KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party is against changing Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day, and I am glad that largely there is a consensus in the House on that. The Treaty of Waitangi is our nation’s founding document. It is important that we keep the day named after the Treaty of Waitangi. It recognises the rights of the tangata whenua, and Waitangi Day is the day we celebrate the establishment of New Zealand as a bicultural nation.
During the discussions so far on this bill, members have put forward interesting ideas about other days, such as Mātāriki, which will be celebrated soon. In fact, the Green Party is holding a social event here in Parliament to celebrate Mātāriki. We as the Green Party and others in the community are increasingly celebrating Mātāriki. Perhaps we could commemorate “Mātāriki Day”. There are other possibilities, such as a “Human Rights Day” or a “Peace Day”. I am throwing these ideas about, because New Zealand probably deserves more statutory holidays. Norway and Sweden have at least two more statutory holidays than we have, plus unofficial holidays. It is a situation whereby people have a bit more time off. It would certainly be useful in the winter period to have more holidays, which is why celebrating Mātāriki perhaps with an official holiday might be relevant.
Yesterday in Parliament we celebrated the 20th anniversary of our antinuclear legislation. The official date of signature was 8 June, which is very close to the day on which we celebrate Queen’s Birthday. Perhaps another proposal—and I am just throwing these ideas around for members’ consideration—is that we could rename Queen’s Birthday as “Peace Day” and celebrate our nuclear-free status during that week. It is true that we already celebrate Anzac Day. Of course, these days Anzac Day does have more of a peace theme than it did in the past. I think that celebrating “Peace Day” in the middle of the year rather than Queen’s Birthday would bring another dimension to our celebrations and really emphasise our role as a peacemaker in the world, as a nuclear disarmament campaigner. It might be more appropriate celebrate a “Peace Day” instead of Queen’s Birthday, because I understand that the day on which we celebrate the Queen’s birthday is not her real birthday. She is a person who lives on the other side of the world, and I think we want a celebration and a name for that celebration that better fits our own reality here in New Zealand, particularly as a nuclear-free peacemaker.
Another concept for a public holiday is to have a “Pacific Day”, because more and more now we are celebrating New Zealand as a Pacific country. There was considerable mourning in New Zealand on the occasion of the death of the Samoan head of State, His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II.
In the theme of Peter Dunne’s original bill, where he wants to celebrate New Zealand’s national identity with a New Zealand Day, I was just suggesting an alternative way of going about reaching his aims. That would be to have a series of statutory holidays that together reflect our national identity in quite a complementary and comprehensive way. We could stick with 6 February for Waitangi Day and add to it Mātāriki in the mid-year as a statutory holiday in order to reflect the important bicultural foundation of our national identity, based around the Treaty of Waitangi. But we could then add to that because, if some of the economic pundits are right, we are becoming more productive and all the rest of it. We can afford to have more paid national holidays, therefore, and we could catch up with some of the European countries that have more holidays than we do. I suggested that we could perhaps have a “Pacific Day” to reflect the growing Pacific Island or Pasifika dimension of our national identity.
Of course, another sector of our society that is very much part of our national identity is remembered, supposedly, on Labour Day, and we could do much more to recognise that as a day for commemorating justice for workers. I think it would also be important to recognise Suffrage Day, on 19 September. It is now widely celebrated but it could also be a national holiday to reflect that part of our national identity—New Zealand being the first country to give women the right to vote—and we would make sure that feminism is very much a part of our national day by celebrating that.
I added “Peace Day” to that list when I spoke just before. I suggest perhaps changing the name of the Queen’s Birthday holiday to “Peace Day” in order to reflect the fact that 20 years ago we became nuclear-free on 8 June, which is close to Queen’s Birthday weekend. That would be more relevant perhaps than the Queen’s Birthday, which is not even commemorated on the Queen’s real birthday. Then we could add to that—although it might have a bit of an awkward title, and there could be a better one—“Human Rights Day”, to reflect the fact that we are projecting ourselves, nationally and internationally, as a country that upholds human rights for our citizens and for other people around the world.
Together, if we add all that up, it makes quite a good description of what New Zealanders would see our national day to be. I think that this would be a very good alternative to what is being proposed in this New Zealand Day Bill. To me it would seem that to establish our nationhood and draw on the theme we were expressing yesterday in Parliament, that being a peacemaker is part of our national identity. We need to draw out all the different threads of what makes us proud to be New Zealanders. To reflect that in having a whole series of paid holidays would also extend the number of our paid holidays, and it would allow more leisure time for New Zealanders and their families, which again should be a part of our national identity. We are not the sorts of people who naturally like to work every hour of the day and be part of the rat race that is being driven by international economic globalisation. I think that the second part of reasserting our national day would be for us to have these extra holidays that together make up our national identity. Thank you.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) Link to this
I stand to speak on the New Zealand Day Bill. I am a member—and have enjoyed being a member—of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered this bill. However, I rise to speak against the bill for three particular reasons.
The first reason is the timing. This is an ambitious bill, in my view. It seeks to achieve something in a cultural and social sense, ahead of a cultural and social reality of its acceptance. I think the idea is a very good one, and it is meritorious to have the bill before us and to have it being discussed, examined, and debated. I note that when the bill had its first reading, it received National Party support to be brought to the select committee. Like Katherine Rich on that occasion, I too think the idea of a New Zealand day is a great one, and I remember the two times we had New Zealand Day celebrations.
I shall never forget the pleasure I took in watching the television presentation of what is now called Norm Kirk’s New Zealand Day. I thought the pageantry was wonderful—the ships, the settlers, the missionaries, the use of Godspell music, the different nationalities arriving, and the spontaneous act of Norm Kirk holding the hands of two little children of different ethnic backgrounds. It was all wonderful. That was, though, completely in sync with the mood of the times, and I suggest that is why we had such success with those first two New Zealand Days. There is no doubting that the fact that it did not continue to be celebrated as New Zealand Day is a testament to the change in the cultural and social mood of the times. Do I share a feeling of nostalgia? Would I like to recreate that euphoric sense of nationhood that came from the New Zealand Days of that time? Of course, I would, but I do not think it would work just because I think it is a nice idea.
Naturally, I fully agree with the Hon Peter Dunne’s initial comment that contemporary New Zealand is becoming an increasingly diverse nation, culturally and ethnically. New Zealand is a modern, multicultural nation, but it is still New Zealand. We need to recognise that we are in a young, multicultural nation. That is a relatively recent development, and the opportunity to speak about this bill is a good step in the direction of encouraging dialogue between various citizens on important issues, such as whether we need to have a day on which to celebrate or reflect on the birth, I guess, of the country in its present state.
