References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Standardisation) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Standardisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

I’m pleased to introduce the References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Standardisation) Amendment Bill to the House today. This bill will improve the clarity, consistency, and descriptive Treaty provisions in legislation, and support a more certain and workable statute bill. The bill gives effect to the Government’s review of the references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. Over time, Parliament has used different formulations when referring to the Treaty and its principles. In some cases, these differences can make it unclear whether a different legal effect was intended. This bill will make the wording clearer and more consistent for readers without substantively changing the legal effect of those provisions. Descriptive provisions help readers understand how the Treaty is reflected in an Act by pointing to specific provisions that are intended to reflect the Treaty. While the introductory words of descriptive Treaty provisions will be amended to use a standard phrase, the operative provisions that are listed are not amended by this bill.

To conclude, this bill is about improving the clarity and workability of legislation. It does not change the Treaty itself or the Crown’s commitment to it. It ensures that, when Parliament refers to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation, the wording is clear, consistent, and appropriate for the statute in which it appears. That is important for the public, for agencies and regulating parties, and the courts. A clear statute book helps people understand what the law requires and supports more consistent decision-making across Government. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to focus on two aspects first of all in my short call on this second bill out of three bills that weaken or remove the provisions for legislation to take into account or honour, or otherwise, in Acts aspects of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

There is a Speaker’s ruling that it is convention that we do not make reference to the fact that a member is away, but it is felt that, if the absence of a member is of sufficient importance, the real or suggested importance of the absence overrides this convention. I suggest in this instance that the absence of the Minister Paul Goldsmith in the House today is of sufficient importance to note this in this debate.

💬 SPEAKER: Good. We’ll just leave it at that, then—noted.

The Minister of Justice has had a huge impact on the fact of this bill being in this House and the fact that the process of this bill has been terrible and not consultative. I also want to touch on the commitments that Minister Goldsmith has made to the Iwi Chairs Forum specifically. This bill changes provisions within legislation to a weaker standard—“take into account” is a weaker standard. It weakens the Treaty provisions in legislation. This is a specific decision undertaken by Minister Goldsmith that he did not need to take. This is a choice by the National Party to make a decision to weaken the Treaty of Waitangi.

I have evidence to back that up. When we look at the regulatory impact statement on this bill, we look at the options that were put forward to the Minister. Then we see the decision has been made to “Amend all Treaty standards to be no higher than ‘take into account’ ”. Why did this come before the House? It specifically says in the regulatory impact statement, “This option was a late addition proposed by the Minister for Justice.” He thought of this himself. This is not to do with the agreement with New Zealand First. This is Minister Goldsmith, the Minister of Justice, deciding that there should be a lower standard across all the different pieces of legislation—and we’re talking about the standardisation bill at the moment, which is specifically on this point.

Now, how did he arrive at that? We don’t know, because another thing that he also did was he directed a process that has not included engagement with iwi Māori or hapū as Treaty partners, the general public, or external stakeholders. This process has been a total mess. I have taken time to read the Waitangi Tribunal report into it. This is only one of two Waitangi Tribunal reports that have been written on this matter, and let me tell you, this is scathing of the process that the Minister has undertaken—absolutely scathing. What is most scathing in this is the fact that it specifically includes in here that “Minister Goldsmith informed the National Iwi Chairs Forum on 27 May 2026 that enactment would not be possible this term.” Well, I would say that having a first reading in this Parliament is a step toward enactment and is a breach of good faith for that commitment that he made to the Iwi Chairs Forum.

As I’ve mentioned, where is the argument, where is the Minister, where is his side of the story that he is putting forward as to why this is something that New Zealand needs to do? We have advice in the official information that this is going to be damaging to Māori-Crown relations. We have information in the official advice that he’s received that these provisions and this enactment are going to weaken Treaty clauses and not make it stronger. We have information that it was entirely his idea.

This is shameful. It comes after several shameful acts of this Minister, including move-on orders, this same week. This Minister is bringing the National Party into disrepute. The history of the National Party with the Treaty of Waitangi and the history of the Waitangi Tribunal, that was so eloquently spoken to by my colleague Arena Williams, is being trashed by this current Minister with disregard—trampled—disregard to the history of the Waitangi Tribunal and disregard to the statutes that have been worked so hard over successive Governments to make sure that the Treaty is honoured within our legislation, and it is shameful.

