1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
On what date did Cabinet decide to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and what did Cabinet believe the impact of such a decision would be?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) Link to this
Cabinet made the decision to support the declaration on 22 March. The statements made to this House and to the UN accurately reflect Cabinet’s view that this is a non-binding, aspirational document. The Government has affirmed that New Zealand’s existing legal and constitutional frameworks will define the bounds of the influence of the declaration.
If Cabinet agreed to ratify the UN declaration on 22 March, was it open and transparent of him to tell media in Canada on 14 April, when asked whether New Zealand would sign the declaration: “I think you’re a little bit ahead of yourself. From the New Zealand perspective, it’s true we’ve been looking and working on ways that we might adopt the declaration, but we haven’t made an announcement, and at least or until we do, wouldn’t necessarily count your chickens.”?
I make two points—[ Interruption] Yeah—a funky question. The Government has been quite open about the fact that it has been considering affirming the declaration. In fact, the Prime Minister has been talking about it since April 2009, and he correctly said no announcement had been made.
If the declaration, which New Zealand has now ratified, is symbolic and will not result in a lot of change, as he has claimed, was Sir Eddie Durie, who is a former Waitangi Tribunal chairman and High Court judge and a man considered to be a high-powered legal expert, wrong when he stated yesterday that it had important implications for the Office of Treaty Settlements, the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, and the Waitangi Tribunal, and that “Important statements of principle established through international negotiation … filter into the law in time”?
Well, the general direction of his opinion is always pretty predictable. What he said today on the radio was “… it is not legally binding, it’s not going to tie us up”, and he is absolutely correct about that.
Chris TremainYes, I have. The Hon Phil Goff has said “This is a declaration that says you have to restore all land that was once owned by indigenous people.” The Hon Trevor Mallard said on the same day “there is nothing in it at all for Maori.” But, of course, what really matters is what the Hon David Cunliffe thinks, and we have not heard from him yet.
If the ratification of the declaration is aspirational and symbolic, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, why, 2 days later, has the first claim to the UN under article 32 of the declaration been lodged by the hapū from the Ngāpuhi tribe, seeking the return of 2,490 acres of land known as the Treaty grounds at the Bay of Islands, and does he agree with the tribal leader who says that if the land is not returned, the New Zealand Government will be exposed in front of the international community and lose credibility?
The Labour Party thinks so much of Mr David Rankin, who lodged that claim, that it would not go near Waitangi for years.
Mr SPEAKERThe Minister should answer the question before he makes any comment about the Labour Party, if at all.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to something. I know you were looking in the direction of the Government as you were speaking to it, but as you were directing the Acting Prime Minister and saying that matter had nothing to do with the Labour Party, he said “Yes, it does.” If we did that, we would be ordered out of here.
I apologise to the member that I did not particularly note that, but I remind members that when I am on my feet, members will not comment, interject, or say anything.
The so-called claim by Mr David Rankin, who I think is well known to all of us, cannot be a claim. It is completely irrelevant, and I would advise him not to waste the price of a postage stamp on it.
Does he concur with the Attorney-General, who said today that Māori who make claims about the impact of the ratification of the declaration are “fantasists and bush lawyers”, and are Eddie Durie, a former High Court judge, Tūhoe leader Tāmati Kruger, and former Māori Language Commission commissioner Haami Piripi to be counted in this group?
If they believed that making a claim under the declaration was some kind of useful exercise, then the Attorney-General is absolutely correct. I say to claimants that it is a total waste of time to imagine that they can make some kind of claim under this declaration. The Government has a framework in place for dealing with Treaty of Waitangi claims, and we are dealing with them much more successfully than the previous Labour Government ever did.
Who met the expenses of Te Ururoa Flavell, a backbench member of the Māori Party, to be at the ratification of the declaration in New York on Tuesday?