This page created 19 July 2002
How the parties ranked in 1999
"The government of New Zealand is not a partnership between one racial group and the rest. It is inconceivable that New Zealand can have harmonious race relations built upon principles of divided representation or privilege based on race". ACT 2002
"In 2001 Mathew Palmer, Dean of Law at Victoria University, pointed to the dangers of infecting legislation with vague and generic reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. The incorporation of these vague and generic references to Treaty principles is eating away and undermining the legal and constitutional basis of our country". NZ First 2002
PANZ on the principle of 'partnership'
PANZ Election Charter
Treaty of Waitangi
Escalating claims from Maori,
and part-Maori, for ownership and control over all manner of public
resources, including the conservation estate, have overwhelmed
New Zealanders. Such claims are inferred to be breaches of the
Treaty of Waitangi, or purposefully ill-defined 'principles of
the Treaty'. Increasingly it is becoming apparent that many claims
and grievances are figments of imagination or wilful invention,
having no justifiable basis in the Treaty or law. Claim WAI 262
to the nation's entire native flora and fauna is an example. This
claim defies the full terms of the Treaty, the huge extent of
land sales conducted in accordance with Article II, and "full
and final" settlements recently concluded. Despite this,
it is inevitable what the Waitangi Tribunal will conclude, necessitating
Government reserving the right to reject both its findings and
recommendations.
Contrary to the last Government's policy, and apparently adopted
by the present Government, claimants have been given ownership
or a prevailing influence over significant areas of national parks
and conservation areas, e.g. Topuni and Nohoanga. These effectively
disenfranchise the vast majority of the population from having
an effective voice in the management and future of these lands.
In some cases such arrangements run contrary to the findings of
the Tribunal. The Treaty has become little more than a convenient
ploy for the alienation and privatisation of public assets to
iwi and hapu.
There are ever expanding demands extending variously to separate
'sovereignty', 'partnership' or 'co-management' with the Crown.
Despite PANZ authoritatively demonstrating that the notion of
'partnership' is a myth*, DOC continues to promote such policies.
Consequently all other citizens become second-class and inferior
in their dealings with the department. That is borne out in most
areas of PANZ's contact with DOC, with growing realisation that
there is preferential consultation and consideration of iwi and
hapu interests.
The Waitangi Tribunal is increasingly acting as a propagandist
or public 'educator', and advocate for Maori, rather than as an
impartial court of inquiry. By making recommendations to Government
contrary to its own findings, and extravagant distortions of history,
it has destroyed essential public confidence in it. The forever-expanding
Treaty industry must be scuttled and everyone returned to a state
of equality.
In PANZ's experience the introduction of cultural considerations,
especially those relating to Maori, into the administration of
the outdoors has subdued debate conspicuously. In this intimidating
environment, local and central government policies and practices
have arisen, along with Maori expectations, which have intruded
on broader public interests and rights. We have challenged some
of these practices directly, and intend to confront others. We
have succeeded in reminding central Government of its obligations
to consult meaningfully with its greater public constituency over
the use of public lands in Treaty settlements or in other circumstances.
Ultimately, PANZ is committed to protecting the more socially
significant principle that New Zealand's public lands belong to
all New Zealanders regardless of ethnicity, social position or
belief. Collective ownership, and its expression in equality of
access to publicly owned lands, derives from citizenship in a
democratic, egalitarian society. The principle of equality is
explicit in Article Three of the Treaty itself.
* 'The Principle of 'Partnership' and the Treaty of Waitangi.
1993. PANZ Monograph No. 6.
Policies:
Disband the Waitangi Tribunal
Remove "the Principles of the Treaty" from legislation
No 'partnership' over the conservation estate
2002 Party Treaty of Waitangi policy
Policy directly related to PANZ objectives and policy charter highlighted in red, with our emphasis bold.
PANZ looked at five key policy areas, being public roads, Treaty of Waitangi , DoC and public lands, the Queen's Chain, and high country Crown lands.We ranked available party policies according to their 'access friendliness'. This was a weighted appraisal which was influenced by-
In other words we do not believe any party's claims or 'policies' at face value. We look at their total actions and words, then assess these against how closely they coincide with PANZ's objectives. In the absence of express policies we looked at relevant news media statements, and other material available to us. Naturally the incumbent Government will be judged more by their actions than their words, as they must be.