Point of order. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

💬 Camilla Belich: This is a total mess.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s not for me to comment on that. I call Tamatha Paul.

I can for you, Mr Speaker—

💬 Camilla Belich: Point of order. Two points. Firstly, we wouldn’t expect a reference to the select committee to be made at this point in the proceedings, and it is quite shocking to see another example of this Government not knowing when the correct place to do referrals is in the Standing Orders. Secondly, he would need to seek leave to refer it to the Justice Committee at this time.

💬 SPEAKER: No, he doesn’t. The Minister in charge who is presenting a bill can refer it to a select committee at any point. That’s quite clear in the Standing Orders.

💬 Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just speaking to that point, the Minister has exercised his call. The normal proceeding is that there are allocated calls for the remainder of the debate. The question, then, is at what opportunity would the Minister simply be able to seek another call? I mean, there’s nothing to stop a Minister in this respect then simply seeking call No. 7 to do exactly what the Minister has done. I’m seeking some clarity around how that aligns.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, look, he’s indicated by way of point of order the select committee that it’s going to be sent to, but at the end of the debate, it’s the Speaker who asks the House to consider what select committee it gets sent to. It’s a point of information. I agree with some of the analysis that might have been behind the points of order you’ve made. None the less, I call Tamatha Paul.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Oh, what a bunch of amateurs. You fellas remind me of that Hyrox lady running around looking like that. Can’t even get your mahi kaikiri right. How embarrassing. Far out, how many parties does it take to bloody trample on the Treaty? You guys are going to need a bigger coalition than this, because you can’t even get that right.

Can you believe, Aotearoa, that despite all your struggles, the New Zealand First Party made this a matter of priority for the House’s business? What an absolute disgrace. I’ve been in some debates with them recently, and they don’t get up and talk about the stuff that they’re doing. They get up and talk about neoliberalism, how we need to split up the gentailers. But what do they actually use their time doing? This kind of waste of time kaikiri stuff.

You know, what this really showed me is a another reason why politicians shouldn’t be allowed to trample and trifle with Te Tiriti, because in the last bill, Parmjeet Parmar got up and talked about how this was making it hard for the interpretation of judges and the courts, despite the fact that that is not true. The regulatory impact statement says that there is limited available evidence to justify the statement that the provisions create legal uncertainty, so that’s untrue. What it really demonstrates is that Parmjeet Parmar doesn’t even understand the constitution of this country and the separation of powers between the judiciary and us as the ones that write the laws. It is, actually, in fact, their job to interpret the law, not for us to write it out for them. That’s why those branches are separated. Maybe Parmjeet Parmar should have had a kōrero with her colleague James Christmas, who was actually involved in the advisory group that advised on these bills, who also said that there is no justification for this bill. Because guess what! There’s no uncertainty. All there is is incompetence, because they don’t understand the Treaty. They don’t understand the Treaty, so it makes them uncertain. Oh my gosh: the mention of the Treaty confuses us so much; that’s because they don’t understand it, Casey Costello. And it’s so funny that this is a bill from New Zealand First. Does anybody remember this guy? [Holds up image of Hon Shane Jones] “Aotearoa 1990: 150 years of oppression”. This is a message to rangatahi: don’t end up like this, where you’re one day marching around in an activist shirt saying, “We’ve been oppressed for 150 years.”, and then a couple of decades later, you’re here selling out your own people. What a disgrace. What a disgrace.

Let’s be clear: the regulatory impact statement says, “There is no apparent benefit to this bill.” Every person who is struggling and miserable in this county is now having three hours of their time wasted, and then some—because of the incompetence of the Government—to push through this BS legislation.

Politicians don’t understand the Treaty. All they do is they listen to what that crusty old fart Don Brash has to say—don’t you? We all know the biography that the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, wrote. He wrote Don Brash’s biography. He’s taken a page out of it, and he’s doing the same anti-Māori sentiment. We know who New Zealand First’s besties, eh? A Hobson’s Pledge puppet. That’s what you are.

What this shows is that the Government doesn’t understand the Treaty. And what we know about human psychology is that people are afraid of things that they don’t understand. They don’t understand the Treaty, and they listen to what people like that crusty old fart Don Brash has to say about the Treaty.

