Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. According to Standing Order 116, matters subject to judicial decisions may not be referred to in any debate. Te Tiriti o Waitangi underpins the judicial system in Aotearoa and, therefore, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles are currently being adjudicated in all cases currently before the courts. It would be inappropriate to debate this matter until all of these court cases have been concluded.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be an interesting proposition if it were realistic. It’s not. Regardless of the status of the Treaty, if you look at all sorts of other documents that support the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand, then you could make the same case and, therefore, all debate in the House on all matters would be suspended.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member is in contempt of the House according to Standing Order 418(h). He has provided a bill which contains false or misleading information in an attempt to erase the rights of tangata whenua and sell our resources to offshore interests.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a matter for the House to deal with, not for me to deal with by way of points of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Well—contempt of the House.

SPEAKER: Contempt of the House is a matter that you are suggesting. I’m certainly not going to rule on it, because this is a bill that has been through a process inside the various arrangements between parties—in fact, there is a thing called the legislative committee—to get here. The second point I’d make is that, if you think there has been a contempt of the House, you need to write to the Speaker in a timely fashion.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

In 1975, this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act. That Act’s preamble says it was “established to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles.” There was one big problem: nowhere in the Treaty of Waitangi Act and at no time since has this Parliament said what those principles actually are. The democratically elected body of this Parliament has been silent.

Nature abhors a vacuum, so Parliament’s silence has been filled by various court findings, tribunal reports, and the Government departments having a go at defining the principles. They’ve variously arrived at the Crown having a duty to partner with Māori, to protect Māori self-determination, to consult, and redress past wrongs. What all of these principles have in common is that they afford Māori different rights from other New Zealanders. And I know why that is: lawyers, with their training, can’t help but see a contract, and their instinct tells them to interpret a contract instead of asking, “What is the best constitutional foundation for a country?”

Seeing the Treaty as a “partnership between races”, as the Court of Appeal once said, does not work as a constitutional foundation for a country. The lawyers will defend their logic to the hilt, but there is one question they cannot answer: where in the world is it a good idea to give citizens different rights based on ancestry? Where in the world has that approach been a success? Dividing people into tangata whenua, land people; and tangata Tiriti, people here by dint of the Treaty—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 119, “References to Sovereign”—it is offensive and members cannot make reference to the Sovereign. We have our own Sovereign as Māori. We have never ceded sovereignty. What the Minister is doing is deliberately—deliberately—bringing into disrepute and making references to the sovereignty of Māori.

SPEAKER: No, look, I’m sorry, that’s not a point of order that can stand against the cited point of order. I’m not going to go into the constitutional arrangements—the Standing Order doesn’t stand.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We can all think of examples where dividing people up by their race or religion has failed badly. It is time for the body that posed that question in 1975 to say what those principles are. The purpose of this bill is to break this Parliament’s 49-year silence, to define the principles in law so it’s crystal clear what the Treaty means to modern New Zealanders.

Clause 6 is the core of the bill. It says: “The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are as follows: Principle 1 The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—(a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society. Principle 2 The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a little bit of order, thank you very much.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Principle 3 says that “Everyone is equal before the law. Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.” These principles are based on the three articles of Te Tiriti, the Māori text—or at least Professor Kawharu’s 1987 translation of it.

I’d like to thank the officials at the Ministry of Justice, who, I suspect, don’t all agree with this particular kaupapa but have been scrupulous in their professionalism and shown what the Public Service in New Zealand can be.

The bill has other important clauses. Clause 7 says the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, in clause 6, must be used to interpret enactments. In other words, where there’s a legal reference to the principles, this interpretation must be used. Clause 8 says that the Act is not to apply to interpretation of a Treaty settlement Act. In other words, Treaty settlements are safe. Some people have said that the bill threatens Treaty settlements. It does not, and there’s no reason for anyone who has read the bill to say so any more.

Clause 9 says, “Nothing in this Act amends the text of the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Once again, many people have falsely claimed this bill rewrites the Treaty. There are even those who campaigned for “Toitū Te Tiriti” or “Leave the Treaty undisturbed”. In black and white: this bill does not change the text of the Treaty itself; what it does do is confirm the Government has the right to govern New Zealand and this Parliament has the right to make laws in the best interests of everyone. It commits to protecting the rights of everyone—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member, but this constant barrage has to stop. I’m actually hearing some of the comments that are being made and, if people think that they are in any way enlightening the debate, they are seriously deluded. So we’ll have very rare and reasonable comments only.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It commits to protecting the rights of everyone, including Māori, and upholding Treaty settlements. It commits to give equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights to every single New Zealander. The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.

The bill does something else, and that’s the answer: it democratises the principles of the Treaty; it gives everyone a say. The commencement clause says the principles of this bill only come into force if a majority vote for it to do so in a referendum, and, as I mentioned, the principles we know today have been created by a small number of New Zealanders, even though we all have to live within them. But if democracy means anything, it means each and every person has a say in how the rules we all live under are made. It is that democratisation of the Treaty that is so important. The big change here is the idea that each person has a say on the rules they live under. Even people who are convinced this bill will not become law are determined to stop it being discussed, and that’s why you hear so much outspoken criticism of it. They know that whether or not this bill becomes law in this term of Parliament, it’s only a matter of time before its logic prevails. That’s why they say, “Kill the bill”, because they can’t kill the idea behind the bill, especially not the idea of each person who lives legally in this country having equal rights.

