Winston Peters speech on the first reading of New Zealand First's "Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi - Deletion" Bill......(08 June 2005):
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will seek leave for this bill to be sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.
This Parliament should do New Zealanders an invaluable service today. When considering these so-called principles, we must start from the premise that Parliament created this historical anomaly, so it is Parliament that must correct it. We must also ensure that it is clear that this is not an attack on the treaty itself, but on the insertion of the term “the principles of the Treaty” into legislation.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will seek leave for this bill to be sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.
This Parliament should do New Zealanders an invaluable service today. When considering these so-called principles, we must start from the premise that Parliament created this historical anomaly, so it is Parliament that must correct it. We must also ensure that it is clear that this is not an attack on the treaty itself, but on the insertion of the term “the principles of the Treaty” into legislation.
I say at the outset that if members are intending to vote against this bill, then they should please use their speech to tell the House and all New Zealanders what the definition of the so-called principles of the treaty is. If they cannot do this, then logic dictates that they must support this bill. They have no other choice.
This bill seeks to do three fundamental things. First, as the bill’s title implies, it seeks to remove all references to the undefined and divisive term “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from legislation. Second, it seeks to reverse the insidious culture of division that has grown up around the existence of these principles. It has seen Māori pitted against Māori and non-Māori, seen family members pitted against each other, and gone right to the heart of our social fabric. Finally, the bill aims to put an end to the expensive and never-ending litigious programme that has sprung up around these principles. This programme has diverted hundreds of millions of dollars into dead-end paths and away from the enlightened programmes that are the true pathway to success.
How did these principles appear in legislation? It was Geoffrey Palmer who inserted them into the State-Owned Enterprises Act in 1986. It was one of the many failed experiments of the fourth Labour Government. Māori did not ask for them—nobody did—but inserted they were. One might point out the irony of Geoffrey Palmer inserting them into legislation only to have his son, Professor Matthew Palmer, the dean of Victoria University’s law school, question the very validity of their existence and their value in law.
What made the inclusion of these terms in legislation worse was that they were never ever defined by Parliament. I have asked countless questions over the past 18 years, as have my colleagues, inside this House and outside, seeking an adequate definition of these principles, yet none has ever been forthcoming. I have gone to academics and other legal experts, and still I get the same reply. There is no clear definition, only widely diverse interpretations of what the principles might mean in certain circumstances. The simple answer is that they have not been defined because they cannot be.
The lack of definition has created legal chaos as activist judges, bureaucratic meddlers, and treaty lawyers have taken advantage of this void. It is no coincidence that almost immediately after these terms were placed in legislation, a protracted and expensive process of litigation was begun. It has never let up; it has grown exponentially to the ludicrous situation we have today of outrageous claims to everything from air space through to oil and gas. It has created false hope and expectations that have left far too many Māori craving a fool’s paradise that can never really be a reality.
Not only have these principles created a legal nonsense, their divisive nature has now permeated the entire bureaucracy. We now have treaty specialists in every Government department and requirements for every health board, school, or Government agency to adhere to these undefined principles. The result has been an endless stream of ad hoc programmes and policies at a cost of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, with no productive merit.
One should ask any Māori or non-Māori what is more valuable—a course on treaty principles, or a good job, solid education, and decent housing and health-care. The latter will win out every time, yet this Government insists on imposing these principles upon New Zealanders. We are meant to feel guilty if we do not sign up to the Government’s politically correct programme. Well, New Zealanders of all ilk are sick and tired of that, and it is time this Government woke up to that. This Government even tried to insert the principles into free-trade agreements to make them binding on foreign countries. That is madness.
These principles have also muddied the waters over legitimate claims of land alienation that do not need these so-called principles to be valid. The removal of these terms will have absolutely no impact on genuine claims. In fact, it will lead to their being better resolved more quickly—even faster as the growing body of bogus claims is removed from the system, unlocking time and resources for legitimate claims.
The Treaty of Waitangi was a noble historical document aimed at forging a relationship between two diverse peoples, and, as the rate of intermarriage between Māori and non-Māori seems to indicate, it was actually pretty successful. This nation is not perfect, but it does need a united, cohesive future. Although we have seen protests, we have never witnessed the race riots that other nations have. I believe that that is because the relationships forged between all of those who have come to these shores have historically almost always been based on a commitment to fairness and equality before the law. It was not always universally applied, but I believe that it has always been a part of our underlying values and culture.
