duty to make informed decisions have their roots not only in the Treaty but also in general principles of common law. It will require more express language from this Parliament to extinguish such fundamental concepts of the common law. I am not surprised that Mr Hide wants to do that; I am sure that the majority of members in this House do not. 
If it is not the intention to remove these principles from consideration then one is forced to wonder whether this bill serves any purpose in the first place. If passed the bill would create uncertainty about the interpretation of existing statutes and about the extent of private property rights. Most of all it would seriously undermine the Treaty settlement process and most certainly delay it. In the end the only equality the bill will generate for Maori and non-Maori alike is that both will be equally confused about its purpose and effect. For all of those reasons the Labour Party will oppose this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All other speakers have 5 minutes with a bell at 4 minutes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I have often asked myself how this country ever got into the state it has when it comes to consideration of matters around the Treaty of Waitangi. As Rodney Hide explained to the House earlier the Treaty itself is an extremely short and concise document. There are a few points where there are interpretive differences but it was obvious that we have got into this trouble because of stupid governance when the Hon Mark Burton stood up tonight and said that the best thing Rodney Hide could do was to start reading some of the many volumes that have been written on the Treaty. 
He then proceeded to give us a diatribe that could be described as being nothing more than utter rubbish. When he spoke this evening about the five principles of the Treaty of Waitangi he did not mention property rights he did not mention freedom he did not mention the right of people to be able to express themselves freely whenever they like; rather he talked about the right of the Government to tell people what to do and when to do it. Then he manufactured the idea that somehow a treaty written in 1840 with goodwill and looking forward had an implicit redress clause or principle embedded in it. What utter garbage! It is that sort of woolly thinking that will lead National to support this bill going to a select committee. 
We have our reservations about it and one reason is that if we consider the Treaty of Waitangi and even look at the way in which Mr Hide has laid out the three articles of the Treaty in his bill and made some explanation of them we see it is a crying shame that it ever had to be referred to in any legislation at all. I would have thought it obvious that all New Zealanders accept that we have one Government that we have freedoms and property rights and that we expect to be treated equally by the law. Because New Zealanders accept those things we have embarked on the Treaty grievance process. We have embarked on the Treaty grievance process because we believe that New Zealanders should be treated equally because we believe in property rights and because we believe that there is one Government that should undertake this so-called redress. 
The Treaty is a document that has relevance and meaning for all New Zealanders. I would not mind the Resource Management Act referring to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi if that meant that my rights as a property owner were upheld just as much as those of someone who is Maori. But no that phrase is there to convey some extra duty or to impose some extra duty on local authorities because a group happens to be Maori. One of the consequences of this sort of woolly thinking is that the Maori group in this country is now over-regulated overlegislated and over-controlled by Government. Anyone who wants to close his or her mind to the possibilities that a select committee may come up with in considering this bill is signing up to the idea that a Government should control people’s lives. It really is that simple. 
What is wrong with declaring that the principles and articles of the Treaty exist to deliver rights to all New Zealanders? What do Maori have to fear from that—Maori who are not even allowed by the current Government to control directly their own fishing assets who cannot have a Treaty settlement unless they convince this Government that their governance arrangements are appropriate and who cannot get their hands on a Treaty settlement unless the settlement is hog-tied by an Act of Parliament? That is no way for this country to progress. This bill allows the select committee to have a good look at those issues. We will participate in that process fully. We do not agree with every aspect of the bill but we do think it is time this country got past the sort of woolly woofter thinking expressed by Mark Burton on behalf of the Government tonight. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker a tena koutou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te po nei. Tena koutou! Hari te ngakau mo tenei wahanga i homai ki a au ki te whakamarama atu nga whakaaro a te Ropu o Aotearoa Tuatahi i te kaupapa i mua i a tatou i tenei wa. 
I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to express the views of New Zealand First on this bill. 
I want to say straight off so that it is clear to everybody in this House and to those who are listening that New Zealand First will oppose this bill. Unlike the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill sponsored by my leader and by New Zealand First this bill does not seek to remove references to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from legislation. Instead it seeks to define what those principles should be. However I do not believe that this comes from any genuine desire to provide clarity for the judiciary who have to interpret our laws. 