Now, let me say I recognise there are people in te ao Māori who do not trust the State, and with good reason. The mamae or pain that has grown up over centuries is real: land taken, culture and language squashed, discrimination in public life. There are those who say this bill takes us back to the 1950s and earlier. I hear those who seek to stir up fear and division saying this bill will strip people of their mana, their taonga, and their reo. That is simply untrue. My mission in politics is to empower every person and every community to choose the life they want to live. It’s at the core of my belief system and, funnily enough, it’s the same belief system that drives many Māori activist movements. I believe that you should be empowered to do what you want with your land, to start your own school or your social service in your rohe using tikanga Māori and Māori language—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just halt for a minute. Start again—it’s not going to cost you any time. Why is it so hard just to listen to an argument before offering a rebuttal? It can’t be too hard.

Hon Peeni Henare: We’re trying to save him from himself.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not on my feet, so I’m not taking any action. I don’t want to start using members’ names here, but some of the calling out is ridiculous. The Hon David Seymour—resume.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In short, I believe in freedom under the law, and I believe that you have those rights because of being a human being, not because you have any particular ancestry. I believe that all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga, the right to flourish as you would like to live, because all human beings are alike in dignity, and thus the bill does not extinguish any right; it does not take from anyone. It reinforces the rights of the Treaty as universal human rights.

There are those who say that the Treaty is necessary because there’s still inequity between Māori and non-Māori—on average—and that is true if you view the world as groups of people based on ancestry and you average them. But the truth is that each person is more than an average. We are thinking and valuing beings with challenges and choices and hopes and dreams. Many Māori do very well and need little help; many non-Maori are struggling and in need of greater help. If you want to help people in need, skip the division and just help people in need is what I say.

There are those who may agree with the sentiment of the bill but believe that there are other priorities. The simple answer is that this Government has not been stopped by this bill—in fact, this Minister has not been stopped by this bill—from making massive progress in health and housing and economic growth and education. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. But more importantly, a system of equal rights is essential for solving the practical problems we face: a separate health administration, seats reserved at the table of public entities, the requirement to consult people on resource management decisions based on ancestry—all of it just makes the task of solving the very real problems we solve all the harder than if we join hands in common humanity against the challenges we seek to overcome.

The division that you are seeing was not caused by this bill; it has been built up over decades, during which New Zealanders have come to regard themselves as based on ancestry or one side of a partnership instead of as New Zealanders, and, what’s worse, successive Governments have encouraged that division. The division is there whether this bill is here to reveal it or not, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

In summary, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill fills a silence this Parliament has left for five decades. In so doing, it affirms the basis of our country. It is not division. Treaties are supposed to unite people, not divide them. We are fortunate that our country was founded by a voluntary agreement giving ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi [absolutely equal rights], or equal rights, to all, and for affirming and celebrating that wonderful inheritance, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Shame, shame, shame on you, David Seymour. Shame on you for what you’re trying to do to this nation in introducing this Treaty principles bill. Ngāti Rēhia will be ashamed that one of their sons has come up with a political stunt that looks to divide the nation and the partnership that we’ve been trying to get right since the most pre-eminent jurist in New Zealand history—Lord Cooke—made that historic declaration of partnership in 1987.

This bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty. David Seymour wants to turn over 50 years of our understanding of Treaty principles and partnership. The principles are clear—they’re clear. They’re about partnership, they’re about equity, they’re about active protection, and they’re about redress—simple. Why does this offend the Associate Minister of Justice so much?

This bill seeks to give Māori rights and indigenous rights to everyone, and there’s no doubt that Mr Seymour wants to totally change the Treaty as we know it. That’s the view of the best legal minds in the country: the King’s Counsel who have said to abandon this bill; the Waitangi Tribunal, who have said that by engaging with this process, the Crown was sanctioning a process that will take away indigenous rights; and, in fact, there’s a view of Crown Law, the Government’s own lawyers—the Government’s own lawyers—who have said that this bill will undermine Māori rights. But still David Seymour persists with this disgusting piece of legislation. I said some time ago that he was the most dangerous politician in New Zealand, and that has come to pass.

I’m a Labour Party member, but I’m also a proud Māori and New Zealander, and I denounce this foul attempt to rewrite the constitutional framework of this nation simply because the Prime Minister is too weak to stop the dangerous extremism of the ACT Party. [Applause from gallery] The party of Doug Graham, the party of Chris Finlayson, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley—none of those people would have been played the way the Prime Minister has been played.

SPEAKER: That is the last time there is to be any outbursts from the gallery, and that is the last time we’re to hear a personal reflection of that nature in today’s speeches.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry, Mr Speaker—thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister claims that this is MMP and his hands are tied, but he chose to sell Māori down the river and chose to throw all our shared work out just so he could be Prime Minister. Every single National Party member should be ashamed at the cowardice shown by the Prime Minister and this party. By introducing the bill—

SPEAKER: Mr Jackson—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —National are letting Māoridom down—

SPEAKER: Mr Jackson, think about what you’re saying.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, I have very much, Mr Speaker, but thank you for that.