Members who spoke at the time of the first reading of this bill called for having a day as a developed nation when we can celebrate as one country the things that bring us together, not divide us, when we can have an annual holiday that all Kiwis can enjoy, and when they can think about the things that make us special as New Zealanders. I think the aspirations of the bill are meritorious; I do not think that the timing is right.
I remember having a discussion with the Rt Hon Mike Moore when he was the Minister of exports. We were in Auckland together. He had just been to a Labour Party conference in the same building, and he came along to our Export Institute meeting. Although he was not exactly fuming, he was certainly crotchety after having had quite a debate on the issue of multiculturalism versus biculturalism. He was certainly a multicultural person. I think that we would not be having a debate today on that issue to the same level of intensity as occurred then.
However, although I think that multiculturalism is an accepted reality in the cities, we still have quite a long way to go in rural communities. Living as I do on the West Coast of the South Island—part of the ever-increasingly marginal West Coast - Tasman seat—I am conscious that we are very much a Celtic people there. Naturally, we do have a certain amount of ethnic diversity, but I doubt whether it would go into double figures on a percentage of population basis. There will be other parts of the country that are similar to the West Coast. Although people everywhere are developing an acceptance of New Zealand’s multiculturalism, it is not a widespread phenomenon outside the cities as yet. One risks artificiality, therefore, in creating a celebration day, if indeed it is multiculturalism that one intends to celebrate by having a New Zealand Day.
The second reason why I oppose this bill is that it disguises the reality of Waitangi Day. I note that the bill proposes that New Zealand Day be celebrated on the day presently known as Waitangi Day—6 February. The bill then goes on to propose that in order to ensure the fullest range of commemorative celebrations can take place, and also to acknowledge the particular significance of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand Day be regularised and held on the Monday of the week in which 6 February falls. At the same time the bill also intends, with the celebration of that day, to repeal the Waitangi Day Act 1976—here we go—thereby dealing in some minds something of a death blow to the whole event. We will have taken the day, called it something else, changed the date, and then repealed the initial legislation. If the purpose of this bill is to delete Waitangi Day, then that should be expressed in its title. The purpose of the bill could easily be perceived to be just that.
As National speakers have said before me, changing the label of our national day to New Zealand Day will not solve all the problems that many see in our having Waitangi Day each year. There is nothing in the explanatory note of the bill to indicate that there is any intention to disguise the reality of Waitangi Day, but that, in my view, is what would happen. However, I think that in the interests of the future of the nation, we have to sort out some of the issues to do with the Treaty of Waitangi and the debate that surrounds it. Changing the name of the day will not in itself make much difference in terms of healing any rifts; indeed, it could exacerbate them. In fact, the difficulties that people have could be made worse with the loss of the Waitangi Day celebrations.
I think we have only just started to come out of a difficult period with the Waitangi Day celebrations, and it would be a pity to lose that change in momentum. For many years I was privileged to live in Tai Tokerau, teaching agriculture at Northland College in Kaikohe. Waitangi was where we used to go for recreation. It is a sadness to me to see the day change from that celebratory function to one of protest and division, but I have to say that I regard it as evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. As an ethnic Scot who has Scottish characteristics in name, nature, and inclination, I tend to support those who feel they are suffering the consequences of domination by others. So Waitangi Day, during its protest period, seemed to me to be a clearing house for emotional and real grievances. Waitangi Day is morphing into a different way of celebration, and I think it will continue to do so.
Three years ago, in Greymouth, a place I live near, in the West Coast - Tasman electorate—the ever-increasingly marginal seat in the South Island—the local mayor, churches, and community leaders decided to have a Waitangi Day celebration. They suggested a picnic in Dixon Park. How did we get 1,500 West Coasters to come to a park on Waitangi Day?
No, tell them I am there. We simply offered them a free sausage and a cup of tea, and told them it was a picnic day. It was a sunny day, and 1,500 people came along. Indeed, it was a great celebration. Waitangi Day has continued to be celebrated in the same vein in the 2 years since then, and the numbers stay similarly high. I am sure it could be much the same in the rest of the country, and it very probably is. I think we have to live with Waitangi Day remaining as Waitangi Day, and celebrate the occasion in all its diverse meetings.
The third reason I oppose the bill is that I think it misses the target. It seeks somehow, in my mind, to displace the actual New Zealand day. The actual New Zealand day for me, and I think for the nation, is Anzac Day, 25 April every year. My relatives were not here in the First World War, but I had no difficulty at all this year in addressing the Anzac Day parade and service at Collingwood whilst wearing my father’s wartime medals on the right hand side of my chest. I had no difficulty in relating to the Kiwi soldiers who sacrificed everything. I had no difficulty in acknowledging that as they fell—be they Māori, European, or any other ethnic New Zealanders at the time—a nation rose. Anzac Day is New Zealand Day in my mind. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I do apologise but when the House last debated this bill so many weeks ago, I had just started my call. I think I had spoken for a few seconds, and I have 9-plus minutes left. I seek the leave of the House to continue my contribution—if not at this particular time, then at some later time.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.
Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. I have to say that New Zealand First will not be supporting this New Zealand Day Bill. We question the need for a New Zealand Day. We have Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, and if we want a New Zealand Day, then maybe we should consider a separate new statutory holiday.
But I ask with some sincerity, why would we call anything after New Zealand at all? We have had the debacle of this contractor walking into a person’s house, saying: “I am just doing my job.”, and switching off the power. That makes me feel ashamed of New Zealand.
If anybody saw Close Up tonight and thought it showed an event that New Zealanders should be proud of, then I say we should hang our heads in shame. If members have not seen I will inform the House as to what was announced today. The did an article. It made an agreement with a relatively young lady—young lady, when she is compared to someone my age—who had an involvement with a certain Brad Shipton some years ago. She divulged this information with videotapes, on a confidential basis and on the basis that she would not be named.
But what did the Weekend Herald and the do? They tracked her down and sent intimidating emails to her—threatening emails, in my view—that if she did not come clean and name herself, they would name her and publish everything about her. They did exactly that. On tonight it was divulged that she took her own life.
My God! What are we doing in this country? Why would we want to name anything after New Zealand when that is the way we operate?
What happened? Mark Sainsbury called for the editor and the reporter to front up, on the programme, and say why they did that and why they issued those emails. They did not come. Somebody told me that their parents were not married, and I believe that. I just say to these bastards: “Front up.”
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
No, the member should withdraw that remark. It is not orderly.
I withdraw that remark, but I have to say I am incensed by this matter. This is not what this country is about.
We understand there has to be a competitive environment in the media. We understand the media has to search for stories. But to send what can only be termed intimidating emails to a person, saying that if he or she does not front up that person will be named and shamed, or whatever, regardless, is an absolute disgrace.