💬 SPEAKER: The point here is quite a simple one: we don’t use those terms to describe anybody outside the House. They have an absolute, natural justice right to come in here at a later time and defend themselves. It’s not something that is to be encouraged. What is to be less encouraged is the use of those sort of descriptors. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise for those particular descriptors, the two of them—three of them, in fact—and then to progress the rest of the speech.

Mr Speaker, can I ask for a point of clarification on that? Like, genuinely.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it better be, because I’ve actually instructed the member on how to progress, and if she doesn’t follow that instruction eventually, then the speech is over.

I understand that, Mr Speaker. Which part of that am I meant to be apologising for?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not repeating—I’m not repeating—

But then I don’t know what I’m apologising for, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but the member’s speech is terminated. We’ll move now to Simon Court.

💬 Simon Court: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Tangi Utikere: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Point of order, Tangi Utikere. [Interruption] There is a point of order on at the moment, and Tangi Utikere is the only one speaking.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the member’s speech. I just want to refer you to Standing Order 295(1)(a). This was the issue that I’d raised earlier, just wanting some clarity around this. This is a requirement around the nomination of the select committee; 295(1)(a) clearly indicates that it is the requirement that the member moving the bill’s first reading must, on the commencement of that member’s speech, nominate the relevant select committee to consider the bill.

Given the Minister, when called upon, did not do that at the time, I’m just wanting some clarity in terms of what course of action is available. Clearly, if this does pass first reading there will need to be a select committee, but is it then open to members to determine, and is it debateable?

💬 SPEAKER: Can I take some advice on that, and I’ll come back to you shortly. Simon Court.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT has consistently stood for the simple principle that every New Zealander should have the same fundamental rights and responsibilities, regardless of when their ancestors arrived here, or whether they came by waka, sailing ship, or aeroplane.

We’ve been the most consistent voice in Parliament of one law for all, so we could have one future together. The Treaty principles bill was the clearest demonstration of that. In that debate, ACT was the only party in Parliament that demonstrated that commitment. We stand for the principle that every New Zealander should have those rights. We would have welcomed other parties standing with us, particularly those who champion equal rights, but their decision not to do so does not change our position.

ACT will continue to be the consistent voice that we should have one law for all, so we can have one future together. These bills are a great step towards clarity and consistency, and how New Zealand’s legal provisions operate across the law, and ACT is happy to support them.

I just want to come to the member Tamatha’s Paul’s explanation of what that member considers to be comity between Parliament and the judiciary. I urge her to have a read of the Attorney-General’s speech that Chris Bishop gave to the Law Association on Thursday, 6 August 2026. For that member’s benefit, and anyone watching or listening, it is available on the Beehive website, under the Attorney-General’s banner. I urge that member Tamatha Paul to read that speech, where Chris Bishop says very clearly: Parliament must be clear about the scope of legislation, and how it applies. And it is up to the courts to deliver on Parliament’s intention, not to widely range across different ways of interpreting things that Parliament should and must make clear. Chris Bishop was quite clear: Parliament has the obligation to clarify laws.

Now, these bills do not go as far as the Treaty principles bill would have; we make no secret of that. That bill preferred a stronger approach. It sought to put into law principles based on equal rights and equal citizenship, and to allow Parliament and the public to have a fundamental debate about those principles. These bills do not go that far, but they move the statute book towards greater clarity, greater consistency, greater accountability, and ACT supports this progress.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First to the References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Standardisation) Amendment Bill. This bill is delivering on a core part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, where it was agreed to conduct a comprehensive review of all legislation, except when it related to, or was substantive to, existing full and final Treaty settlements. That includes references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to replace all such references with specific words relating to the relevance in application of the Treaty, or to repeal the references.

This bill is one of the three bills we will be speaking about today. I don’t want to repeat earlier commentary to expand the time of the House, but this is reducing inconsistency and reasserting parliamentary sovereignty by setting explicit legal clarity. New Zealand First supports the bill because it removes vague, fragmented drafting that historically triggered litigation and that enriches law firms rather than helping communities.

It is ironic that when we talk about the concept of being one people, and when we talk about the concept of unity, we get mocked and criticised.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: We get imprisoned.

When we say, “He iwi tahi tātou”—“We are all one people”—we get mocked.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Because you want to minimise someone else. You want to diminish another people to achieve it. You want to diminish a whole other people to achieve it—that’s why.