SPEAKER: I know, but not very clearly, obviously.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, that’s your view, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that.

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt you, but don’t go down that track.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: OK. By introducing the bill, though, National are allowing David Seymour to launch a six-month hate tour. He’s using that six-month hate tour to launch a citizens initiated referendum to fight the National Party in 1996. The Minister’s “Vanity Treaty Principles Bill” will cost us $4 million—$4 million—at a time when we’ve got the cost of living going through the roof.

I’m telling Mr Seymour, and some of the National Party members who are enabling this, that Māoridom will never accept a redefining of the relationship with the Crown, not today, not tomorrow—not ever. We will march and march and hīkoi for our rights mō āke āke āke.

This Minister has purposely allowed misinformation to replace the true nature of the relationship from the Māori chiefs and Crown, and has sold that criticism as equality. He is not standing up for democracy. He is using and abusing democracy against my people; against your people. How dare you, David Seymour?

Yesterday, I was on a hīkoi. I was so proud to be on that hīkoi with our political colleagues in the Māori Party, the Green Party—wonderful—and Asians, Māori, and Pasifika were all there. They gave me a clear message, and I agreed to give that message here, today. This is to you, David Seymour: you fuel hatred and misinformation in this country, you bring out the worst in New Zealanders, you should be ashamed of yourself, and you are a liar.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

It’s all right, I’m about to rule. Withdraw and apologise for that last statement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I can’t do that.

SPEAKER: Willie Jackson, I’m asking you to withdraw and apologise for your last statement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I can’t do that.

SPEAKER: Willie Jackson, are you not going to withdraw for saying something that is so blatantly unparliamentary as that?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, that’s a message from the hīkoi.

SPEAKER: It doesn’t matter who it came from. You used the term in the House. You made the accusation in the House. Withdraw and apologise.

All right, then. I’m going to have to ask the member to withdraw himself from the House for the rest of the afternoon.

Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. That is what is behind this bill. Its architect tells us that this is about equality, but we do not have equality in this country. Pick almost any statistic that you like—housing, incarceration, health, life expectancy—Māori get unfair and unequal outcomes because of unfair and unequal treatment which started with the Crown’s intentional violent actions to dishonour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

But this is not just about Māori; this is about all of us. Te Tiriti is why and how each of us is on this whenua. It tells us so much about who we are, how we got here, and where we go if we treat each other and our planet well, if we are good Treaty partners.

Capitalism, an economic system with the key priority being to turn profit at almost any cost, needs colonisation. This insatiable, unsustainable economic system needs to assimilate and acquire new frontiers to exploit. It needs to turn every citizen into a consumer and to commodify our natural world. And right now, in this country, the biggest thing standing in its way is the resilience and the fire in the enduring movement from mana motuhake.

When Te Tiriti was signed, Māori outnumbered Pākehā by 40 to one. Can you imagine a small group of people coming to this country, signing an agreement to look after themselves in orderly cohabitation, then, instead, taking our land and our language? Well, that is the abridged history of Aotearoa New Zealand. That is what the British Crown did in establishing this Parliament and its institutions. The legacy of that violence, oppression, theft and colonisation and the breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is represented in today’s deeply unequal and unfair statistics in people’s lives.

Pākehā mā, tauiwi mā, we have been told for almost all of our lives that Māori sovereignty is something to be afraid of. Who has been telling you that? Who benefits and who pays the price?

The discomfort that you feel—that I once felt—is an invitation to listen, to learn, to understand, and to honour. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is gift. It is a blueprint of an Aotearoa that respects people and planet. It is the antidote to the exhaustion and the disenfranchisement that I know profoundly is felt in communities across this country right now.

Now, some politicians will tell you that we just need a clean slate for the past. They will tell you that people today should not be held responsible for the actions of our forebears. So let’s be really, really clear here: you do not need to be personally responsible for the historical dishonouring of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to actively benefit from that horrific legacy today. That is the truth. But this Parliament does benefit; all 123 members of this Parliament do benefit. The power in this place, in this Parliament, was built on a legacy of deceit, dehumanisation, and domination, and today all 123 members of Parliament will vote to either further entrench that utterly shameful legacy or to be honest and to do something about it.

The Prime Minister has told us that there’s nothing that he likes about this divisive bill. He’s told us that the National Party don’t support this bill. Any member of Parliament in this Chamber right now can call for a personal vote on this bill to vote differently from their party, to put the country above partisan politics. A leader or a whip cannot stop MPs’ constitutional right to vote how they know that they need to.

My question to MPs is: are you here to hold on to power at any cost or are you here to do the right thing? Are you here to listen to your conscience or are you here to give it all up on one of the most significant votes in this House in our lifetime? Because, if you wear the mask for a little while, it becomes your face. We are what we do. If you vote for this bill, that is who you are and this is how you will be remembered. Toitū Te Tiriti.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The background to the arrival of this bill, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, for its first reading in Parliament has been well traversed. The coalition agreement between ACT and National stipulates that National will support the Treaty principles bill for its first reading and to select committee, and that’s what we’re doing today. The Prime Minister also has indicated many times that, as far as the National Party is concerned, that is far as our support will go.