It sickens me that there is nothing in Parliament that I can think of that we can do about it; nothing at all. We have to tolerate it. I have heard MP after MP moan and groan about the media. It is not every MP, but many MPs do that. I have had some questionable—I was going to say awful—experiences myself. But this puts everything else to shame.
I say to the editor of the Weekend Herald and the —whoever published these articles without the permission of Debbie Gerbich—to front up and tell us why. The media should tell this country why they are operating in that sort of vein.
I have come to the stage right now where I would not name anything after this country. I certainly would not have a New Zealand Day. In fact, it is crossing my mind whether I should approach my colleagues and ask whether we should change the name of New Zealand First.
Well, there we are. There is an option. What about Aotearoa First? There are other options. But that would take some effort on my part, and I do not want to lighten my contribution to this debate tonight. I am simply saying to the House, as sincerely as I can, that this is not acceptable.
I saw Debbie Gerbich’s partner, Bill, on TV—I did not catch his surname—and my heart goes out to him and to her family. This should not have occurred. This makes me ashamed of this country, and I say that with a very heavy heart, because I have been a proud New Zealander for as long as I have been here, and even before I came here I thought it was a magnificent country.
Tariana TuriaIt is not everybody; I take the point the member makes. But the publicity of this sort of thing casts aspersions on the image that we are all trying to make. I know there are some very, very decent New Zealanders and I do not want in any way to imply that there are not. The media in this country have a lot to answer for, and this is another sad episode.
I do not think I can say any more. I have expressed my disgust and my upset. I could not, in all sincerity, name a day after New Zealand, with the way I feel tonight. I hope my colleagues can be acquainted with the facts of that programme shown last night. I hope they see it on video. I hope that all MPs, if they have not seen that Close Up programme, do look at it. They can get it through the Parliamentary Library service. It is worth looking at. It is a darned good programme, and it illustrated to me in very real terms how low the media will go in this country to get a story.
I thank my colleagues for allowing me that contribution. I guess they did not expect me to come out with such an issue, but it is an issue that I think should be aired in this place. I think it is appropriate that I say to the House that, with the way I feel in particular, I could not name a day after New Zealand right now. I am very happy to stick with Waitangi Day. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēna koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. Kei te rongo i te tangi o tēnei tū i mua i a au. Hoi anō ko tāku i te tuatahi me mihi ki a ia mō te wairua o tana kōrero.
Ka huri ki te kaupapa i tēnei pō, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, kua hoki ōku mahara ki te tau 1974 ki te tuaono o Hui-tanguru. Koia nei te wā, i tū ai a Waitangi hei wā whakatā ā-motu. Hei whakanui i te āhuatanga o taua wā, i hara mai a Kuini Irihāpeti te Tuarua mō te wā tuatahi. I te tau 1974 i haere ētahi o taku iwi o Ngāti Rangiwewehi me ētahi atu kāhui kapa haka toa e whitu i te hui a Matatini i tēnei tau tonu nei ki te marae o Waitangi mō tētahi kaupapa nui. Ko Aotearoa tērā. I muri mai o taua hui i puta te kōrero a te Kuini, ā, koia nei tana kōrero:
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to us this evening. I hear the lament of the member who spoke before me, so the first thing for me to do is to acknowledge the spirit of his address.
I turn to this evening’s matter by saying that I was thinking back to 1974 when 6 February became a national holiday, and, in recognition of the significance of that time, Queen Elizabeth II attended her first Waitangi Day ceremony. In 1974, members of my people, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, along with the other top seven teams at the most recent Polynesian Festival, joined together to present the pageant, Aotearoa:] “Waitangi will always remain an honoured name in New Zealand’s history. The Treaty signed on this spot in 1840 between Māori and Pākehā was based on compromise and tolerance and has set the keynote for this country’s development.”
Nā, he kōrero akiaki tonu tērā hei whakaoho i a tātou ki te āhuatanga whakahirahira rawa o te Tiriti o Waitangi hei kupu tīmatanga mai ka mutu, he kirimana ā-noho tonu, he kupu ā-noho tahi me te Karauna. Inā kē tōna whakahirahira, he oati ā-noho tonu, kāore i kō atu, kāore i kō mai. I tēnei rangi, anei tētahi pire hei whakararuraru i taua kupu pūmau nei. He pire tēnei ka tīni haere nei i ngā kōrero o nehe, ko tā koutou, ko tāku. Ko tōna pūtake kia riro te ingoa o Waitangi i a New Zealand Day kē, nā, ka memeha noa te tino hōhonutanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāore te iwi Māori i tuku i ō rātou waituhi, moko rānei ki te Tiriti o Niu Tīreni. Ehara i te mea ko te pūtake o te pire nei he whakatau i tētahi rangi hōu. Kāo! Ko tāna he whakakore i te Pire Waitangi Day Act 1976, mā reira, ka whakakore nei i tētahi wā whakanui i te Rā o Waitangi!
Kei hea kē mai te mutunga mai? Tērā pea, ka puta he pire hei tango mai i te Tiriti tonu i te National Archives. He pire pea hei neke i te Whare i Waitangi ki wāhi kē, hei aukati i te haere o te tangata ki te papa o Waitangi, tērā pea, ki te whakakore i a Waitangi mutu tonu atu. Ko te pūtake tonu o te Tiriti o Waitangi, ko te noho o te Māori me te Karauna. Kei tōna taumata, he hiahia nō te motu ki te whakanui i ō tātou kōrero o nehe, tō tātou tīmatanga mai, Māori mai, tauiwi mai. Me kaua tātou e noho whakakeke ki tērā i tūmanakohia e ō tātou tūpuna mō ēnei rangi, mō ngā rā o āpōpō.
I tēnei wā i te Whare nei, koia nei kei te pūtake o tēnei pire. He mea whakaparahako, he mea whakahāwea tonu i te tino hōhonutanga o te Rā o Waitangi. He take tēnei e whai haeretia e ētahi o tēnei Whare. Ko tā rātou, ko te whakaiti i te wāhanga o te Tiriti, otirā, ōna kōrero katoa. Nā, kia mōhio mai koutou, e kore, kore rawa mātou o te Rōpū Māori e whakaae ki tērā. He rā hokinga ō mahara, he rā whakanui i te Rā o Waitangi. Ko te whakakorenga o te Pire te Rā o Waitangi, he mea whakaiti nei i te haerenga whakamua o te motu i a tātou e whai nei i te huarahi o te noho tahi i raro i te kotahitanga ā-motu.
