7. RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Is he satisfied with the Government’s response to the report by the United Nations Human Rights Commission on the situation of Māori in New Zealand?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) Link to this
The Government made every effort to ensure, in the very brief time—in fact, only 8 working days—he was in New Zealand, that the UN special rapporteur Dr Stavenhagen had access to those most informed about the issues he was addressing. Sadly, he chose to ignore much of what was said to him. The Government then responded, in an earlier draft to his report, to correct factual errors and errors of imbalance. Sadly, he ignored that as well. The Government will make a further formal report in an effort to correct these errors. I suppose it is best summed up by the MP Shane Jones, who said on morning television that Mr Stavenhagen would be better off saving the Marsh Arabs than interfering with our race relations.
Does the Minister believe that the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on issues relating to Māori accurately reflects the situation of race relations here in New Zealand?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
That is a very important question, because there are some who believe it does. The facts are, of course, that he was captured by those entrenched in a grievance mentality who ignore even the most rudimentary social context in which Māori socially and economically mix with other people in this country. He ignores the fact that a Māori set up the Waitangi Tribunal, that there are more Māori in Parliament than the Māori population in terms of ratio, or that, for example, it is mandatory to follow the Treaty of Waitangi State-owned enterprise legislation, not voluntary. Such fundamental errors surely could not have resulted from anything other than a brief talk to certain people on the fringes of academia in this country.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that that report cannot be taken seriously, as it represents just “one man’s view”, despite that man’s view being consistent with the Waitangi Tribunal, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and 30,000 thinking New Zealanders who marched on the hīkoi to Parliament; and if he does agree, how then should the Government respond to the advice of key Māori leaders who have stated this morning that the Government criticism of the United Nations report will do the country no credit internationally?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
By preferring one hard fact, rather than 12 lovely emotions. The fact of the matter is that the primary case did not find in favour of Māori in the Ngāti Apa case, at all; neither did the Court of Appeal—and any lawyer in this country knows that. The second thing is that decisions of the Treaty of Waitangi are not coerced. The Waitangi Tribunal has never made a claim that it is coerced into decisions. It was never the claim of Tainui. It was never the claim of Ngāi Tahu, at the time. Those members who were there remember it very, very well. More important, when one can get something as wrong as saying that the State-owned enterprise legislation is voluntary yet it is clear as daylight that it is mandatory and the Government is required to follow it, then what else in the report is worth reading?
Is he confident that the role of indigenous people in New Zealand reflects positively in the international arena?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I say very clearly that Māori are a huge asset to this country—and some more than most. [ Interruption] I take that as a total affirmation of what I am saying. Not only is Māori culture and language an integral part of who we are; it is also amongst the strongest identifiers of our New Zealandness amongst the international community.
Rodney HideRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
The member may want to speak about himself, but the question is not about him; it is about us. It is not about irrelevant poodles like Mr Hide, whom his founding leader says is a joke; it is about the serious people of this country who happen to be Māori. And whilst I am here, deputed to represent them, I intend to carry on and say this—[ Interruption] Oh, look—take a Valium!
Madam SPEAKERRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Let us say this: New Zealand’s “Māoriness”, when it comes to Māori culture and society, should be celebrated, not misused by those with grievance agendas trapped in negativity. There is no question that things can improve on many fronts for Māori—[ Interruption] Ha, ha!
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that Mr Peters is taking a very long time in his reply to the question. That raises two points. Firstly, I heard him laugh during that answer. Is it our ruling that it is OK to laugh if one is answering a question but not if one is just a normal member listening to a question? Secondly, can we assume that the great leniency Mr Peters seems to attract from the Chair is part of some unofficial affirmative action programme?
Obviously not, Mr Brownlee. But I would say that if members interject on others, they are likely to get a response. I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to please complete the answer to his question quickly. It was long.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may help matters if Mr Peters just tabled his spontaneous answers that he is reading to the House.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Nowhere in my “spontaneous answer” was there an intention to talk about somebody who is a lapdog of this Parliament; the member raised the issue himself. I conclude by saying that Māori are actively engaged in every part of this country’s economic and social life—and so they should be.
I seek the leave of the House to table a report of an interview conducted this morning with Sir Douglas Graham, the former National member of Parliament charged with the Treaty of Waitangi portfolio, in which he says that the whole thing is “lightweight”.