Parliament first referred to the principles of the Treaty in the 1970s but never defined them. The courts have stepped into that vacuum over the past 30-odd years. The principles of the Treaty, such as the concept of partnership, have gained more and more weight over time. It is, of course, appropriate for politicians and the public to debate what the Treaty means today and what it should mean in the future. The interpretations given by the courts are not gospel. We should be able to debate these things.

Our concern comes, however, with the process under this bill, whereby Parliament would simply set down its interpretation of the Treaty and then seek a majority of the public to confirm it in a referendum. This is a crude way to handle a very delicate subject. With a wave of the wand, as it were, we would unwind more than 30 years of jurisprudence—winner takes all. Of course there will be a wide variety of views amongst Māori, just as there is amongst any group, but those opposed to the changes will likely conclude that fundamental change is being imposed on them by a majority if it were to pass. That would risk stoking an already keen sense of grievance. It would risk increasing divisions in our country rather than reducing them.

That’s why National has indicated it will not support the bill in its final stages or for it to be put to a referendum. We believe the better way to address the many legitimate questions about the role of the Treaty in our democracy today is to progress the numerous specific changes we are making issue by issue. The guiding principle is that, in our efforts to honour Treaty of Waitangi commitments and the Treaty settlement, we should never lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern democratic society.

SPEAKER: Order! Enough of that constant, across-the-House comment that adds nothing to the debate. The member may look shocked at that, but if I was to write it down and present it to him, he’d be horrified.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The guiding principle is that, in our efforts to honour Treaty of Waitangi commitments and Treaty settlements, we should never lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern democratic society, such as equal voting rights; equality before the law; and, broadly speaking, an equal say in matters affecting their lives and the world around them.

There is a tension between those two things, between honouring commitments to Māori flowing from the Treaty and the basic expectations of equality in a modern democracy. This is a tension that can’t just be glossed over or ignored. Our proposition is that, as a nation, we should be serious in our commitment to the first but, in doing so, should be careful never to lose sight of or drift too far from the second. To be absolutist in the sense of demanding perfect equal treatment on absolutely everything would be to overlook the complications of history and commitments made. All democracies have kinks in them flowing from historical compromises. Think of the UK House of Lords or the fact that voters in the US Senate elections in Wyoming have a much greater say than voters in California. At the same time, to drift too far from basic equality would be an invitation to disaster.

This is not a topic that lends itself to a neat, tidy, single solution; it has to be worked through issue by issue, which is what we are doing. That’s why we have reasserted the principle that healthcare should be delivered on the basis of need alone. That’s why we’re pushing back against the previous Government’s move against equal voting rights in local government. That’s why we’re unwinding co-governance arrangements in core public services and a separate Māori Health Authority. That’s why we’ve taken the unusual step of overturning the reasoning behind a Court of Appeal ruling in the marine and coastal area Act to restore a high test before the customary marine title is awarded on parts of our coastline. That’s why we’re embarking on the mammoth task of reviewing the Treaty references in existing legislation to ensure they’re clear about what Parliament does and doesn’t mean.

At the same time, we’re committed to continuing and completing the Treaty settlement process begun in the 1990s. It’s been a bipartisan effort over decades and involved thousands of Māori up and down the country, studying history, negotiating, forming new structures, and managing settlements. The settlements have never been an exercise in attaining perfection, but it is the best effort across many generations and we’re proud of those efforts. The Government will never lose sight of the reality that the things that most Māori want are the same as what most other New Zealanders want: a strong economy that can deliver jobs and incomes and sustain a good standing of living, decent housing, to feel safe in their community, and for their kids to access great education that sets them up to succeed. [Interruption] The reality is that, in each of those areas—[Interruption] Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, your time is up.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was interrupted half a dozen times by the barracking and intimidation on the other side.

Sit down. Your time’s up.

Te Wai Pounamu, Te Ika-a-Māui, ngā iwi katoa, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko te kāinga manaaki, he mahana; ko te kāinga whānau, he aroha; ko te kāinga wairua, he pūmau.

[South Island, North Island, and all the nations, greetings to you all. A hospitable house is a warm house; a family house is a house with love; a house of union is for ever.] [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK. Right, sorry. I’ve asked repeatedly for people to restrain themselves a little bit. Of course emotions run high in a debate like this, but outbursts of the type we’re getting don’t change that. So, please, just respect a bit of decorum in the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As this Ngāpuhi proverb says, “The warm home is safe. The family home is love. The home with spirit endures.” I stand here today, in this House of Parliament, our democracy, a home where—as it’s evident today—our spirit endures. Today, I do not speak only about principles, legal contrivances, ideological posture, rather to reflect on the deeper roots beyond politics—the very elements my ancestor Tāmati Waka Nene highlighted when he signed the Treaty in 1840.