Nā, i āta titiro au ki ngā kupu a Pīhopa Jean Baptiste Pomaparie. Koia tētahi i kaha pakanga nei kia mau tonu te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki tōna taumata. I mau kaha nei a ia ki te whakaaro nei, mā te Tiriti ka tiakina paitia te ao Māori. Anei tāna:
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[With that, the nation was reminded of the honour in recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our foundation document, our commitment to a developing social contract, a partnership with the Crown. It was a doctrine of the utmost importance, a solemn promise of nationhood. Today, we have a bill that threatens that promise. This bill threatens to rewrite our history, yours and mine. It threatens to rename Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day, thereby taking out the very significance of our founding document. We did not sign up to “te Tiriti o Niu Tīreni”. But what is worse, this bill does not just aim to invent a new day. It also plans to get rid of the Waitangi Day Act 1976, therefore removing any separate celebration of Waitangi Day.
Whatever will be next—a bill to remove te Tiriti o Waitangi from National Archives? A bill to remove the Waitangi Treaty House, close down Waitangi grounds, obliterate Waitangi itself from the map? The Treaty of Waitangi is absolutely quintessential to the partnership of Māori and Crown. It symbolises our quest for nationhood; it recognises our history, our cultural heritage. We must never shirk from our responsibility to uphold the promise that was anticipated when our ancestors signed up to a future.
At this time in this House we are debating legislation that seeks to undermine the historical, cultural, and social importance of Waitangi Day. The undermining of the role and history of te Tiriti o Waitangi is being pursued by members of this House. And we, the Māori Party, will never agree to that. Waitangi Day is a day of commemoration, a day of reflection, a day of celebration. Repealing the Waitangi Day Act will therefore diminish the amazing progress that we have made as a nation towards recognising the importance of national unity.
I was interested in thinking about the words of Bishop Jean Baptiste Pompallier, who was a key player in upholding the mana of te Tiriti o Waitangi. His legacy was the gift of faith, the belief that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed free and equal protection to Māori. As he said:] “According to the New Zealanders,”—by which he meant Māori—“New Zealand is like a ship that they own. All they have asked the British to do is to help sail it.”
Nā, i a tātou e mātakitaki nei i te pouaka whakaata mō te whakataetae Ipu o Amerika, tērā pea kei reira tētahi tauira. Tērā pea he waka tonu a Aotearoa, ā, ko te mana o runga kei te tangata whenua. Nā, ko te tino ngako o tērā whakaaro, arā, ko te noho tahi o te Māori me te Karauna, ko te tūmanako tonu kia tiaki pai a Ingarangi i te waka nei kia haere ai i tōna haere, mā reira ka whakairohia tō tātou tuakiri, tō tātou hanga ā-motu. Mēnā ka puta he raru ā-mānukanuka, ā-aha ranei, he ngaru nui nei kei mua i te waka, ehara i te mea me tuku i te waka ki ngā toka o te moana. Ko te huarahi kē, ko te whakapounamu i te moana, kia tere te kārohiroi. Koi nā te kōrero mai a te Haahi Tūhauwiri, Aotearoa New Zealand Religious Society of Friends. I whakamārama rātou i ngā mahi tinihanga a te Karauna i ngā rā o mua, i ēnei rā tonu nei, ahakoa ko te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tā rātou, kia kaua rawa e whakakore i te Waitangi Day Act, kia kaua hoki e whakakore i te Tiriti. Ko tā tātou, ko te whakatika i te hononga me ngā hapū, ngā iwi. Ko tā rātou, he hiahia ki te whakanui i te hainatanga o te Tiriti me te āhuatanga o te noho tahi, tētahi ki tētahi, Pākehā ki te Māori, Māori ki te Pākehā.
Waihotia te waka ki te haere i tāna haere. Koi nā te pūtake o te tono a Treaty Tribes Coalition me ōna kaihoe e 110,000. Hei tā rātou, he hē tonu te tīmatanga mai o te pire i a ia e mea ana ka taea te tahitahi ngā hiahia, raruraru rānei o te ao Māori ki raro i te whāriki, mō te ingoa hōu. Hei tā rātou anō, ko te mate kē o tō tātou kirimana ā-noho tahi nei, he kore mārama nōna ki te mana o te Tiriti i waenganui i a tātou. Ko tā rātou, kia kaua e waiho i ngā kōrero mō te Tiriti hei kupu kōrero noa iho engari, me whakatinana ki tōna tūturutanga. Ko te tango mai i te Tiriti i te rātaka o te motu he hokinga whakamuri i a tātou e rapu nei i te noho tahitanga o te motu e wawatatia nei e tātou. Pēnei i te Religious Society, ko tā rātou kia whai hua te Rā o Waitangi hei tauira mō tō tātou noho tahitanga, me kimi i tētahi huarahi kia puta ngā āwangawanga, ngā mānukanuka rānei, arā, kia wānanga i ngā momo whakaaro a tēnā, a tēnā.
Ko te tuhinga tuatoru e hiahia nei au kia kōrerohia, ko tērā i puta i te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. Hei tā rātou, ko te whakaingoa tuaruahia e pīrangitia nei, ehara i te mea he mea whakapōrearea i te hīkoi nei ki te biculturalism i tōna kotahi engari, anei kē tāna:
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[As New Zealanders are glued to their television sets, watching the adventure on the high seas played out with the America’s Cup, I am interested in the analogy of Aotearoa as a ship that tangata whenua own. This concept of a partnership between Māori and the Crown, the expectation that the British would help this great vessel to sail, is integral to shaping our identity and image as a nation. If controversy has arisen, if the ship is facing tumultuous waves of discontent, the solution is not to embark on a shipwreck. The solution lies in smoothing the way ahead, as the submission from Te Haahi Tūhauwiri, the Aotearoa New Zealand Religious Society of Friends, pointed out. Their submission detailed the way in which the Crown has acted in the past, and continues to act in various ways in breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The recommendation, however, was not to repeal the Waitangi Day Act, or to get rid of the Treaty. The submission promoted action to repair the relationship with hapū and iwi. The Religious Society also gave voice to the desire to celebrate, as well as commemorate, the signing of te Tiriti o Waitangi, by building a just partnership between Pākehā and Māori.
Steadying the ship was also the focus of the submission from the Treaty Tribes Coalition, a not insignificant coalition of some 110,000 members. The Treaty Tribes Coalition also believed that the bill starts at an entirely erroneous point by implying that Māori concerns over the Treaty can be swept under the carpet through a superficial name change. The coalition advised that the greatest shortcoming of our present constitutional arrangements is the failure to fully recognise the fundamental significance of the Treaty. Rather than our paying lip service to the Treaty, the Treaty must be given full constitutional effect. To remove the Treaty from our national calendar can only be seen as a backward leap in the journey towards nationhood. Like the Religious Society, they also suggested that the answer to making Waitangi Day a positive opportunity to celebrate our nationhood would come through providing constructive outlets for frustration and diverse viewpoints.