That was undermined by inserting these principles into legislation. The unwarranted insertion of treaty principles into legislation has created division where none need exist. They have created resentment where it is not necessary. The words of the treaty, as with every other treaty worldwide, speak for themselves. The way forward for Māori, just as it is for non-Māori, must be based on strong education standards, First World health, housing, and social standards, real employment prospects, and First World incomes. Those cannot be found in fabled principles. It is time for the failed experiment to end and for this Parliament to act in the interests of all New Zealanders.
I ask my colleagues in this House why they would deny this bill a select committee hearing, where amendments can be made after the public has been heard. I say again that if members intend to vote against this bill, then they should please now tell this House and the public what the principles are. If they cannot do this, then they should help to remove this festering sore from our statute book and support this bill. If they cannot define these principles, then they should support this bill. If they cannot enunciate them or find words that have genuine meaning to describe them, then they should support this bill. If their minds and hearts cannot tell them what these principles are, or if all their friends, all academia, the whole judiciary, all the experts, their Cabinet colleagues, and their former leaders cannot tell them what these principles are, then they should support this bill.
In Australia today there are tens and tens of thousands of Māori. The average income of those Māori is greater than that of the average European in this country, yet Australia does not have a treaty, so how can it be? Maybe it is because the fundamental things that all families, communities, and societies need, such as decent health, decent education, decent housing, and decent First World wages and prospects, are what we all need. In abandoning that purpose and cause, this country has lost a lot. I say again that if members cannot tell me, their colleagues, and the public what they are pursuing in respect of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, then they should please support this bill. It will change nothing; it will advantage much. We cannot progress when the way forward is hazy. Let us today lift the fog that has shackled this nation for far too long, and support this bill.
The last thing I want to say is that as I have grown up to adulthood, I have seen so many of my Māori colleagues spend their whole lifetime on this issue. They are growing old and tired, and now, in many ways, they are of no use professionally to anybody. They have wasted 30 or 40 years on this issue. What a pity they could not have spent their life and energy uplifting their people in the way the great Māori leadership of the 1920s did, and transformed and changed this nation.
Winston Peters is the Deputy Prime Minister (Until 31 May 2025), Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister for Racing. He has worked as a primary and secondary school teacher and has practised as a Barrister and Solicitor, including in his own law firm. This article was sourced HERE
This bill seeks to do three fundamental things. First, as the bill’s title implies, it seeks to remove all references to the undefined and divisive term “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from legislation. Second, it seeks to reverse the insidious culture of division that has grown up around the existence of these principles. It has seen Māori pitted against Māori and non-Māori, seen family members pitted against each other, and gone right to the heart of our social fabric. Finally, the bill aims to put an end to the expensive and never-ending litigious programme that has sprung up around these principles. This programme has diverted hundreds of millions of dollars into dead-end paths and away from the enlightened programmes that are the true pathway to success.
How did these principles appear in legislation? It was Geoffrey Palmer who inserted them into the State-Owned Enterprises Act in 1986. It was one of the many failed experiments of the fourth Labour Government. Māori did not ask for them—nobody did—but inserted they were. One might point out the irony of Geoffrey Palmer inserting them into legislation only to have his son, Professor Matthew Palmer, the dean of Victoria University’s law school, question the very validity of their existence and their value in law.
What made the inclusion of these terms in legislation worse was that they were never ever defined by Parliament. I have asked countless questions over the past 18 years, as have my colleagues, inside this House and outside, seeking an adequate definition of these principles, yet none has ever been forthcoming. I have gone to academics and other legal experts, and still I get the same reply. There is no clear definition, only widely diverse interpretations of what the principles might mean in certain circumstances. The simple answer is that they have not been defined because they cannot be.
The lack of definition has created legal chaos as activist judges, bureaucratic meddlers, and treaty lawyers have taken advantage of this void. It is no coincidence that almost immediately after these terms were placed in legislation, a protracted and expensive process of litigation was begun. It has never let up; it has grown exponentially to the ludicrous situation we have today of outrageous claims to everything from air space through to oil and gas. It has created false hope and expectations that have left far too many Māori craving a fool’s paradise that can never really be a reality.
Not only have these principles created a legal nonsense, their divisive nature has now permeated the entire bureaucracy. We now have treaty specialists in every Government department and requirements for every health board, school, or Government agency to adhere to these undefined principles. The result has been an endless stream of ad hoc programmes and policies at a cost of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, with no productive merit.
