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
18 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.
One has to pose the question as to whether Geoffrey Palmer was (maybe still is) on a mission to wreak irreparable damage on New Zealand? He was responsible for inserting the nonsense of Treaty Principles into our legislation as beautifully shown here by Winston and as I discovered to my dismay a wee while back, in 2007 the Govt of the Day moved to repeal sedition laws, done under the guise of protecting democracy and free speech. Who was heading the Law Commission that recommended the repeal? It was Sir Geoffrey Palmer. As part of the coalition reassessment of legislation containing references to the principles it would be great if they also reintroduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi - Deletion" Bill - and this time pass it! While at it, how about reinstating sedition into the Crimes Act too?
The cancer that needs excising is the1975 TOW Act. This is what needs to be done before New Zealand becomes in Professor Elizabeth Rata’s words, a retribalized third world state controlled by a rentier elite.
The 1975 TOW Act and all other treaty related statutes since, are not based on the ORIGINAL Maori language treaty but rather a Freeman's "Royal style" English text version, which he created by taking bits and pieces from the early draft notes and stringing them together with linking text.
The Treaty of Waitangi Articles in the English text that is being deliberately used to screw NZ over.
Article the first
The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.
Article the second
Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs, yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.
Article the third
In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.
The Articles from the OFFICIAL1869 Back Translation of the ORIGINAL Maori language Treaty, done by Mr T E Young of the Native Affairs Department.
The First
The chiefs of the assembly and all the chiefs also who have not joined the assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the government of their lands.
The Second
The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the chiefs, the hapus and ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements, and their property. But the chiefs of the assembly and all the other chiefs gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.
The Third
This is an arrangement for the consent to the government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England.
I rest my case.
Yes, Luxon ............ let us hear from you.
Winston has played his cards, in support.
Play yours, and lets hope you have re-thought your "nothing burger" to what is critical to New Zealand's harmony and future. New Zealanders are standing up, and expressing their views and thoughts.
Luxon ......... It is called " EQUALITY FOR ALL, UNDER ONE LAW. ONE NATION, ONE PEOPLE.
Time to come clean. You are not running Air NZ, or where ever you have been in your corporate life. This is NZ at stake. Wake up PM.
What a Breath of Fresh Air.
Well said, Winston. !!
Couldn't be clearer.
Acts' Bill will only make things worse.
Bravo Winston. Sensibility at last.
20 years ! why was it not done back then!
So why doesn't Winston support Seymours bill?
Because his position is the truth. Seymour means well but he is pandering to the falsity of the past idiots.
LOL, still pushing that irrelevant BACK TRANSLATION.
The real deal is the Busby final draft (Littlewood Treaty)
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty [sic] of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-
Article first
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country.
Article second
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
Article third
In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
Signed, William Hobson
Consul and Lieut. Governor.
Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.[1]
https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
There are no grounds in the Maori language, signed Treaty for Maori to have been granted exclusive rights over any fisheries or forests Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. This is precisely corroborated by article 2 in the valid Littlewood (English language) draft The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. Since this applied to the chiefs and tribes and ALL the people of New Zealand there is absolutely nothing exclusive - it was and is all inclusive and certainly NOT divisive as our esteemed PM seems to assert. With all due respect, he needs to stop with all the appeasement and do his job.
I agree with Keith above.
In less than 18 months we will be in full pre election mode. Though I commend all that the Coalition are doing, at that time the economy , housing , health and the cost of living may, we hope , be just a little bit better. We hope. Not much of an election slogan,
"things are gonna get a little bit better, we hope".
Though the issue of ethnic division will be festering as ever. And some in Maoridom will still find new and beneficial interpretations in the treaty every time they look at it. And Mr Peter's plan to remove mention of the treaty from every Act it appears in won't stop that. Nor is their any possibility the 1975 act will be repealed
Though the media predicted all hell would break loose over, the end of 3 waters, the Maori health system , unelected Maori wards and banning gang patches, barely a whisper was heard.
There is clearly a substantial public majority in favour of the Treaty Principles Act which the government has no right to ignore . Given the tiny constituency the Maori party represent Seymour's Act would be well received by most New Zealanders.
Mr Peter's need to show some of the statesmanship he's supposed to have, and find the ability to support Mr Seymour's.
Act.
And Mr Luxon , well, well let's just hope.
Because there won't be the loathing of Ardern to tip them over the line next time.
SUPREME COURT. TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1847. IMPORTANT CASE. WAIVER OF THE CROWN'S RIGHT OF PREEMPTION—TREATY OF WAITANGI.
During this case, the plaintive argued that, “The English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was not correctly translated, or did not agree with the native version”.
The Attorney General (representing the defendant) without expressing any opinion as to the character of the English version of the treaty, would contend himself with replying that it having been agreed to upon the record that, “On the argument on the demurrer the Treaty of Waitangi as translated in papers relative to New Zealand, printed by order of the House of Commons, 1st May, 1841, shall be taken to be the true version of the said treaty”.
So, there we have it. A ‘ruined’ Freeman’s Formal Royal Style English version as signed, originally designated Maunsell's "make-do" Maori language treaty by Hobson, had been hijacked by the “powers that be” to become the “true English version” of the treaty, fifteen months after the original Maori language treaty signing.
What a cluster duck.
Yes, a very fine speech, but the horse has long bolted and it is highly unlikely we'll see the removal of "principles of the Treaty" from all legislation and Winston must surely now acknowledge that? It's too entrenched in everything and commentary and reference to the manufactured precedents will only continue - hence the need to have those principles now actually defined. What is proposed achieves that end, barring correction to the proposed second principle which introduces the term Iwi that was never referenced in the original while, likewise, referencing "Treaty settlements" is inappropriate and a country mile from the intent of acting in the utmost good faith. To propose that wording is just introducing another legal gravy train, which I'm sure the likes of Messrs Palmer and Findlayson would be delighted to see.
Post a Comment