And yet when we introduced this first bill, the Green Party took a point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: Interjections are one thing; a barrage is another. The member will proceed with her speech without people being quite so boisterous around here.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, when we talk about unity and being one people—the Green Party in its initial point of order, when we first started these debates, said, “We’re all about unity.” When we say it, apparently, that is a bad thing. Apparently, this is a bad situation we’re in. At the same time, we’ve heard repeatedly from these members that the situation for Māori needs improvement. There are housing issues. There are health issues. There are education issues. There are poverty issues. And yet, at the same time, when we say, “Let’s improve the law so we can improve outcomes.”, we’re discredited. We want to keep the current law, even though we know it’s not delivering what they need, but if we actually say, “Let’s look at the law and make sure it is fit for purpose and delivering the outcomes we need.”, we’re criticised for doing it. On one hand, we defend the legislation as it exists, even though we think it’s not delivering what it needed; on the other hand, if we try to look at that legislation and improve it, we’re criticised. The hypocrisy is rich in this debate.

Then we’ve talked about power. It’s about power. Yes, it is absolutely about power. It’s empowering the people that need to be empowered, because the representation they get in this House is failing them dismally. They cannot get through a single speech without using foul language, without using insults and denigration—they cannot actually get through the speech.

I will provide some clarity around the commentary that we’ve heard today. Again, what we’re saying is that this is improving legislation for clarity so that we can improve delivery and so that we can ensure the people that we represent are actually getting the best legislation that they can. This is what we’re delivering. Despite the faux victimisation that sits across the other side of the House, we are actually delivering outcomes. For that reason, New Zealand First comments this bill to the House.

💬 SPEAKER: Just before I call Rawiri Waititi, I just want to clarify the point of order raised by Tangi Utikere just before.

Tangi Utikere raised the question of when a bill should be referred to a select committee by the member who is speaking first and referred to Standing Order 295. For the second time today, we find some gap in our proceedings, but I would refer the member to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, page 458, a large volume that you’ve probably got in front of you. Look for 36.16.2, and it says here—let me just highlight this so I don’t misread it—“For most bills, the first reading precedes consideration by a select committee, and, immediately after moving the motion for the first reading, the member in charge of the bill must nominate which select committee the member intends to consider the bill.”—there’s a reference there to 36.17 as well—“If the member in charge [of the bill] fails to do so, the Speaker will require this to be done before the debate proceeds.”

In other words, it’s not a breach not to place the reference to select committee at that point, because, at the end, it has to be referred to a select committee, and the Speaker would end up asking, “Which select committee are you sending it to?”, and the House would then be told.

Now, I’ve also heard from the Clerk that this is not an uncommon occurrence and hasn’t been an uncommon occurrence since these Standing Orders and that particular Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Practice volumes were put together in 2016. On that basis, we’ll proceed.

Speaking to the point of order, sir. Thank you. It’s perhaps uncommon to pull that lofty volume out for a wee while and get your highlighter out but, none the less, can I just seek some clarification? The point that you’ve made there is that the Speaker would then call upon the member before the debate proceeds. Is your interpretation that that can happen at any point during the debate, or is it the expectation that that point in time was when the failing of the Minister to undertake that duty was made clear?

💬 SPEAKER: I think, in this case, the Minister realised that he hadn’t referred to select committee and took a point of order to do so. Had he not done that, the Speaker, at the end of the debate, would have asked what select committee it’s going to.

Further to the point of order—thank you, again, Mr Speaker—if I can just refer to Standing Order 297(1). This is related to the determination of a committee to consider the bill, and it indicates that at any time before the question is put on the first reading, a member may deliver to the Clerk a nomination under Standing Order 295(1)(a). I have done that, in terms of nominating a specified select committee, given the Minister wasn’t able to. Can you just provide some direction around where in proceedings the consideration of that Tabled committee would fall?

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll take advice on that, but you would presume it would be at the end of the reading.

Point of order. Thank you for that. Given you’ve indicated you’re going to seek advice, there’s a matter I would hope that you could add to that. As is now evident, there has been a series of points of order raised on this particular reading and many of them have been based on the fact that this issue falls, essentially, through the cracks of parliamentary procedure because the bill is not listed on the Order Paper. That fact then raises questions around the relevancy of the Standing Orders in this particular instance and, certainly, Speakers’ Rulings.