Instead the purpose of this bill is to put property rights at the forefront of any Treaty negotiations or claims. References to property rights that I have heard in this House tonight certainly do not take into consideration the property rights of iwi hapu and Maori as such. All the references to property rights have been to those of the individual. This bill extrapolates the ACT party’s own principles and incorporates them into the three articles of the Treaty. I note that the articles used are from the English version. I remind some members that Maori signed the Maori version. When we look at schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the bill we see quite clearly that the versions do not match. This should not surprise anyone given that the ACT party—of which this bill’s sponsor is currently leader—is right wing market-driven and individualistic. Perhaps that party knows it is on a hiding to nothing with its policies so it is trying to dress them up in a more altruistic guise in an effort to make them more palatable. 
New Zealand First is concerned that should this bill pass the progress of current and future Treaty settlements will be impeded and past settlements may in fact be called into question as well. I think most of us in this House want nothing more than to see fair and enduring Treaty settlements and believe that no impediments to that end should be allowed. 
In June last year when New Zealand First’s bill was being debated Stephen Franks a member of the ACT party said that the ACT party had consistently maintained that there is no such thing as “Treaty principles”. Now we find that the ACT party is trying to define what those principles are. I know that Mr Hide would be the first to say how consistent his party is in matters such as this but quite clearly there is no foundation to that assertion. 
I suggest to the House that should this bill proceed into legislation the expensive and never-ending litigious programme that surrounds the existing legislation over Treaty principles in legislation will continue. Members may recall that that was one of our concerns regarding the original bill. With the retention of the references to Treaty principles in any legislation we will continue down that track. 
Under our confidence and supply agreement with Labour whereby we will ensure stability and balance over this parliamentary term New Zealand First has negotiated an agreement with the Government that it will support a New Zealand First bill relating to Treaty principles going to a select committee for consideration. For that reason we oppose this particular bill. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens oppose this bill absolutely. It represents just one more attempt to rewrite history and to subjugate the political aspirations of Maori to Pakeha hegemony. It seeks to unilaterally redefine the Treaty in accordance not with Maori values or the values of the Pakeha community but with ACT party values: private property rights and extreme individualism. It is designed to insult Maori and to inflame Pakeha anxieties—and there is considerable Pakeha anxiety about the place of Pakeha in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
This anxiety has been accentuated by the growing inclusion of Maori in political and cultural affairs. A growing awareness of the injustices of the past and the effects of our historical civil war has threatened many people’s conception of a nation built on peace. In part this is because the myth of our exemplary race relations and the “one New Zealand” catchcry have been demonstrated to be false. In the past many Pakeha were simply unaware of the decades of calls by Maori for their right to cultural political and economic self-determination. Today no Pakeha is unaware of this history of wrongs and attempts to right them. This awareness makes some people feel guilty and some people go on to resent that guilt. A common response to the cycle of guilt and resentment is to return to the historical amnesia that fuelled the problem in the first place. 
This bill is a classic example of that historical amnesia. It is an expression of deep-seated denial of the purpose of the Treaty which was in part to give Pakeha a right to be in Aotearoa. Along with that right came concomitant obligations. This bill sets out one view of the rights and entirely ignores the responsibilities. It perpetuates the myth that Maori gave up a thousand-year history of political and economic sovereignty without a murmur and it creates a new myth that the Pakeha of this country believe in the individualistic dog-eat-dog money first and people second values of the ACT party. 
The Greens are not in the business of defending such a redefinition and a weakening of what the Treaty actually means. I consider this bill to be an attempt to belittle what many New Zealanders see as a covenant between two peoples and to turn it into a hollow shell of itself. Pita Paraone referred to the two language versions of the Treaty which are contained in the schedules of the bill. Yet the bill shows no sign whatsoever that Mr Hide is aware of the meaning of the Maori version. Maybe that is why there is no translation of it in the bill. 
The Greens consider this bill to be a disgrace and we hope that it fails immediately. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker tena tatou katoa. E ki ana te korero ma te Tiriti o Waitangi ano ana korero e kawe. There is a saying: “The Treaty of Waitangi conveys its own message but it may mean different things to different people.” 
We are pleased to see the House giving consideration for Te Tiriti o Waitangi to guide the nation as its founding document. This bill seeks to give greater clarity to the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” which is included in more than 30 different statutes by specifying what those principles are. We welcome the new lease of life from our colleague Mr Hide to ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is preserved and maintained as a taonga for nation building as well as ensuring power-sharing between tangata whenua and the Crown. To do that we must ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is fairly represented in the constitutional and legislative framework and in the minds and actions of all peoples of Aotearoa. I commend Mr Hide for his courage in bringing this bill to the House and his commitment to ensuring that New Zealanders gain exposure to and acquisition of sound knowledge about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our history. 