A third submission I want to highlight is that from te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. The Māori Language Commission stated that the proposed renaming would not only undermine any tentative steps towards biculturalism, but also:] “It would marginalise the use, recognition, and value of Māori language, culture, and recall of significant historical events.”
Nā, ko tā te Taura Whiri e kī ai, he tohu tonu te Rā o Waitangi mō te ora o te noho tahi o te ao Pākehā me te ao Māori. Ki te whakarere kē tonu i te ingoa hei tā rātou, he hokinga whakamuri i runga i te āhuatanga o tō tātou nohotahi.
Arā noa atu ngā tono i tae atu ki te Komiti Whaiti ā-Ture, ā, i te pūtake o tēnā, o tēnā, he anipā nui nei mō te whakaaro ki te tīni i te ingoa o te Rā o Waitangi. Kei te mārama tonu au, arā, te rārangi kōrero i puta i tēnei tau i kī, e 72 ō-rau o te Māori e whakaaro nei, ko ngā take ā-Tiriti he take whakaharahara i mua tonu o ngā take mātauranga, take hauora, take ture, he aha atu, he aha atu. Hoi anō, ko tā mātou o Te Pāti Māori, ko te whakarite i tētahi pire ā-mema nei, arā, mō te Ra o Matariki. Ko tā mātou e kī nei, me kimi tātou i ngā huarahi ki te ako, ki te tuku i ō taua tikanga, ao rānei ki ētahi atu, ā, me whakamātautau anō hoki tātou i a tātou anō mō ngā tikanga o ia iwi Māori mai, Pākehā mai. Me “Whakakotahi nei Tātou i a Tātou anō” ki te whakatau i te āhuatanga o te motu nei kia hui nei ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa ki te wānanga i ō tātou “rere kētanga ā-tikanga, ōritenga rānei”.
E hia kē nei ngā wā, kua kōrero Te Pāti Māori mō te Tiriti o Waitangi me ōna kōrero engari, kei tua noa atu ēnei whakaaro ki ērā o ngā kaitautoko o tēnei pire. Ko tāku, ko te akiaki i ngā mema Māori o tēnei Whare, ka mutu, ko nga rōpū katoa kia pana i tēnei pire ki tua o tāwauwau. Mā te whakakore i tēnei pire ka whakahēngia ngā mea e ngākaunuitia ana e ngāi Māori, ka kaha rānei te whakawhiu i a Māori – otirā, te whakawehe i a tātou katoa mō te koretake noa iho. Tū whakahīhī ana mātou Te Pāti Māori i tō mātou kaha whakahē i tēnei pire nā te hiahia o ētahi ki te whakakore i Te Waitangi Day Act. Kia ora tātou.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[The submission from Te Taura Whiri concluded that Waitangi Day symbolises and reflects the health of the relationship between European and Māori culture. It said that to change the name would be a retrograde step in all of our relationships as New Zealanders.
The Justice and Electoral Select Committee received many more such submissions, each outlining the intense concern that New Zealanders had in the proposal to rename Waitangi Day. And I am mindful of a poll held earlier this year, in which 72 percent of Māori polled considered Treaty issues the most urgent matter to be dealt with, far above education, health, justice, and so on. And it is in this light that we, the Māori Party, have been preparing a member’s bill to introduce the Matariki Day. We believe we need to create opportunities where we can not only learn and share our cultures but also challenge our perceptions and prejudices about each other’s cultures. We need to come to a common ground, in assessing the health of the “state of the nation”; to bring all New Zealanders together to debate the “cultural divide”.
The Māori Party has spoken often about the importance of te Tiriti o Waitangi but it appears its importance to Māori is still far from understood by the supporters of this bill. I urge Maori members of this House, and indeed all parties, to vote against this bill. Negating issues of major concern to Māori will almost certainly result in a strong Māori backlash—dividing us all, unnecessarily, once again. The Māori Party is proud to record its vote against this bill to repeal the Waitangi Day Act. Greetings to us all.]
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this
It is indeed a privilege to follow the last speaker on this topic. I must say that to me it is probably one of the most important topics we can debate in this House, and I reflect back on the select committee process and the failure of Pākehā to engage in the debate that this bill invited during that process. As I recall, the Justice and Electoral Committee received about 22 submissions, most of which opposed the bill, but there was no serious engagement by those who supported the “one law for all” concept and mantra of previous days, whereby they could try to engage on the issues and address what it is like to be Pākehā coming to terms with a bicultural community. I would have thought this bill would give an opportunity to build on the work of the Constitutional Arrangements Committee of the last Parliament, which touched briefly on the bicultural elements of this country as it looked at the constitutional arrangements that existed as at 2005. The failure of the debate was not because of the failure of tangata whenua to get its head around the argument. The failure of the debate at the select committee was simply because one side did not show up with any reasoned argument or analysis.
I respect entirely the position of the last speaker on this bill, and I respect his efforts—in fact, his success—at tackling some of the key issues. I also reflect on the words of Peter Brown, who preceded that speaker. He raised an interesting question indirectly, when he stated that right then he was not proud to be a New Zealander and gave his reasons, on an emotional basis, for that. What he was really asking about, and what this debate is really about, is the question of who we are as a people. Who are we as a country? What is our ontology? What does it mean to us to be New Zealanders? What does it mean to us to be a country that has an active indigenous culture, an active indigenous society, and a proud history in relation to the country’s indigenous people? What is the difference between multiculturalism and biculturalism? What is wrong with the concept of one law for all? These are the questions of this debate that I hope will be tackled during the speeches tonight.
To me, Waitangi Day is more than a name. Sure, it is a name. It is a name, of course, and it is an important name. But we go to museums not to look at the pure beauty of the works of art, the taonga, and the symbols displayed; we go to museums, whether in New Zealand or around the world, to look at statues that have been dug up in Egypt or taonga that have been rescued in New Zealand, and to take ourselves back to the time when those objects were created. We try to imagine what the world was like then, and what the experiences were of those creating those taonga and those objets d’art. We hang paintings on our walls—paintings that are important to us not merely because of their colour and their prettiness but because they mean something important to us. They are symbols of who we are as individuals.
To my mind, the name “Waitangi Day” is entirely that. To use the term “Waitangi Day” is to name more than a holiday; it is to represent the history of this country, and the reaction and failure of many of us to engage in it from our perspective. There is still an absence of debate by Pākehā in this country on what it means to live in a bicultural country. In the main I think that is understandable, because we as Pākehā tend to see the world entirely from our perspective. We think that everybody in New Zealand should be able to live in the way we as Pākehā see it. We have that privilege because we are the vast majority in number. We control the levers of power. We operate in the institutions of finance and commerce, and we participate in the global market as if it were our own playground. We ignore entirely the damage done to those in our community who do not share in the joys of the global market—those in our community whose relationship with the land is more than a John Lockean, possessory, ownership thing, those who do not see that adding their labour to a common material gives them the right of ownership.