Now, as it currently stands, the only motion or nomination for a committee is that which has been put forward by the Opposition. In the instance here, you’ve outlined from Parliamentary Practice that the Minister moving, introducing the bill, is required to indicate which select committee should considered this, by way of motion. You then indicated that, if that doesn’t happen, it is on the presiding officer to require them to do so. I don’t state that by any criticism. It is just a matter of fact that that did not happen.

💬 SPEAKER: No, that comes at the end of the debate, before the vote.

Right, so I note that, under Standing Order 297(2), it indicates that the motion will be put both after you have required that of the Government, which you’ve signalled you will do, and also now that the Opposition, the Labour Party, have put forward a nomination for a select committee, that of the Governance and Administration Committee—both will be put. It would be useful, I think, for the House to have an understanding as to how that would play out. I’m not aware of any instance where this has occurred. It’s possible that we’ve now alerted the House to members’ ability to put forward counter nominations for select committees. Perhaps this will become a common occurrence; I hope not.

The question I also have is that, given this bill is not listed on the Order Paper and that parliamentary procedure doesn’t fully apply in this instance, notwithstanding Standing Order 297(2), and in recognition of the Government’s clear disorganisation around this issue, I would put to you a request that counter motions as to which select committee this will be referred to be a debatable motion.

💬 SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, Tim van de Molen.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We seem to be making a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill here. This situation has occurred numerous over the last couple of Parliaments, where the Minister, moving a bill in their first reading speech, does not immediately indicate the select committee that it goes to. At some point through in that debate, or indeed prompted by the Speaker in the Chair at the end of the debate, that situation has been rectified. The Standing Orders are quite clear that the Minister must do so.

Now, an amendment can be moved, or a proposed committee can be moved, by another member, as Mr Utikere has done—indeed, that has also been done in previous Parliaments, where we in Opposition at that time did propose a select committee that it could be put to—but the Standing Orders are quite clear that that alternative proposal only ever gets voted on if the first proposal put forward by the Minister, either at the time or later, is voted down. If that motion by the Minister passes, there will never be a vote, and it is not debatable on the alternative committee.

💬 SPEAKER: Mr van de Molen is right in substance there. The first point is that a Minister moving a bill does need to inform the House of what committee the bill is going to be referred to. At the end of the debate, there is a question that is put to the Minister. As a result of that notification to the House, the question is the reference, in this case to this bill, going for the Justice Committee. The House then votes on that. If that does not proceed, we would go to Mr Utikere’s proposal.

A past circumstance where this has happened was on a local bill, where the member in charge of that bill did not mention what select committee it should go to. Therefore, it was the motion of Metiria Turei that saw it go to the Māori Affairs Committee. There is a process that happens sequentially, but, as we are all aware, this hasn’t been the smoothest of processes from an ideal legislative situation.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. If indeed this process is to happen as you’ve just outlined, should it not be the Opposition’s nomination that is considered first, given ours has been lodged and the Government is still yet to do so?

💬 SPEAKER: No, the Government doesn’t have to lodge it; the Government has to inform the House.

But they haven’t, sir—that’s my point.

💬 SPEAKER: They have. They did it by way of a point of order.

Now, sir, the point here—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. No one else offers any comment.

—is that if this were a minor matter, as Mr van de Molen asserted it was, frankly, you wouldn’t have had to refer to Parliamentary Practice in order to rule on it. The reason you’ve done that is because this is an unusual situation—brought about by disorganisation, but an unusual situation none the less. Now, I’ve just read over the segment in Parliamentary Practice and it actually makes it quite clear that, if a Minister does not indicate which committee they will move that it go to, the presiding officer is to point that out at that point. Now, again, I’m not saying this as a point of criticism, but that is what Parliamentary Practice says. It doesn’t actually indicate that it can happen at the end.