As it was recorded, when signing the Treaty, the chiefs were greeted with “He iwi tahi tātou.”—together we are a people, a nation—and we did form a nation, and our people, although not always getting it right, did come together. We are not a people who should fear debate, ideas, or difference of opinion.

Democracy is weakened by a censorious approach. Democracy is chilled if the highest court in the land is stifled. Differences of opinion are expected, and today, in the esteemed debating chamber, we have the chance to demonstrate that we are not censorious and we will not be stifled. There is nothing to fear through challenging ideas and presenting different positions. That is what brings us to the House today—the ability to bring ideas, challenge those ideas, and perhaps be enriched by those different perspectives and maybe come to a better position because of what we have learnt.

New Zealand First has a very long and consistent history on our position regarding the Treaty principles. As a party, we have brought legislation to this House in order to deliver clarity and certainty to this nation regarding the Treaty and its influence on who we are. We have, and continue to, reject that there are principles. New Zealand First brought legislation in 2005, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, which was voted down. Following the 2005 election, a confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First stated, “Support New Zealand First bill relating to Treaty principles going to select committee for consideration.” This allowed us to bring this bill back to this House. Therefore, it seems not unprecedented to allow contentious legislation in the agreements to form a Government, to come to this House. And we are a healthy enough democracy to survive contentious debate.

We do not stand alone in this view that there are no Treaty principles. Our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has referred often to the great Māori leaders who forged the path for a better New Zealand: Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Peter Buck, Sir Māui Pōmare, Sir James Carroll. They all shared the position that there were no principles to the Treaty, and that will remain New Zealand First’s position. It is under the shared knowledge and understanding of our history that New Zealand First has remained committed to the purpose of the Treaty. As Dame Whina Cooper said, “We signed the Treaty to become one people”, but that does not mean that we turn away from our obligation to our democracy.

As my esteemed colleague, the Hon Shane Jones, elucidated to the House yesterday, this precious place in which we stand is a place where ideas must be respected. Parliamentarians are entitled to put ideas forward for debate. The issues on which a party campaigned and, through that campaign, received a mandate to enter this House must be respected, and the process of our democracy must be afforded the opportunity to be heard. We need, in this House, to be guardians of the rights that this Chamber represents. Free and open exchange of ideas is not something to be feared; it is a legacy that was hard fought by many who have gone before. Agreement and consensus of opinion, accompanied by a reluctance to put forward different thinking, would stifle the development of ideas to broaden our minds and innovate our solutions.

This bill is brought to the House for consideration, and I cannot help but be reminded of the words of Voltaire, to paraphrase, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.” It is important to maintain perspective and dignity in this debate, and we do not allow this to become antagonistic. New Zealand First will, as we’ve committed to, support this bill to the first reading; it is our commitment to this Government and to this democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I take to my feet, and as my people have taken to theirs, I stand here on behalf of my babies in the gallery, and all of our mokopuna.

Ko aku whakaaro kei te ika hui rua o te wā.

[My thoughts are with the two recently deceased.]

As I stood at the edge of Te Rerenga Wairua at the beginning of our hīkoi, ka tangi kotokoto ki a Koro Bom Gillies [I sobbed with sadness for Koro Bom Gillies] and my teina, Ricky Mitai. Both are the epitome of kotahitanga in life and death. The kotahitanga of the Māori Battalion on the battlefield meant their survival and success. They knew that division would be fatal—a lesson to us all. Ricky Lee, in his short life, has embodied the voice of kotahitanga from the lens of kōhanga reo generation. In death, he has brought together all generations and all iwi as they mourn what should have been a future leader they had nurtured and moulded. They are the cost of kotahitanga, and they are the mana and tapu of our Toitū Te Tiriti hīkoi.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is superior to any person and any law ever created in this House. It is the constitutional document by which this House and democracy is established here in Aotearoa. This Parliament means nothing in Aotearoa without Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The only reason this Parliament exists in Aotearoa is because our tīpuna consented to it. The only people who can make changes in an agreement are the parties who signed it: the King of England me ngā rangatira o ngā hapū o Aotearoa [and the chiefs of the hapū of Aotearoa]. Now, tell me, David Seymour, which one of those are you?

ACT are seen to be pulling the strings and running the country, like the KKK with a swipe card to the Beehive, and Luxon doesn’t even care. There’s a ghost in his chair.

Everybody, every single one of the members sitting on that side of the House have enabled this bill to be introduced to the House. You are complicit in the harm and the division that this presents and are complicit in the euthanising of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You have no right to touch something you have no mana over. Te Tiriti o Waitangi sits above you. You have no right to make VIP decisions from the cheap seats. How dare you threaten our mokopuna. Te Tiriti was an arrangement to unify. This bill serves to divide. Te iwi Māori don’t expect this House to liberate us. We must be our own liberation. We’ve been talking about Pākehā honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, expecting solutions to come from the very House that attacks us every single day. So the real question we now need to ask ourselves, e te iwi Māori, is when will we honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Article 1 gave consent to Pākehā to govern over themselves. They’ve assumed governance over us. When will we begin to assume governance ourselves? Te Pāti Māori is the only party committed to establishing our own whare rangatira [house of leadership]. E oho. E oho. [Wake up. Wake up.]