As I as Pākehā struggle with my concept and try to understand taha Māori, I find that I try not to see it through Māori eyes because I can never do that. When I try to imagine myself speaking te reo or speaking on the paepae, I remind myself of those early photographs of New Zealanders and of Māori who wore top hats and jackets, and ties sometimes, and who had full-face moko. Often they were queuing up outside the Native Land Court, which is even more tragic, and I think they were people who were trying to live like the increasingly dominant culture, but they just did not get it right. When I endeavour to speak te reo and when I go on to a marae, I feel just like one of those images. I can acquire some of the trappings but it is not me—it is not my lifestyle, it is not my ontology. My ontology is Pākehā, but I struggle to understand what it means to be a Pākehā as I struggle to understand what the impact of the indigenous culture of this land is on this land. It is a struggle that will have no end—and it should have no end—and that is why I am not fearful of the dissent and the aggravation attached to Waitangi Day.
Throughout the last 7 years in Hawke’s Bay, at the Clive River, Waitangi Day has been celebrated by Ngāti Kahungunu in an increasingly flamboyant and popular way. In the first year when it started it was really a parade of waka and a small amount of activity right along the edge of the river. These days the activity fills the whole of Farndon Park. I think I have attended every Waitangi Day celebration at that river, except for the time I went through to Waitangi itself in about, I think, 2003, the year the Prime Minister was roundly abused by Hone Harawira in the meeting house—in the wharenui—at Waitangi itself.
The press of people there and the risk of violence were great and intense, but I do not think that that was a bad thing. Sure, it was bruising; sure, it was insulting to the Prime Minister; and, sure, she felt humiliated and threatened—I respect that entirely—but it is important to articulate the aggravation behind that. The messages it contained are important for all of us as New Zealanders to understand. If we dismiss that protest as being an inconvenience that we should remove by changing the day, then we are holding ourselves back in developing as New Zealanders.
That takes me to Peter Brown’s speech, when he asked what it means to be a New Zealander when our media, for the sake of selling a few more newspapers, can take such a cruel and heartless approach to a woman recently deceased. The question that this debate is all about is what does it mean to be a New Zealander.
I as a Pākehā cannot tell Māori how they should live their lives from their perception of the world. It is a strange fact that the indigenous people of the world are not just Māori. There are indigenous people in almost every continent, in every country. Indigenous people are discovering that their boundaries often cross nationalities, because the boundaries of countries have been created by political powers that often ignore the ontological histories of indigenous people.
But all indigenous tribes are struggling with the concept of autonomy. To be autonomous within a country is not to be rebellious. If we are going to give expression to our indigenous people in New Zealand, we must have regard to arguments for autonomy. Sure, our Local Government Act and our Resource Management Act provide some provisions for it, but to be autonomous is not to be disruptive. To be autonomous is not the same thing for everybody in every region, and we do not need to have just one model of autonomy. In some instances autonomy will be expansive; in other instances it will be more closely aligned to the area, the hapū, and the people to whom it relates.
Surely the role of Government is to deal with matters of State and matters on the international scene. With that role there is room for the development of autonomous rights that are related to the cultural and inherent essence of being a New Zealander. Of course, it is a bicultural country because we have tangata whenua and tangata tiriti. I like that expression—I think it came from Sir Hugh Kāwharu—and the breakdown into those two concepts. I am tangata tiriti because my forbears are here by right of the Treaty.
I do not regard the Treaty as a partnership; I regard it as an expression of two people endeavouring to live together. If we talk about partnership, we talk about the dominance of one and negotiation on equal terms. Sometimes one of the cultures in this country is not equal. Sometimes the power rests with one, and at other times the power rests with the other.
We saw that in the debate at the select committee, as I said at the start of this speech. Generally, Pākehā do not front on that debate. Even with this opportunity, brought forward by Peter Dunne in a bill that I could never support—although it was supported by our party through the first reading—the debate has never taken off, because Pākehā, my culture, have refused to engage. Most of us cannot get past the one-liners of “One law for all”, “Iwi/Kiwi” and expressions like that. They sound funny and clever, but at the end of the day they have a cynical undertone that diminishes the mana and status of one group in the debate.
So we as Pākehā failed at the select committee by not bringing in a reasoned argument as to why we should not continue with Waitangi Day. We are still left with it as a symbolic day—which is a term I do not necessarily like—a day that means to all New Zealanders that this is a country that is unique, and that to be New Zealanders is to be people who cannot live anywhere else in the world, whether our skins be white, yellow, or brown. That is because in being New Zealanders we have an indigenous culture that is part of us as Pākehā, just as to be the indigenous people is to be part of the Pākehā world, as well. It is how we manage that that is the issue in this debate.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I rise to speak to the New Zealand Day Bill. As we know, the bill seeks to change the name of Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day. This is not the first time that politicians have argued over the name. Our national day has had a very interesting history.
In the 1950s and the 1970s it was frequently suggested that provincial anniversary days, such as Auckland Anniversary Day and Canterbury Show Day should be abolished as the provinces had not existed for many decades. At the same time Māori, particularly Ngāpuhi, had been campaigning for Waitangi Day to be a public holiday, in recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. The promise of a new public holiday was part of Labour’s 1957 election manifesto. When Labour was subsequently elected, it decided that New Zealand could not afford another public holiday.
The subsequent Waitangi Day Act was a sham. It was a compromise that allowed Labour to claim that it had kept its promise, but without actually creating a holiday. The Act established that 6 February would be known as Waitangi Day and “shall be observed throughout New Zealand as a national day of thanksgiving in commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi”. But people did not get the day off. It was not a public holiday. However, the Act did allow the Governor-General to declare Waitangi Day as a public holiday in any region, as a substitute for the region’s anniversary public day. So, yes, one could choose to have a Waitangi Day, instead of, say, Auckland Anniversary Day or Canterbury Show Day—
—and Northland did just that, but there was no new day off.
Not surprisingly, people were generally disappointed by the Act, and they continued to press for another day off. When one reads Hansard, one will see that the National Party, in Opposition, spent most of the debate on the Act berating the Labour Government for breaking its promises. Has anything changed?
It was in 1973 under Norman Kirk that, finally, the New Zealand Day Act was passed. It did make 6 February a public holiday and Kiwis really did get their day off. But that day was renamed New Zealand Day, and at the same time the first Waitangi Day Act of 1960 was abolished. Many people were disappointed again. They felt that the new name drew attention away from the Treaty of Waitangi, and they campaigned to change the name back again.
It was with the change of Government in 1975 that the new National Government passed the second Waitangi Day Act in 1976, which changed the name back to Waitangi Day. It also gave Northland its own anniversary day back, and included an English and a Māori language version of the Treaty of Waitangi in its schedule.