The Maori Party strongly supports the need to see Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a recognition of indigenous rights. It recognises that through Te Tiriti o Waitangi those rights would be further enhanced and guaranteed by the Crown. At its core the Treaty acknowledges Maori existence as the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed yesterday. He said that Maori have been here for over a thousand years prior to the formalising of a compact between the Crown and Maori. The Treaty is a blueprint to guide the nation; a blueprint on which we are pleased to see parties on all sides of this House place value. The Prime Minister described the Treaty as “providing the foundation of this nation” and her Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mita Ririnui has said in this House that the possibility that “the Crown should simply walk away from its duties under the Treaty of Waitangi … [is] both deliberately ignorant and morally repugnant.” The National spokesperson on Treaty of Waitangi issues and Maori affairs Mr Gerry Brownlee has raised the prospect of changes to his party’s existing Maori policy. Maybe that is a softening of approach. So now we welcome our friend Mr Rodney Hide to this new environment of enlightenment—and thank him for his kai this evening. 
However sadly this bill does not do it. Amongst our people there has always been caution about the involvement of politicians in rewriting and redrafting the principles of the Treaty. They have seen this obsession with nailing down the principles as an opportunity for the Crown to reinterpret the Treaty to suit its own needs. We have seen a time line of change in the acknowledgment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It started with Te Tiriti o Waitangi which stated that the settlers could govern themselves. That was in response to the lawlessness of the settlers at the time. There was an absolute acknowledgment that Maori retained rangatiratanga—absolute authority over our resources. It is interesting to reflect that conservative population estimates tell us Maori numbered around 200000 at that time which was in stark contrast to the 2000 settlers. Now what do members think possessed those 200000 people to permit 2000 strangers to rule them? Does that not sound rather stupid? 
Finally article 3 referred to Maori having the same rights as British citizens and the ability to practice our own tikanga. Of course the nub of the issue is wrapped around which of the Treaty versions that one might abide by. I am sure that all members of this House are aware of the notion of contra proferentem where the Treaty in the indigenous language is the document that takes precedence when treaty versions are in conflict. But successive Governments have for political convenience referred only to the English version where Maori were said to have ceded sovereignty. That is a staggering view. 
Moving quickly through history I remind members that the Lange Government of the 1980s introduced a new animal called the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. That confused the public even more. It was an attempt by politicians simply to appease Maori protest. And here we are again giving piecemeal debate to what is clearly a very important discussion. 
Although the Maori Party will vote against the bill we commend the member for bringing te Tiriti debate to the fore where it should be once again and we in the Maori Party will rise to the challenge of keeping this constitutional discourse on the agenda for sure. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill and I will be upfront and say that United Future will not be supporting this bill. I will begin though by commending the member because we believe that his approach in this bill is preferential in our thinking to that of removing and deleting all references to the principles of the Treaty from the law as has been suggested by other members. However that is about as far as we can go in terms of our support for this bill because we believe that the member’s attempt is shallow. 
United Future has always been very clear in its policy even leading up to the last election. Our preference in regard to this matter is to support the establishment of a royal commission on New Zealand’s constitution and to include within its scope a very thorough look by ourselves as a nation at the Treaty. One of our concerns is that within New Zealand right now there seems to be an overshadowing of the importance of the Treaty by the fact that we are very focused on the historical grievance process. We support the need for the grievances to be addressed but that process has overwhelmed the discussion that should be had about the current relevance of the Treaty and its future application. We think that a very thorough discussion of those issues needs to be undertaken over a sustained period of time. It is not a process we would encourage to be rushed but one that should be deliberately undertaken. We believe that it started in the last term of this Government with the establishment of a select committee to look at and take a stocktake of our current constitutional arrangements. Beyond that we believe that much more work needs to be done and discussions need to be held up and down this country. 
Although Mr Hide has made what I consider to be a shallow and brief attempt to give his definition of what the principles of the Treaty mean—and I guess he is prepared to admit that it is a starting point—when I compare his three points with some of the other attempts that have been made by groups like Te Puni Kokiri and others to bring a sense of definition to that term I find there seem to be some real gaps in what is written. For instance Mr Hide mentions us being one sovereign nation but he does not have any reference to the principles that Te Puni Kokiri has talked about: things like the principle of partnership. When there is no reference to partnership which implies that one or more parties is involved in the process then we are all blandly merged into one nation and we lose a lot of the richness of what the Treaty stands for. That is just one small example of our concern about what is proposed in this bill. 