The question of credibility of party positions is central to our evaluation. There are often inconsistencies between actions/inactions and words (not unknown among politicians!).
PANZ is not aligned to any political party.
We have rated each party in each key policy area on a scale of 0 to 5
[1] Seriously flawed
[2] Poor
[3] Acceptable
[4] Very good
[5] Outstanding
PANZ RANKING = [4] 'Very good'
ACT's policy addresses the route causes of misapplication of the Treaty through better scrutiny of Maori claims, by requiring judicial regard for the Treaty's full terms, supporting a finite process for settlement of genuine historical breaches of the Treaty, and removing discriminarory law. Policy would have ranked higher if it included an express commitment to remove references to the "principles of the Treaty" from law.
ACT
Summary of Treaty Policy
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
One law for all NZers.
Repeal all laws that permit or require any central or local government agency to discriminate against, or to favour, any NZer or class of NZers on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity or national origin.
There is no future for NZ in apartheid.
Set the year 2009 as the target date for achieving one law for all NZers.
Set a final date for lodging historical claims: 31 December 2003, and ensure that all cases before the Waitangi Tribunal are heard and determined by 2008.
Appoint to the Waitangi Tribunal people known for their ability to apply the rules of evidence rigorously to get at what truth can be discovered at this distance, and to reject the rest.
Amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act to redirect the Tribunal and the judges to the clear statements of the 1st and 3rd Treaty articles by which the Crown received "absolutely forever the complete government of [New Zealand]" and in which the Crown undertook to "protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and [to] give them the same rights and duties of citizenship ".
ACT
Full Treaty Policy
SOURCE: http://www.act.org.nz/action/campaigns/manifesto2002/treaty.html
Treaty of Waitangi
A Vision for New Zealand
Freedom, choice and individual responsibility are the principles upon which ACT's policies are based.
Executive Summary
Two things threaten
race relations in New Zealand. One is Maori underachievement.
The other is the backlash that an escalating grievance industry
could all too easily provoke. No amount of money can undo past
wrongs or solve the problem of underachievement.
Unfortunately, mismanagement of the Treaty of Waitangi settlements process has created a grievance industry that sustains a gravy train for well-paid lawyers and consultants. It can never be satisfied and worsens race relations. It has not helped, and will not help, most Maori.
Payments depend entirely on the goodwill of citizens alive today who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. This goodwill is being increasingly abused by the grievance industry and alienating ordinary New Zealanders.
ACT believes
ACT's goals
ACT's proposals
Discussion
In a liberal society,
people of all ethnic origins should be able to live harmoniously
together and enjoy the benefits of diverse cultures. A liberal
society caters for diversity by maximising the degree to which
individuals can pursue goals of their own choosing, subject to
the rule of law. This tolerance for different choices and lifestyles
promotes social cohesion.
In our race relations, New Zealanders have much to be proud about, but also cause for alarm. The problems New Zealanders face today in respect of Treaty issues undoubtedly stem in good part from past majoritarian abuses at the expense of Maori. No parliamentary party is keener than ACT to see property rights respected in New Zealand and for the rule of law to prevail. Claims should be properly settled where land was unlawfully taken or improperly compensated, and where we can identify the descendants of those who were wronged. The sense of fair play of most New Zealanders demands no less.
However, it also needs to be recognised that no amount of money can undo past wrongs and that payments depend entirely on the goodwill of citizens alive today who are entirely innocent of wrongdoing in the distant past. Maori will be at risk in the future if the rule of law is this time set aside in their favour.
The future of tolerant race relations in New Zealand depends on the observance of the rule of law. ACT is alert to the dangers that the grievance industry poses for the rule of law and harmonious race relations. For New Zealanders to be able to move ahead harmoniously a solution must be found that allows Maori to focus on meeting future challenges. This will not happen if extremists turn every settlement into a platform for a further claim.
It is for these reasons that ACT is determined to put a time limit on the claims process.