Standing Order 295 indicates that the Opposition—or any member, for that matter—has the ability to make a nomination for a select committee at any point before the question is put, but that is different to what you have referred to. That says that the presiding officer should intervene at that point, but once my colleague Camilla Belich spoke, that point was lost. I’m not at all suggesting that the Government motion is invalid—it’s not, by any stretch—but what I am saying is that, given this string of points of order was brought about on the basis that this is an unusual situation brought about by the fact that these bills in question are not on the Order Paper, the provisions that are outlined are not fully applicable. On that basis, that is why we are requesting that this be a debatable motion.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your observation. The point is that the House has been informed of the Minister’s intention to refer the bill to the Justice Committee. I can’t unhear that, and so the further bit that’s in here—I appreciate that perhaps there is a point where that should have come in. I would actually dispute that, but that’s one of those things. That’s why you have a Standing Orders Committee that goes through all these things. But the procedure today will be, presumably, that the Speaker, having been informed that it is the Justice Committee, will put that to the House. If the House rejects that, then, quite clearly, there is another motion lodged on the Table. Now, that would not be a debatable motion because it is a procedural matter that’s covered in the sequence of how a bill is dealt with. So we’ll go now to—who is taking the call?—Rawiri Waititi.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Well, welcome to the amateur hour at the Apollo! This has been an absolute mess of an afternoon for the Government in regard to this particular bill. What a shabby, shabby Government, and do you know why? It’s because you don’t stand by this bill.

This is just amateur. This is just an amateur move by this Government, and it wasn’t even a New Zealand First bill; it was your own bill, National. It was your own bill. This is the last-ditch effort for this Government. This is the last-ditch effort. This is your Armageddon—this is your Armageddon—before the election. You’ve only got two days left, and these last three bills are your Armageddon moment. This is your Armageddon moment.

This debate is not merely about semantics or a change of words for clarity’s sake. The real debate here is Te Tiriti versus the Treaty, and you’ve got Te Tiriti and the Treaty—two very different versions. You’re creating more unclarity—you’re creating more unclarity in regard to this particular bill.

The Crown cannot sign an agreement with our tīpuna and then appoint itself sole editor, and there is a fundamental rule of interpretation called contra proferentem—read it. It means that, where the words of an agreement aren’t clear, they are interpreted against the party that drafted them. The Crown drafted this agreement, the Crown chose the translator, the Crown presented Te Tiriti to our tīpuna, and more than 500 rangatira signed the Māori text; not the English version that the Crown later relied upon to claim sovereignty.

Article 1 consented to the Crown te kāwanatanga over their own citizens. Māori did not cede sovereignty, their mana, or consent to the Crown—te kāwana over Māori. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: I’m sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt the member, but you’ve got a commentator behind you who is making it difficult to follow your text, and I would ask her to show some respect, because that’s not showing any at the present time.

As an ex - rugby player, I quite like cheerleaders, Mr Speaker. Article 2 was the protection of the pre-existing rights of Māori to be undisturbed of our full and exclusive rights to our whenua, to our kāinga, and to our taonga. Article 3 was the promise of the Crown to afford Māori with the equal benefits and protections that the British settlers had. Therefore, the expectation of the Crown’s responsibility to Te Tiriti is to give effect to Te Tiriti. They are not decorative words. They are not accidental. They tell us who carries the obligation: the Crown.

I have one very simple question for the Minister when he watches this later on: if these words make no difference, why are you removing them? If they carry no legal weight, why has the Government gone through legislation across Aotearoa, hunting down these particular words and deleting them?

The words are the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to, and they tell us what the Crown must do—not merely recognise Te Tiriti, not politely respect Te Tiriti, not roll Te Tiriti out once a year for performance at Waitangi, but give effect to it, turn promise into practice, turn obligation into action, turn Te Tiriti from words on paper to justice in the lives of our people. Yet this bill replaces the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti with the weaker words “recognise and respect the principles” and “take into account”, and the Government tells us that this is just standardisation. Nothing to see here—no substantive change.

Ka pai, Minister, then answer the question: why must those words go? Why does Crown responsibility frighten this Government? Why does “give effect to” offend you? Our people know the difference between somebody saying, “I recognise you” and somebody saying, “I am responsible to you.” We know the difference between the Crown that says “I respect your rights” and a Crown legally required to act on them.

Recognition without responsibility is rhetoric, respect without action is performance, and Māori have had 186 years of Crown performance. We have heard the acknowledgment, we have received the apologies, and we have listened to Prime Ministers stand at Waitangi and speak about partnership, but Māori have never suffered from the shortage of Crown words. We have suffered from the shortage of Crown courage, a shortage of Crown accountability, and a shortage of Governments willing to honour the agreement their predecessors signed. Do what’s right—do what’s right.