So this legislation is Groundhog Day—another attempt to extend the focus of the day beyond a celebration of the Treaty of Waitangi. The explanatory note to the bill states that it seeks: “a designated day to which all sectors of our society feel able to contribute.” I agree with that, and most submitters did too, but few felt that just changing the name would achieve that. Many felt that discarding the name Waitangi Day would be disparaging to the Treaty and what it stood for. It would be divisive and increase social conflict, rather than enhancing New Zealand’s identity. There is a strong belief that as the Treaty is the founding document of the modern-day Aotearoa New Zealand, it is appropriate to have Waitangi Day as the name of our national day. Others wanted to induce yet another new holiday, and helpfully suggested that it should be in the holiday drought between Queen’s Birthday and Labour Day.
Although there was some concern that the day has often been marred by conflict and tension, most Kiwis can appreciate the importance of the Treaty to our country, and, equally, the importance of free speech, so that the often tense incidents on this day are all a part of giving every Kiwi a fair go. My favourite quote is from Neville Robertson from Hamilton, who ended his submission with the statement: “I want to commemorate our national day in a way which is honest, robust, brave and generous. This bill reflects none of those qualities.” I and the National Party agree with him.
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I noticed my colleague Shane Jones attempting to make a call from an Opposition bench, which I am pretty sure is out of order, and that if he were to return to the Government side, he would be entitled to seek a call—would that be correct?
SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this
With references like that, it will not only be the member’s hair that is red by the end of this evening.
Tēnā nō tātou katoa. I stand to endorse the remarks made in what I think was a great speech from my colleague Mr Fairbrother. It referred to this ill-conceived attempt to cast us adrift from the day, and from the foundation document, that enables all New Zealanders to trace their roots to a point of shared history.
Along with Te Ururoa Flavell, I remember how little we were actually taught, in terms of the interaction of the races and the pressures and forces that were visited upon our Māori tribes at the point at which the Treaty was signed. Then we came forward during the 1970s. There was the nascent period where there were stirrings with Dame Whina Cooper, supported by various small groups, including one, Ngāti Wai land retention committee, which was advised by Winston Peters as a young lawyer. Then it followed through to various parts of Aotearoa, to the point where Māoridom itself was of a single voice—that we should stand and that we should endorse and claim a day with the right name that reminded us of our distinctive origins.
So to see this bill—misjudged, in my view—disappear is a very happy day. Not only should we be seeing in this bill the closing of a chapter, where people see our national day and the story of the Treaty just as a tale of discord; we should also be looking into the future, and, as more and more people, generation after generation, claim this country as their home for their children and their mokopunas—despite the best efforts of John Key to chase everyone to Australia—they too will find in the institution of the Treaty, and in the culture surrounding both the Crown and the original Māori tribes that conceived the Treaty, a platform and a great kaupapa to forge and fashion our future identity. That is why this notion of calling Waitangi Day “Niu Tirani Day”—and I am also told that “New Zealand” itself may have been poorly spelt at the beginning—
No, Niu Tirani is also a transliteration that is reflective of the imbalance of power at that period in our colonial history. I actually prefer—
Hon Brian Donnelly Link to this
But it’s in the Treaty.
SHANE JONES: That is quite true, but history is not fossilised. History is dynamic. The future moves. It is like that Māori proverb: ka riro he au heke, e kore e hoki ki tōna mātāpuna anō—the flowing current never returns to its source. It is in the movement and in the spirit of progress. So Aotearoa is a better name, despite the attempts of Ngāi Tahu to claim Waipounamu as a name to cover the entire nation. Unfortunately, they need to focus a little bit more on the water problems around Canterbury before they lecture us northerners on what the right Māori name for Aotearoa is.
But we did support this bill going to the select committee, and we stand very happily tonight, along with Russell, to say that the bill has served its short but uneventful life, and that we ought to look forward to contributing ideas to a larger constitutional debate. Russell Fairbrother drew on the work that had already taken place, but these things are organic. They cannot be just rammed down society’s collective throat; it takes a while for ideas of ownership to take root, and for people to feel confident and reassured that our overall system can change.
Of course, we cannot borrow the recipe of Tariana Turia and others who, with a snap of a finger, want to create something akin to Czechoslovakia, in terms of having two States. That will never work. That is far too expensive and divisive. What we need is something that reflects a fusion—a melding, a whakakotahitanga, a coming together. That lies for the future, and it will never come to pass while we allow bills of this nature to gather pace, driven by fear and ignorance. The sooner we see an end to that, the better for Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
I rise to oppose the New Zealand Day Bill. The first time I visited the Waitangi Treaty site, Te Tii Marae, I had one of those experiences that I will never forget—the feeling of goose bumps up my spine, as I knew that I stood in the place where our modern nation was founded. I want to discuss several reasons why I think that uniqueness is more important now than at any stage in our past, and why I believe the retention of Waitangi Day is one small element of our moving forward to a shared future, rather than backwards to one that does not truly honour our collective past.
Sadly, the “British conquest” of New Zealand—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
—in quotation marks, I tell my learned colleague—was unique in the sense that at its best it was not a conquest; it was an understanding that developed between two peoples. That distinguishes it from the experiences of European settlement in Australia, in Canada, in the United States, and in many other Anglo-European societies we would sometimes compare ourselves with. That Treaty, signed at the place Waitangi, embeds some of the highest ideals of our nationhood. It is important that we continue to celebrate it.
Why is that unique identity more important now than perhaps at any other time? Firstly, it is because we live in an age where people are more mobile around the planet than at any previous time in human history. Our population as a consequence is more diverse. My learned colleague Mr Fairbrother, agreed with by Mr Jones, said we need to understand better the differences and overlaps between biculturalism and multiculturalism—and so we do. But it has to be, however we describe it, a positive kind of blend, and one that honours the founding identity and the unifying myths, history, and constitutions of this unique place called New Zealand. As our community becomes more diverse, those unifying myths and histories become even more important.
Secondly, we face now, as at no other time in our history, new and powerful challenges to our very sovereignty. I heard yesterday that 92 percent of the Internet traffic by New Zealanders is to offshore sites. Of the 8 percent of New Zealand traffic, half of it is to TradeMe. Another quarter is utilities and banks, so only 2 percent of the Internet sites that New Zealanders visit are ‘endemic’ or ‘creative’ sites in New Zealand. Therefore, almost nothing that our young people see on the Internet is endemic. We live in a global “McDonald’s” cyberspace, and we will lose our very identity unless we are very clear what it is, and unless we fight to retain and develop it.