Our role as Te Pāti Māori is not to be a part of this system but to create our own. What is the pathway forward for us, e te iwi? Tino rangatiratanga and self-governance is the ultimate goal, but there are steps we must take to get there. First, we need to do what we need to do to get rid of this Government. This must be a one-term Government. How do we do that? E te iwi Māori, we must all register on the Māori roll. E oho. [Wake up.]

Everybody must register on the Māori roll if you are Māori or if you have Māori whakapapa. That is the goal. In order to make this a one-term Government, we need more Māori voices in this House. We need more Māori independent seats in this House. That is how we do it—everybody on the Māori roll. If you are Māori, get on the Māori roll. Talk to your pakeke. Ko rātou ngā mea kei te raruraru. [They are the ones who are in trouble.] The rangatahi are migrating. They are registering on the Māori roll. That must be our goal.

E taku iwi [To my Māori people]: 35,000 people marched yesterday across that bridge, and they will arrive here, at Parliament. And one message to you, David, is “See you next Tuesday.” Kia ora tātou.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. As I reflect on the 16 years—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait till the House and galleries go quiet.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —that I’ve been a member of Parliament, as a country we have faced some significant challenges, and I know that we are better when we face them together, when we are united. National’s long-held position is that a referendum on the Treaty would be divisive and would not deliver an outcome that takes our country forward. It’s a simplistic approach to a very complex issue.

Over successive decades, our country has grappled with how to deal with the Treaty, and, of course, significant challenges remain. National has never shied away from the challenging issues or the hard work that is needed, working together through the issues around the Treaty on a case by case, issue by issue basis. I’m proud to be part of National’s broad-church approach to dealing with tough issues and our track record of doing just that. We have actively progressed Treaty settlements to address historical wrongdoings. We continue to build on the relationships that we have forged with iwi Māori over the decades. We have reversed a number of Labour’s divisive co-governance policies, like three waters and the Māori Health Authority. We are working through specific instances where the Treaty is mentioned in legislation and we need to be clear about what it means in the context of that legislation. It is a harder approach, but it is the right approach because it will deliver enduring solutions. It is simply not realistic to suggest 184 years of debate can be settled with the broad stroke of a pen.

National’s focus and motivation is on improving outcomes for all New Zealanders by rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better public services. Through Government, business, iwi, and community working together, we will have a greater impact on the people we serve. This bill does nothing to help. I am determined to build a society that breaks down barriers for Kiwis with the highest needs. Too often, those with the highest needs are Māori, and, in many cases, Māori have the answers. I’m proud of the work that we do to support a by Māori, for Māori approach. We are working to help New Zealanders with a package of reforms to get our kids back to school and learning the basics brilliantly through programmes that support families to move out of motels and into stable housing and by helping people move off benefits and into work. This is how we improve lives and opportunities for New Zealanders. This bill does nothing to help.

MMP is a complex environment, and all parties are required to make compromises to form a Government. National will uphold the coalition agreement with ACT and support their Treaty principles bill at first reading, allowing it to go to select committee. However, we will vote against it at the second reading, as this bill does nothing to help.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. This bill is a shameful return to some of the most offensive legislation this House has passed. When we look back and we think of the Maori Prisoners Act 1880, suspending trial rights for Māori at Parihaka; the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, confiscating land after the Tainui wars; the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, banning traditional practices; and the Native Schools Act 1867, banning the use of te reo—we look back now and we think, “How could Parliament have been so wrong, so fundamentally at odds with the promises made in the Treaty? So racist.” Yet here we are. Christopher Luxon, you are presiding over the most racist piece of legislation in a hundred years.

SPEAKER: You could use the word “is” but not “you”. I take a liberal approach generally, but I’m getting a little bit tired of the number of accusations firing my way at the moment. So you could word that a different way—no loss of time here.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’ll continue. This bill is a bill that’s so obnoxious that 40 King’s Counsel have spoken out against it. They point out that “[This] coalition Government’s Treaty Principles Bill seeks to redefine in law the meaning of [the Treaty] by replacing existing Treaty principles with new Treaty principles which are said to reflect the three articles of [the Treaty] … The problem is they [don’t]. By imposing a contested definition of the three articles, the bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself.”

The Treaty has endured despite everything—a hastily drafted document that has versions in Māori and English that don’t agree with each other, a Treaty which this House has repeatedly ignored, a Treaty that the courts once called a “nullity”, but its spirit has endured. Māori have never given up. They have been tenacious across generations. In the Treaty, there is an underlying agreement and an intention between the Crown and Māori to work in partnership, to recognise their respective spheres of authority, and to protect, promote, and preserve those things which are Māori. This bill seeks to do away with this by rewriting how the Treaty works, by creating new and deeply objectionable principles which deny the authority of Māori. What then is the promise of tino rangatiratanga in the Treaty? In the words of those 42 distinguished lawyers, this new principle “erases the Crown’s Article 2 guarantee to Māori of tino rangatiratanga”; it seeks to undermine the chieftainship and self-determination and their political authority.