One should ask any Māori or non-Māori what is more valuable—a course on treaty principles, or a good job, solid education, and decent housing and health-care. The latter will win out every time, yet this Government insists on imposing these principles upon New Zealanders. We are meant to feel guilty if we do not sign up to the Government’s politically correct programme. Well, New Zealanders of all ilk are sick and tired of that, and it is time this Government woke up to that. This Government even tried to insert the principles into free-trade agreements to make them binding on foreign countries. That is madness.
These principles have also muddied the waters over legitimate claims of land alienation that do not need these so-called principles to be valid. The removal of these terms will have absolutely no impact on genuine claims. In fact, it will lead to their being better resolved more quickly—even faster as the growing body of bogus claims is removed from the system, unlocking time and resources for legitimate claims.
The Treaty of Waitangi was a noble historical document aimed at forging a relationship between two diverse peoples, and, as the rate of intermarriage between Māori and non-Māori seems to indicate, it was actually pretty successful. This nation is not perfect, but it does need a united, cohesive future. Although we have seen protests, we have never witnessed the race riots that other nations have. I believe that that is because the relationships forged between all of those who have come to these shores have historically almost always been based on a commitment to fairness and equality before the law. It was not always universally applied, but I believe that it has always been a part of our underlying values and culture.
That was undermined by inserting these principles into legislation. The unwarranted insertion of treaty principles into legislation has created division where none need exist. They have created resentment where it is not necessary. The words of the treaty, as with every other treaty worldwide, speak for themselves. The way forward for Māori, just as it is for non-Māori, must be based on strong education standards, First World health, housing, and social standards, real employment prospects, and First World incomes. Those cannot be found in fabled principles. It is time for the failed experiment to end and for this Parliament to act in the interests of all New Zealanders.
I ask my colleagues in this House why they would deny this bill a select committee hearing, where amendments can be made after the public has been heard. I say again that if members intend to vote against this bill, then they should please now tell this House and the public what the principles are. If they cannot do this, then they should help to remove this festering sore from our statute book and support this bill. If they cannot define these principles, then they should support this bill. If they cannot enunciate them or find words that have genuine meaning to describe them, then they should support this bill. If their minds and hearts cannot tell them what these principles are, or if all their friends, all academia, the whole judiciary, all the experts, their Cabinet colleagues, and their former leaders cannot tell them what these principles are, then they should support this bill.
In Australia today there are tens and tens of thousands of Māori. The average income of those Māori is greater than that of the average European in this country, yet Australia does not have a treaty, so how can it be? Maybe it is because the fundamental things that all families, communities, and societies need, such as decent health, decent education, decent housing, and decent First World wages and prospects, are what we all need. In abandoning that purpose and cause, this country has lost a lot. I say again that if members cannot tell me, their colleagues, and the public what they are pursuing in respect of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, then they should please support this bill. It will change nothing; it will advantage much. We cannot progress when the way forward is hazy. Let us today lift the fog that has shackled this nation for far too long, and support this bill.
The last thing I want to say is that as I have grown up to adulthood, I have seen so many of my Māori colleagues spend their whole lifetime on this issue. They are growing old and tired, and now, in many ways, they are of no use professionally to anybody. They have wasted 30 or 40 years on this issue. What a pity they could not have spent their life and energy uplifting their people in the way the great Māori leadership of the 1920s did, and transformed and changed this nation.
Winston Peters is the Deputy Prime Minister (Until 31 May 2025), Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister for Racing. He has worked as a primary and secondary school teacher and has practised as a Barrister and Solicitor, including in his own law firm. This article was sourced HERE
3 comments:
The last paragraph pretty much nails it. Wasted energy and life on muddled thinking. This country spends so much time on this and achieves nothing.
A country with endless resources and yet we are broke.
Winston's speech a joy to read. Once through without great concentration and get it all. No "in" contemporary or academic jargon, a mystery to very many, and a cause of much public disconnection from current politics. The speech should be published in all msm and more. Very many must be very confused by the whole Principles issue and the speech summarises simply and succinctly. Winston's parents were on the right track when they chose his name. His namesake would have approved.
It beats me how Palmer, who seems to be able to grasp lagalities way beyond the rest of us, managed to inflict such loose legislation in the first place. As with so many in the profession did the instict/obligation to ensure forever expanding scope for tlucrative employment predominate?
Winston, you good MAN. You have stood up to be counted. I support you, and your protestation all the way.
Luxon ............. let us hear from you.
Post a Comment