In addition, our economy faces waves of global capital and, currently, waves of Australian private equity, buying up every company that is not literally bolted down, an agricultural cooperative, or a State-owned enterprise. There are not many left, actually—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
—and John Key wants to sell what is left. He wants to have tradable shares in Fonterra, and he wants to flog off State-owned enterprises—goodbye economic sovereignty! Unless we are very careful, we will be hollowed out by the winds of capitalism. Therefore, it is even more important that our cultural identity is robust and secure.
The third reason why I think it is essential that we not only retain but build on our Waitangi heritage is that it represents for many New Zealanders the highest ideals of our shared history. We call to it, not to the Land Wars, when we remember our past, because we want to honour a deep sense of partnership and justice, not because we want to honour or perpetuate raupatu. We want to restore justice, we want to heal hurt, we want to move forward together, and te Tiriti gives us a basis for doing that. For all its imperfections, for all the differences in translation and understanding, for all the conflicts that have surrounded it since, the essence of Waitangi is that it calls to the highest angels of our nature. It calls us on to a better future.
So those are three reasons why we must not only retain but build on Waitangi. Firstly, it represents a unique part of history. Secondly, now more than ever before, we need to maintain that uniqueness in the face of unprecedented globalisation; and, thirdly, it calls to the higher angels of our nature and our sense of innate justice.
When I visited Te Tii and Waitangi that first time, I imagined that it might be the site—on the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty, in 2040—of the declaration of our republic. For me, the final reason why we need to go forward is that New Zealand’s future has got to be constitutionally unique. It does not make sense for us always to think of ourselves as a British dominion. Sure, we will always be a Commonwealth country, but does it make sense for us to be a British dominion? Or are we a truly independent and unique Asia-Pacific nation, punching above our weight, secure in our identity, prospering in our destiny, providing for our children, and building a better future—a unique future? I believe that that is what our future is, as a Commonwealth republic.
I believe that once we have settled the outstanding Treaty claims by 2020, over the next two decades we will be able to unveil and develop a new constitutional arrangement, whereby the obligations on the British Crown are transferred to a constitutional form that is fully appropriate to, and accepted by, iwi. It will anchor our future, but it will anchor it in an identity that is endemically and perpetually our own, rather than one that has been inherited from colonial masters from whom my forebears—my whakapapa—seven generations ago fled to avoid an oppressive class system. They were miners in Lancashire, they were agricultural workers in Kent, but they came to these fair shores because they wanted a freer, better, and unique future. They did not want to be “Brits”. Britain is a marvellous country but I am a New Zealander.
When I travel, I understand that my identity as a New Zealander depends upon my bicultural heritage, depends upon the Treaty, depends upon my understanding of what it means as a modern New Zealander, and sharing in it. It is part of my combined bloodlines, part of the future of my children, and part of the future of the whenua that we, and they, will inherit. It is a precious thing—it is such a precious thing. Can members imagine New Zealand without the Treaty? Can they imagine us without the potential of a unifying myth? Can we imagine ourselves without a past we can call to? It at least has a spark of justice and honour that we can aspire to for our future. Imperfect as it was, conflicted as it was, dishonoured as it sometimes was, we have the opportunity to honour the Treaty now, and to build a future that is based upon it. Let us oppose this silly bill and take on that challenge for our children’s sake.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
I thought I would rise and make a brief contribution to this debate in order to oppose the New Zealand Day Bill and to explain my position. Like many other speakers on this bill, who have made some personal remarks, I have my own to make. My great-great-grandfather arrived in New Zealand—I am not sure from where; perhaps from Cornwall, I think—in 1819. He was a 17-year-old. He was an early European to arrive in New Zealand. He arrived, of course, in the Bay of Islands. It was the only place where people arrived from other parts of the world in those days. He spent a bit of time in Paihia, and he was involved in the building of some very early buildings—certainly the first church in Paihia and certainly Kemp House, or Kemp homestead, depending on what one wants to call it—because he was a carpenter by trade. He learned that trade pretty much on the job, given that he arrived here before he had much time to do any apprenticeship.
My great-great-grandmother arrived a few years later—I do not know what year she arrived—and the two of them got married in Waimate North. I do not know the date of that event either but I think it was probably about 1828 or 1829. They had the first European marriage in New Zealand. My great-great-grandmother’s sister had arrived in New Zealand at the same time as my great-great grandmother, and the two of them, with their two husbands—for by then there had been a second European marriage in New Zealand—travelled north from Waimate North to settle in Kaitāia. They found a nice place to stay, which was pretty much the Awanui Flats between Kaitāia and Awanui, and they bred. They kept breeding, and the generations kept coming. They asked the local Māori if they could stay, and the local Māori said sure. So they did stay, and they lived amongst Māori. They drained the swamps and started farming the land, and as the family grew they started to acquire more and more land. Then, as property law started to arrive in New Zealand, so, too, they started to assume ownership. They were part of what is now the Muriwhenua land claim.
My great-great-grandfather and his brother-in-law were both Anglican missionaries. Only one of them was able to be a reverend—because, to make sure they were spread around a bit, the Anglican Church said that there could only be one reverend in one place—but my great-great-grandfather remained as a sort of a lay preacher for all his life. He remained in Kaitāia and the surrounding areas, and found himself preaching to Māori up and down the Aupouri Peninsula and around greater Kaitāia. This meant that by the time he was in his mid-twenties, he was pretty fluent in Māori and was assisting other missionaries in translating the Bible from English to Māori. For all of these reasons he found himself quite a valuable bilinguist, and as 1840 approached he was more and more involved in the lead-up to what became the Treaty of Waitangi and the signing of it. Indeed, if members look at the Treaty they will see that his name is there. Very often people think that only Māori signed the Treaty of Waitangi; that is not the case. It was signed by a number of Pākehā, as well.
If the member wants to find his name, his name was William Gilbert Puckey—not Paki; a European or Cornish version, Puckey. There is plenty more I could say about the life of my great-great-grandparents, or, indeed, their descendants. [ Interruption] Well, I will tell that story. In the mid-1830s my great-great-father used to travel up the Ninety Mile to Maunganui Bluff in a land yacht, which was made, of course, of canvas of the day and wooden wheels from carts. There he would preach and try to get some sort of outbreak of peace amongst the tribes of Muriwhenua, which he was unsuccessful in doing and which no one has been successful in doing since.
But the point of the story is, quite straightforwardly, that my great-great-grandfather’s signature is on the Treaty. I am committed to that Treaty if only for that reason. I am committed for many other reasons, as well, but I thought I would tell members that story because not too many people think about Pākehās signing the Treaty. My great-great-grandfather did, and his great-great-grandson is not walking away from that commitment one bit.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the New Zealand Day Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 2
Noes 117
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand National 48
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- Progressive 1
- Independent 2 (Field, Copeland)
Motion not agreed to.