This is a damaging piece of legislation. This Government—Christopher Luxon—is taking a wrecking ball to the work that has been done by successive Governments over the past 50 years since the Waitangi Tribunal was established. This bill would amount to the dictatorship of the majority. This Parliament can—and has passed racist laws in the past, and Māori are still paying the price and we all are still paying the price.

We’ve come a long way since those laws were passed—or so we thought. We’ve recognised this House does not have an unfettered mandate to violate the rights of others. But this bill demonstrates that some people still think that because Parliament is sovereign, because the power exists, there’s a mandate to expropriate, rewrite, and revisit. They think their power is unfettered, unbridled, and unconstrained—but it’s not. As those 42 King’s Counsel said, even if Parliament can legislate like this, it should not, because it’s not for the Government of the day to retrospectively and unilaterally reinterpret constitutional treaties—that would offend the basic principles which underpin New Zealand’s representative democracy.

There are big constitutional questions that deserve debate and Te Tiriti is one of them—a contentious one. But it should be given a debate which is careful and conducted in good faith. This Government has approached this debate in a way that’s disrespectful at best and hateful at worst. Will a later Parliament look back at the conduct of Christopher Luxon presiding over this bill and put it alongside those Parliaments which drove a wedge in our society and caused generations of harm? I think so. And now we go to a futile select committee process—one where the National Party said they’re not going to vote for it; we’re not going to vote for it. It’s wasteful, it’s divisive. That Government should be ashamed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. In doing so, I want to echo the words of my National Party colleagues who have already spoken. It’s National’s long-held position that a referendum on the Treaty would be divisive. We therefore do not support this bill becoming law. We believe this bill is a simplistic approach to what is a very complex issue and will not deliver the equality of opportunity that National believes all New Zealanders deserve.

Over successive decades, New Zealand has grappled with how to deal with the Treaty. It’s not realistic to suggest that almost 200 years of debate over what is an incredibly complex and challenging issue would be resolved by the passing of a single piece of legislation. It is too blunt and simplistic and risks stoking grievance and driving division.

National therefore takes the more difficult but more practical and enduring approach to dealing with Treaty and race issues, and that is to work together on these issues, case by case. Successive National Governments have worked well with Māori on Treaty issues. We have a proud track record of progressive Treaty settlements to address historic wrongdoings. We know we won’t always agree with each other on the best way forward—

Arena Williams: You’re making your colleagues agree.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and that is to be expected—

SPEAKER: Just give it a rest.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —on an issue as complex as this. For instance, National does not believe in co-governance of public services, and we don’t agree that having a separate Māori health bureaucracy or a co-governance of local water assets is the way to achieve equality of opportunity. Just as we do not believe that this bill will help us to achieve equality of opportunity all New Zealanders deserve.

National was elected to rebuild the economy, to restore law and order, and deliver better public services. This bill does none of those things. The reality of MMP is that parties—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Constantly talking like that is not interjecting—it’s being disorderly. There are two members particularly who’ve done it repeatedly throughout the afternoon, and I’ve been very, very tolerant. But they should remain silent for the next two minutes and 10 seconds at least—actually, a couple of days would be good!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Hope springs eternal! The reality of MMP, as I was saying, is that parties are required to make compromises to form a Government; that’s the essence of MMP. National has made a commitment to our coalition partner that we will support this bill to select committee, and we will honour that commitment today by voting as such. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Stop there. What did I just say about constantly talking?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Well, you said to them. You didn’t say here.

SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t them. I was looking directly at the member who is in my line of sight at the moment.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You can’t give them an easy run, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no, no, please. Enough.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As I was saying, we will honour that commitment today by voting as we have agreed in our coalition agreement. However, National is united in our view that this bill should not pass into law, and that is why we will vote against it at second reading.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare; otirā tātou katoa. “Ehara taku maunga, a Hikurangi, i te maunga nekeneke; he maunga tū tonu mai onamata”. Engari i tēnei rā kei te hūnuku a Hikurangi ki konei ki te whakahē i tēnei pire kino rawa atu.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker; indeed all of us. “My mountain, Hikurangi, is not a transient mountain; it is a mountain that has stood strong since former ages”. But today Hikurangi is moving all the way here to oppose this exceptionally bad bill.]

My mountain, Hikurangi, is not a moving mountain. It has stood fast since time immemorial, but today Hikurangi is on the move, supporting the thousands descending upon Parliament to condemn this divisive moumou moni, moumou tāima [waste of money, waste of time] bill.

Heoi ko taku mihi tuatahi i tēnei rā ki a koutou e tū ana mō tēnei kaupapa, kia whai mana tonu te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kei te rongo au i tō koutou ihi, tō koutou wehi, tō koutou wana, tō koutou mana, tō koutou tūmanako. Tēnei te mihi nui rawa atu ki a koutou e whawhai tonu ana mō mātou, te iwi Māori, mō ā mātou tika. Ko te inoi kia kaha tonu koutou. Mā te Atua koutou e manaaki, e tiaki kia tae ora koutou ki konei ā tērā wiki.