This Government has failed Aotearoa and its relationship with Māori. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and it will be bye-bye next week.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are doing what is right, and I commend it to the House.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. We are having a debate about interpreting something that clearly in this House has different, really important types of interpretation. There are members on that side who have got EarPods in and headphones on who are not listening to the debate as it unfolds, and I think they should listen, because this is a really important conversation.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, one of the things that the—

💬 Hon Member: It’ll be the translation.

No, it’s an EarPod, not an earpiece.

💬 SPEAKER: Excuse me—hang on. Whoa, whoa, calm—and over here, too. One of the things the Speaker cannot do is force members to listen to other members. It’s a sad thing, but I can’t make people do it, any more than I can make people turn up to be here for all of the sessions or the debates of the Parliament. I tell you what, we’d have no problem if the whole place gets cleared out and that would make the whole urgency motion go very quickly, and so do not interrupt when I’m speaking. Thank you for raising a point of order that’s concerning you; it’s not one that I can be concerned with.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill about the words that Parliament sees fit to enact the Treaty obligations that exist and are described by legislation in specific words in statute. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court, in his contribution earlier, saw fit to quote the Attorney-General’s speech about the limitations of the words within legislation in relation to the Resource Management Act reform. That’s right. It follows a long tradition of Attorneys-General limiting the approach of judges to what is described specifically in legislation; but any follower of New Zealand political history will know that goes alongside a long tradition of Attorneys-General asserting the constitutional position of Te Tiriti o Waitangi over and above the words in legislation.

That tradition arguably began on the 24 August 1997 with Attorney-General Doug Graham. He was a National Attorney-General and he said, “We in New Zealand of course have the Treaty of Waitangi as our founding document.” And he continued, “The Treaty and its principles are there to guide both Māori and the Crown in their dealings with one another.” He described those principles as requiring “the utmost good faith”, and then he went on to compare the Treaty of Waitangi to the Magna Carta to which Māori and the Crown would continue to refer in governing their future relationship. It is with that spirit that these Treaty principles were inserted into legislation in the decades following. It is important to note here that, in the context of a legislative reform in the two decades after Doug Graham made those comments, these provisions have been inserted to protect not only the rights of Māori but also the rights of other New Zealanders in legislation to honour and protect what is due to them as those things like taonga tuku iho that have been passed on to them by their ancestors.

Margaret Wilson on 18 March 2004 affirmed that in a way which is exactly relevant to what we are doing today, to deciding on the scope of the words that are included in legislation. She said, “The Court of Appeal has accorded the Treaty constitutional status as a founding document.” She went on to explain that “The Treaty provided the legitimacy for the Crown to assert sovereignty and the governance of New Zealand.” While that also protected Māori rights, her conclusion was that “These matters are fundamentally constitutional.” When you think about what this standardisation bill is trying to do, it is trying to limit the scope of where Treaty principles are read into law; but the points being made by these Attorneys-General is that they merely described the constitutional framework that already exists with or without those provisions. The description of the way that they are meant to be applied is meant to assist the court in its interpretation, not to limit it. The Attorney-General at that time says, “Whatever the nature and wording of these ‘Treaty clauses’, their purpose is to ensure the interests of Māori are not overlooked in decisions that affect them.” That was the commitment given in the Treaty of Waitangi.

March 2004 was a time when the Attorney-General and her Prime Minister, who were Labour members, were under considerable pressure by the public to read down Treaty clauses. That was a party in Government that had decided to take a political win by limiting the scope of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are now faced with a National Party doing that. It was a mistake when Labour did it, and it is a deep mistake when National does it now. It is a blight on our history that we have ended up with a shameful record of Governments that have taken a punch at people who cannot punch back, just for the sake of drumming up those votes of people who do not understand and do not comprehend a rich history of decades of development not only in the courts but in this Parliament by Attorneys-General—

💬 Simon Court: We do. That’s why we’re limiting it.

—which that member likes to quote—from both major parties, because there is a constitutional question which lies behind this bill.

Moana Jackson’s formulation was this: “The Treaty set a blueprint for a constitutional relationship [for all New Zealanders].” That matters now because National has shown that they are not above changing our constitutional machinery for public and political gain, and that the major parties now, because of National’s decisions, cannot be relied upon to protect one side of the Treaty partnership, and that is Māori rights and interests. Gone are the days where we could have a national conversation about moving towards a republican model of governance, because it has always been the Crown’s responsibility under the Treaty that sat above the two major political parties which will take a swipe at Māori interests under our constitutional framework.

