Jones Dail: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21179] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The main reason for bringing this bill before the House is that we as parliamentarians have to make sure that when we pass legislation the judiciary knows how to give effect to it. The considerable problems that have faced the judiciary over the insertion of the words “principles of” into certain pieces of legislation have shown the difficulties with such legislation the varying interpretations of it and the uncertainty surrounding it. New Zealand First intends to remove that uncertainty. Of course New Zealand First has made sure that it has not supported “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” being inserted into legislation. In the House the other night on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Bill I moved an amendment to have the words “the principles of” removed from the bill and New Zealand First voted to have those words removed. ACT voted against that amendment; it voted to have the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in the bill. So I think Mr Franks has got himself slightly confused. 
Listening to the Labour Party tonight one would think they were speaking from the basic principle that they will always support the inclusion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in important legislation. Let us look at what has been passed by this House in recent times. Could there have been a more important piece of legislation affecting the Maori people than the foreshore and seabed legislation? However the Labour Party is prepared to waive the inclusion of a reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation when it suits the Labour Party and that happened with the foreshore and seabed legislation. When the Labour Party tried to introduce a reference to “the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles or both” New Zealand First objected and the reference to “or its principles or both” was removed. 
Obviously the Labour Party is flexible in its support of the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This is extremely relevant to section 10(2)(b) of the Foreshore and Seabed Act relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court. Labour proposed to insert additional words in the corresponding clause of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This was rejected by New Zealand First and Labour accepted New Zealand First’s view of the matter. The foreshore and seabed legislation stands as one of the most important pieces of legislation of this term yet the Labour Party was prepared to delete that reference in it because New Zealand First insisted on it. I have here for any member who wants to read it House of Representatives Supplementary Order Paper PC0562A(5)(a) which shows the effort made by the Labour Party to have those words put in the bill. But when it was confronted by New Zealand First it buckled and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi did not mean two hoots—it meant nothing—to the Labour Party when it came to the crunch. 
Over the last 25 years lawyers who have been otherwise unable to obtain employment have found a gold-plated means of advancement in the Treaty of Waitangi industry. They have done nothing for New Zealand. The only people who have been enriched or acquired places of power are those lawyers—people like John Tamihere—and litigants who would otherwise have made no worthwhile contribution to New Zealand. None of this gravy train has done anything to improve the lot of the Maori “westie”. I ask John Tamihere what he has done for any young Maori “westie” in West Auckland in so far as the treaty is concerned. He has not done a thing—not a fish nothing—and where is he now? 
Pita Paraone 
: He took the golden handshake. 
DAIL JONES 
: He took the money from the young people on the Waipareira Trust. He deprived them of $190000 plus tax on top of that—about $250000. John Tamihere took the money. None of this gravy train has done anything to improve the lot of “westies” with a Maori heritage who are yet to see a brass cent from any gravy train settlement. They all know how well some people like John Tamihere and others many of whom are not even Maori have done out of the gravy train. 
This bill is not an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi. One should recall Professor Matthew Palmer’s article in the  
New Zealand Law Journal 
 of June 2001 in which he indicated that the Treaty of Waitangi is not sensibly susceptible to ordinary techniques of statutory interpretation as they have evolved in a common law system. He makes it clear that the treaty does not yield black and white answers that it does not express a contract but that it does express an ongoing relationship or set of relationships and common law principles of statutory interpretations themselves set the treaty apart by requiring it and reference to it to be interpreted generally. 
All that we are aiming to do here is to remove the reference to the words “principles of”. That is the main thing. Removing those words does not affect the Treaty of Waitangi and its application in those pieces of legislation in any way. It is just a lot of confusion and as members of Parliament we owe it to the legal profession and to the people of New Zealand to ensure that when our legislation is passed it is clear. That was why New Zealand First took that principled view on the foreshore and seabed legislation which meant that the Labour Government had to as well.