The speaker from the Maori Party has just alluded to the fact that more discussions do need to be had. United Future is concerned about the confusion that exists around at least 30 pieces of legislation with references to the principles of the Treaty. We note that there are currently general concessions within the judiciary that the differences between the texts of the Treaty are not as important as the spirit of the Treaty yet there remains a lot of misunderstanding and a lack of connection when we have discussions on that matter. There is real room for an improvement in our understanding of the Treaty. However this bill is not the way to do that so we will be opposing its first reading. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Hoi ano kia ora tatau. Kia ora tatau te ahuatanga o te pire kua takoto nei i runga i te tepu. Mihi ake ana au ki nga ropu torangapu i tu atu ki te whakahe. 
[ 
Indeed greetings to us. Greetings in respect of the circumstances of the bill before us. I acknowledge the parties who have stood to oppose it. 
] 
Let me just start by saying that Rodney Hide’s performance in the first reading of this bill is similar to the way this bill has been written: I do not think he has put a lot of thought into it. The reason I say that is that all Rodney Hide is doing is reiterating what has happened in this country over the past 150 years. 
I read the proposed principles set out in clauses 6 7 8 and 9 and if I had to describe in one word clause 6 “Principle of Article the First” I would say that Rodney Hide supports the notion of conquest because that is what it means. In relation to the second article I would say that Rodney Hide supports the notions of pillage and plunder because that is what clause 7 means. In relation to the third article in clause 8 I would say that Rodney Hide supports the notion of assimilation because that is what it means. In clause 9 “No other principles” Rodney Hide suggests that we deny Maori access to redress. In other words he is telling them what the Treaty of Waitangi means for them and saying that if they do not like it there is no avenue for redress. In a simple statement that is what the bill means to me. That is why I have stood in this House to take a call to oppose it and I want to congratulate all the previous speakers who have done the same. 
I have never believed in nor supported since I have been a member of this House the notion of defining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. However I do support reference being made to those principles. I do not believe that the courts should be limited in the way that they interpret the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in their deliberations. That is very important because that allows the Treaty of Waitangi to breathe—to have meaning—and actually speak to us. Once we start to define those principles which is what Rodney Hide suggests in his bill we render the Treaty worthless. One cannot censor the founding document of this nation by limiting its ability to speak to its nation. I hold fast to that belief. 
This is not a new debate in this House. What is different about this particular debate is that the previous one we had last year—and it has been referred to already—had been to remove any reference to the principles of the Treaty that are in legislation. This proposal actually attempts to limit the meaning of the Treaty in terms of those principles. Whatever the case the outcome is still the same: the Treaty is censored it is suppressed and it cannot serve the nation it was supposed to serve. 
As Te Ururoa Flavell said in his contribution to this House over the last two decades the Treaty has been widely accepted as the founding document of our nation. But it has been a challenge to us to give meaning to the Treaty and particularly to the relationship that we have with each other. One cannot say that we are one nation; we are two nations sharing the same country. Mr Hide has stated the obvious in this bill. He has stated that there is one New Zealand—one Aotearoa. Well that is obvious. 
I think the member needs to take advantage of the Treaty education programme that is travelling around the country. It is actually in Tauranga which is a nice place to go. I am told and I am sure that Bob Clarkson can verify this that the programme has been well attended by non-Maori who do want to know what the Treaty means in practical terms. 
Pita Paraone 
: What about the member? Has the member been there? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I just tell the member that I had a good part to play— 
Pita Paraone 
: No the member whom you were referring to—the member for Tauranga. Has he been to see it? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Just on that matter I tell the member that I went to the top of Mauao—Mount Maunganui—on Waitangi Day and the member for Tauranga was there. He made a very profound statement: “It’s a beautiful place. I’d love to be buried here.” The kaumatua said: “It will be done by lunchtime.” 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 National supports this bill to select committee not necessarily because we believe in everything it proposes but because we think that it presents an opportunity to consider what the impact of the insertion of the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” into legislation means. It is timely in this sense. We have seen over the last 6 years references to the Treaty of Waitangi inserted everywhere by the Labour Government and we have come to the conclusion that it has been put in so many places now that it has been rendered almost meaningless. For that and a number of other reasons some of which were covered by my colleague Gerry Brownlee we support the bill to select committee. What we do beyond that will depend on the outcome of the discussions and deliberations that go on in the select committee. 
The phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” to my knowledge first appeared in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. As far as I am aware that is when it was first used. As a person who sat on the Waitangi Tribunal for 10 years endeavouring to interpret that phrase I can appreciate I think exactly why the Parliament chose to include that phrase in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. That Act set up the Waitangi Tribunal to inquire into acts or omissions of the Crown that were seen to be in breach of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. The legislature at the time could just as easily I suppose have made reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. But given that the Treaty of Waitangi and what it stands for is to be found in both a Maori version and an English version I probably agree with the approach at the time of recognising the underlying thrust of the Treaty being found in two versions—in the Maori language and the English language—that someone in his or her wisdom decided to insert the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. 
Having sat on the Waitangi Tribunal for that length of time I think it was the right approach simply because if one thinks about it most Maori signatories actually signed the Maori version. The aspirations of the British Government I imagine were put to Maori at the time of the signing in terms that they understood and looking back and leaving to one side the difficulties that have arisen over the years I think that was probably a wise decision. 
I think where we come to now though is that we have seen under the current Labour Government a tendency to put the Treaty everywhere. I say that that is actually a cop-out. In a moment I also want to say a few words aimed at te iwi Maori—Maori people. It is a cop-out because in a way it hides a hundred shades of meaning. If one keeps inserting “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” then we have what has arisen which is everybody has difficulty trying to understand what that is. 
I remember when the Labour Government put through its reforming health legislation I think in 2001 I stood here in this House and said that rather than insert a reference to the Treaty one should say instead what it is that one wants to achieve. 
If what members want to achieve is that Maori be consulted because they think that that is one of the principles then they should say that. But they should not put into legislation a clause that everybody then ponders over and nobody knows what it means. 
Coming to this present bill I say that there are a number of reasons why I think we should support it. It gives us an opportunity to think about the way that the clause has been used and demeaned over the last 20 years. Maori people refer to the Treaty as he kawenata which is a sacred pact. We have to ask ourselves Maori if we can allow the legislature to put that clause everywhere then how sacred is it? Because if everybody can say what they think it means then ultimately it means nothing. So National supports the bill to select committee. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill. I hope that members in the House who have said that they will not support the bill will reconsider their position because it is a very good bill. 
The Green Party member stood up and talked of self-determination and lots of other things. In fact I think the essence of his speech was that the ACT party is trying to inflame Maori. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was very pleased when the Maori Party member spoke on the first reading and said that the party was very pleased that the matter had been raised in the House and that debate was happening. It is a shame that parties are saying that they will not support the bill to select committee because that is the place where we could have proper debate and proper discussion and could investigate fully the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is an opportunity that has not arisen. The United Future member wants a commission of inquiry. Goodness knows where we would end up with that. The select committee is in fact the right place to debate and discuss the principles and the role that they have in New Zealand today. 
The bill is necessary because there is a lot of confusion. The phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” has been included in many Government statutes—over 30 I believe—but the courts have been given no guidance as to how to interpret those principles. We have had all sorts of things in more recent times. What we need is greater clarity and certainty with the interpretation of the Acts of Parliament where references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been made. Select committees are the places to discuss those fully. The bill is in the name of my colleague Rodney Hide who said that maybe he had not got the principles quite right. That is why we present bills to Parliament and send them to select committee so that discussion can be held. As he said he would nominate the bill to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee where every party in this Parliament is represented with the exception of Jim Anderton. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: The chairman would rip it up. 
HEATHER ROY 
: The chairman might well rip it up—Mr Finlayson is quite right—and what a sad case that would be for such a good bill. 
We should go through clause 6 “Principle of Article the First” clause 7 “Principle of Article the Second” and clause 8 “Principle of Article the Third”. They of course are the essence of this bill. Clause 6 states: “The principle of the first article is that there is just one New Zealand one sovereign nation and the Crown exercises sovereignty on behalf of Maori and non-Maori alike.”—all New Zealanders being equal and what is wrong with that; all New Zealanders treated the same; and all New Zealanders under one sovereign nation. Clause 7 states: “The principle of the second article is that the Crown has a duty to uphold citizens’ property rights.” Many party representatives have stood up here this evening and tried to denigrate property rights. Property rights are very important to New Zealanders. Property rights are what this country is founded on. People believe that property rights are important. 