This puts us back as New Zealanders. We should be able to rely on the people who sit around the Cabinet table to protect our rights and interests; but it goes back to 1962, when it was Queen Elizabeth II who stood up for the Treaty when she said, “The obligations entered into at Waitangi go far deeper than any legal provision in any formal document.”

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill fulfils a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party. National commends it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ran into Chris Finlayson two days ago, and he was just talking about these bills and was embarrassed—embarrassed in terms of what he can see. He told me that he got in touch with Doug Graham. Doug Graham’s embarrassed by this whole scenario.

💬 Simon Court: He said there was going to be a civil war.

That’s right, so listen to that. Maybe you should listen to that. Maybe, when you’ve got the most learned people like Doug Graham saying that type of thing, we might have some of these idiots, Mr Speaker, in Parliament and Government—

💬 SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Think how you just said that.

Can’t say that? OK, I’ll withdraw that then.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, wait on. Think how you said it. You said, “idiots like Mr Speaker”.

Oh, my apologies, Mr Speaker. I meant idiots on the other side. My apologies.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m glad we got that clarified.

Sorry?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m very pleased we got that clarified.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Anyway, just coming back to the point. Doug Graham, Chris Finlayson, these are stalwarts, these are legends of the National Party, embarrassed by what this nonsense is—people like this talking about race-baiting stuff. This is not just Rawiri Waititi and Willie Jackson and Arena Williams saying this; these are legends from the National Party. In fact, they feel like it’s driving the Treaty out of legislation. Here’s the thing: how dare this Government do this at this late stage. They’re doing this at a time when people are not watching Parliament. Shame on this Government—shame on this Government. How dare they bypass a due process to attack the Treaty in such a cowardly way.

💬 Simon Court: Think they turned it off three minutes and 30 seconds ago.

The reality is this: the ACT Party doesn’t understand the Treaty. They don’t understand the Treaty. They’re trying to change the Treaty, and they’re trying to change it now.

In terms of this standardisation bill, constitutional change needs justification, consultation, and care, not ramming this sort of stuff through by stealth. Treaty clauses were deliberately drafted differently because different statutes govern different relationships, institutions, and circumstances. Uniform language is not automatically better law. The context matters. Parliament inserted individual Treaty provisions for particular reasons. Rewriting them through an omnibus exercise risks divorcing those provisions from their legislative history and purpose.

The truth is that the Government is undertaking a constitutional reform without Māori consultation. Changes to the statutory expression of the Māori-Crown relationship should involve genuine engagement with Māori, not simply consultation after Cabinet has decided its framework. This lot on the other side know that the Waitangi Tribunal has already criticised the wider review process and they found aspects of the Government’s February decisions breached principles, including partnership and protection and good governance—the very same Waitangi Tribunal that David Seymour wants to dismantle.

There’s no need to rush this through before the election. Legislation touching Te Tiriti deserves normal parliamentary scrutiny rather than being introduced during Parliament’s final week. Our people out there are saying—and I’m not talking about you—that this is a cowardly and shameful strategy from a Government, where the Minister can’t even turn up to talk about it. Standardisation sounds administratively neutral, but Treaty clauses aren’t punctuation marks; their wording reflects substantive relationships developed over decades.

These three bills need to be considered together. Standardisation is occurring alongside outright repeals and the reduction of stronger Treaty obligations to take into account. Parliament should examine each affected Act individually, asking why its Treaty wording exists before deciding that it needs alteration. Legal certainty isn’t achieved by merely making everything sound alike. That’s what they’ll have us believe. It certainly also comes from established case law and decades of interpretation of existing provisions.

Treaty legislation should be developed with Māori rather than imposed upon Māori. The standardisation bill is just another attack on Māori rights. Māori are tired of it. This has been the most anti-Māori Government that I have seen in my lifetime, and we have the nonsense coming from ACT to confirm that. The standardisation bill cannot honestly be separated politically from the Government’s wider Treaty programme. Seven provisions are being repealed while stronger obligations elsewhere are being reduced. This whole thing is an absolute disgrace.

All New Zealanders will have the opportunity to comment on this in the select committee. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Standardisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

SPEAKER (15:12): The question is, That the References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Standardisation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to Justice Committee.

References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Strength of Legislative Obligations) Amendment Bill

First Reading