[However, my first acknowledgment today is to you all who are standing up for this initiative, so that the Treaty of Waitangi retains its power. I feel your internal power, your awesomeness, your fervour, and your hope. I appreciate very much that you are fighting for us, the Māori people, for our rights. My request is that you keep up your strength. May God care for you and protect you so that you arrive here safely next week.]

I stand today with a great sense of responsibility to those gone before me and the mokopuna who will come. I feel them here with me as I stand to condemn this backward-looking, resource-wasting, divisive bill, the Treaty of Waitangi principles bill.

I stand here proud to be Māori, tangata whenua, a proud Wīwī Nāti, but I also stand here ashamed—ashamed—that this Government is even entertaining this ridiculous bill. What are we grappling with? It’s simple: honour the Treaty; no grapple involved.

The people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti brought me to this House with hope—hope that we might actually address the real issues that whānau are facing, issues like housing, employment, education, and economic development. Instead, on a daily basis, they are faced with what they describe as incessant attacks on Māori: the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, Te Aka Whai Ora—but this bill takes the cake.

The explanatory note of this bill says that an overarching objective is to “promote a national conversation about the place of the principles, etc.” Māori have held national conversations about all aspects of Te Tiriti since 5 February 1840 at Taurangatira. It’s been debated on every marae, the length and breadth of Aotearoa since. Why should this Government’s belated arrival to the scene usurp all the conversations that have gone on before? Honour Te Tiriti before altering the spirit, intent, and outcomes tīpuna signed up to.

Yesterday, we stood in unison to honour Tā Bom Gillies, who said, “We returned from war to the continued subjugation of Māori, since the Treaty to this day,”. Honestly, e hika mā [my friends], what is the price of citizenship? Since signing what was, effectively, our very first social cohesion document, Māori have held up our side of the bargain. Māori have fought for this country. Māori have died for this country. Let Māori live in this country with tino rangatiratanga, as we afforded our Treaty partners. I want to be clear: this bill is not a threat to tino rangatiratanga.

Ko tōku mana nō tuawhakarere. Ko tō mātou mana nō tuawhakarere.

[My authority is from ancient times. Our power is from ancient times.]

This bill has already impacted Māori-Crown relationships. Iwi have united in their stance against this backward-looking, money-wasting, divisive bill.

Hei whakakapi, e hika mā, kei te tautoko awau i ngā kōrero a taku tūngāne. Māori mā, e tū. Me pōti. [To conclude, my friends, I support the statements of my brother. To the Māori people, stand up. You must vote.] As my favourite banner, so far, in the hīkoi has said, we don’t need to change the Treaty—we do not need to change the Treaty—we need to change this Government. I stand united with the thousands across Aotearoa who are descending upon Parliament.

Kei te whakahē rawa atu awau i tēnei pire. Tēnā tātou.

[I absolutely oppose this bill. Thank you all.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been well covered, National does not support this bill becoming law. Minister Goldsmith outlined very clearly our long-held position on this bill—[Interruption]—and the reasons why we will—

SPEAKER: OK, that’s the absolute end of it. It’s the last speech, it’s going to be heard in silence. [Interruption] Did someone disagree?

JAMES MEAGER: As I said, Minister Goldsmith did outline very clearly our long-held position on this bill and the reasons why we will vote for it to go to a select committee hearing, but no further. Our coalition agreement with ACT stipulates we will “introduce a Treaty principles bill based on existing ACT policy and support it to a select committee as soon as practicable.” We will honour this commitment and support this bill to select committee. We will also honour our pre-election commitment and vote against the bill at second reading. It is important to point out that compromises like this are at the heart of the MMP system that New Zealanders voted to introduce before the 1996 election and reaffirmed their support of at the 2011 referendum. I suspect neither the National Party nor the ACT Party have achieved exactly what they want with the outcome of this debate, but that is the reality of forming coalitions under MMP.

Yes, the Treaty is a topic of debate in this country, and it has been for the almost 200 years since its signing, and different people will have different views about what it means. But the things that people stop me in the street about, in my electorate, are the same things that National is squarely focused on addressing. How do they pay the mortgage or the rent? How do they fill the car or the shopping trolley? How do they find work after their freezing works is shut down? How do we make our community safe? How do they get the healthcare they need, when they need it? How do they make sure their kids are equipped with the skills that they need to live better lives than their parents did? That is not to say that this issue is not important to some people. The select committee process will allow everyone who wants to make a submission and have their say. But to suggest that this bill would put an end to nearly two centuries of debate is not practical, nor is it realistic.

While National does not support this bill becoming law, as chair of the Justice Committee and out of respect for our parliamentary process and the institutions of this House, it is my job to ensure submissions are heard respectfully and in line with the Standing Orders, and it is my commitment to do just that. So I just simply and respectfully ask that all members do the same as this bill is considered over the coming months. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be read a first time.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: We’re in the middle of a vote.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I call that a personal vote—

SPEAKER: No, sit down. We’re in the middle of a vote. The Ayes have it. A party vote has been called for.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: A party vote has been called for. There is a process here.

No, don’t do that. The House is suspended until the ringing of the bells. The gallery is to be cleared.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 4.05 p.m. to 4.31 p.m.