We had this debate not so long ago and Pita Paraone seemed very confused. He was saying one thing tonight but the New Zealand First Party was saying very different things when we debated the foreshore and seabed legislation last year. Members from many parties have stood up today and spoken about property rights as if they were a bad thing. In fact they are very very important. This confusion must be got over because New Zealanders hold their property rights very dear. 
Winston Peters as my colleague Rodney Hide pointed out used to stand up when he was sitting on this side of the House and ask what the principles were. He demanded Labour members to explain. One answer we received in this Parliament was that the principles are part of a breathing living document. What exactly does that mean? Does that explain the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? It is a very good reason to send this bill to a select committee to discuss it properly and fully and to hear submissions and expert advice. 
The principle of Article the Third is that everyone in New Zealand who is a citizen has the same rights and obligations as every other citizen. They have equality before the law and have the right to the rule of law to a fair trial to free speech to vote and to the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. That is the basis that our country our society should be founded on. How anybody can stand up in this Parliament and deny Kiwis those very basic things is quite beyond me. This is simple legislation because in essence this is a simple matter. I commend this bill to the House and I ask those parties that have indicated they will not support it to think again to have the discussion to have the debate and to hear the advice because that is what New Zealanders deserve. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I thank everyone for their contribution. I especially thank the National Party for supporting this bill. The ACT caucus is totally united behind this bill and with National Party support I calculate that we have 50 votes in the House. I have 5 minutes to drag another 11 votes across; indeed I am hopeful of getting the full 121. 
If we cannot define what rights Maori have then they have none. I was very interested to hear the Hon Mark Burton give a lecture on jurisprudence. He was a member of a Cabinet that voted to take away the ability of Maori people to have their day in court. I understand perfectly why he would be against defining the principles of the Treaty. He is absolutely against Maori people having rights. He is against anyone having rights because he is a socialist. So I understand perfectly where Mark Burton is coming from. Gerry Brownlee made a good point when he said that when he heard the principles being read out he heard not one right for Maori in any of them. It was all about how a socialist Government would run one’s life. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Absolute rubbish! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mark Burton says that is exactly what he wants because Labour knows best! I am quite pleased in a way that Mark Burton is not supporting this bill because then I would have to go back and check my premises. I came across to Mr Pita Paraone and I say to him that to be honest I expected better. He has always made a good contribution to this House and he has always stood up for principle. Hearing his speech tonight made me realise what a poodle New Zealand First has become. New Zealand First has become a total poodle. Winston Peters in Opposition demanded month after month for the principles of the Treaty to be defined. New Zealand First has the opportunity to have the principles defined—indeed to make a contribution—and Pita Paraone has said: “Oh no Labour has told us to vote against it.” So “Poodle Paraone” will do so. That is what has happened here tonight. New Zealand First has completely crossed the floor and gone over to Labour. 
I heard Mr Tanczos speak and I understand where he is coming from. I want to make one thing clear: I do not carry any guilt. I am proud to be a New Zealander. I am proud of this country. I am proud of what I have achieved. I do not want to hear Mr Tanczos suggesting in any way shape or form that I carry any guilt because I do not. I am actually a very very proud person and I try to do my best. 
I thank the Maori Party for its acknowledgment of my courage in bringing the bill to the House. It is actually just a matter of writing it putting it in the ballot box and getting the ballot pool. So it was not all that brave. The Maori Party wants to continue the debate yet tonight it is voting to shut it down. If we do want to debate what the Treaty means and if we do want to debate what the Government’s role should be then we should vote to have the debate and send the bill to the select committee. The Maori Party is saying to the people of New Zealand tonight—and indeed to its supporters—that there is to be no debate. Well maybe Rodney Hide has it wrong but this is a vehicle for that debate to be held and the Maori Party is voting to shut it down. Again I look across at New Zealand First and I say this: New Zealand First will go down in history— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It’ll go down all right! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: David Benson-Pope agrees. It will go down in history as the party that sold Maori rights down the river with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. When New Zealand First had the opportunity to define the rights and principles that are embodied in the Treaty it ducked for cover because Helen Clark and Heather Simpson told it to do so. 
I have one final thing to say to Mita Ririnui. He said if we had one Sovereign it would be a principle of conquest he said if we have a principle of property rights it is all about privilege and plunder and he said if we have a principle where everyone is equal before the law then it is a principle of assimilation. To hear Mita Ririnui make those statements made me realise that there is a big gulf between the Government side of the House and the Opposition side of the House. Why do we have to get rid of this Labour Government? Because it does not fit with the values of New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.