ACT does not believe for one moment that Treaty settlements, no matter how generous, will make any material difference to Maori underachievement. ACT's policies will do more than any other party's policies to help Maori escape the poverty trap that is created by welfare dependency, anti-job labour market legislation and a failed education system. Maori have as much to gain from voting ACT as any other group in the community, if not more.
However, sound policies can only set the climate for better Maori achievement. It is largely up to Maori themselves to take advantage of the opportunities ACT's policies would create. Ultimately, it is only stronger families and individual commitment to education, jobs, hard work and thrift that can solve the problem of underachievement for Maori or non-Maori.
Another risk to harmonious race relations in New Zealand comes from the threat to the rule of law posed by claims relating to partnership and sovereignty. The government of New Zealand is not a partnership between one racial group and the rest. It is inconceivable that New Zealand can have harmonious race relations built upon principles of divided representation or privilege based on race. A system of contending laws or governments deprives individual actions of an agreed legal basis for resolving disputes.
PANZ RANKING = [0.5] 'Gravely flawed'
A constitution based on the Alliances' revisionist interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi would bring about institutional racial inequality and the end of democratic rights and representation in New Zealand. That would flow over to all areas of public and private life, including the right to have a say on the management of public resources as well as to enjoy recreation on public lands and waters, without fear or favour.
The underlying assumption that the Treaty is the founding constitutional document of New Zealand ignores the constitutional structures, citizen rights and protections (including the property protections specified in Article Two), and well-recorded common law, all imported from England. The Treaty did not establish these. Existing constitutional protections for citizens from the excesses of the State, the Church, religious or 'spiritiual' zealotry, and the predation of others would be liable to be overturned.
Alliance
Summary of Treaty Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
Establish a constitution for Aotearoa/New Zealand based on the Treaty of Waitangi.
[Establish] a national Mäori assembly.
Guaranteed Mäori representation in Parliament.
Create a central Mäori Council which will consist of ten members elected by the assembly and two representatives from each Rohe Pooti.
Rohe Pooti will develop and manage local and regional policies . . . in areas such as employment, housing, afforestation, farming, fisheries, aquaculture, commerce, education, health and welfare.
It is in the interest of all NZers to have Mäori grievances settled expeditiously.
Allocated extra funding to the Waitangi Tribunal and will contribute to a Treaty Justice Fund until all legitimate claims are settled.
This process will lead to a reconciliation which will improve Mäori economic and social status.
Alliance
Conservation policy: Alliance 2002
Wed 10 Jul 2002
SOURCE: http://www.alliance.org.nz/info.php3?Type=Policy&ID=1093
We will work towards further developing the shared responsibility of Maori and non-Maori for managing natural resources under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Alliance
Full Treaty Policy
SOURCE: http://www.alliance.org.nz/info.php3?Type=Policy&ID=1057
Treaty of Waitangi Policy:
Alliance 2002
Tue 25 Jun 2002
Mana Motuhake and the Alliance are committed to ensuring that the place and significance of the Treaty is firmly embedded in the constitution of New Zealand and as such is given proper effect. To this end and in view of the excessive number of registered claims still to be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal and given the general will of New Zealanders, but in particular the claimants, to have Treaty grievances quickly resolved, several strategic measures are proposed:-
Settle the majority of registered claims before the Waitangi Tribunal and Office of Treaty Settlements within a ten-year period from 2002-2012.
Increase the overall funding to the Waitangi Tribunal with an immediate increase of 30% of their existing budget per year for the next 10 years.
Increase the capacity of the Waitangi Tribunal by including ten new members with appropriate qualifications of whom at least half will be appointed by Maori.
Implement a comprehensive public education programme on the Treaty with contributions from Maori and all key agencies.
Establish a specialist Treaty of Waitangi Commission that will be responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of Treaty policy and research. It will also have a key role in ensuring that the Treaty claims settlement programme is robust and is able to meet specified targets. The Commission will be allocated set up funding of $10M.
No Fiscal Cap, but all settlements are to be fair and fiscally responsible.
Retention of the Office of Treaty Settlements with an increase in its annual budget for policy advice of $2million per year for the next ten years, ie 2002-2012.
Discussion
Timeframe for Settlement
of Waitangi Tribunal Claims
Mana Motuhake and the
Alliance are keen to expedite the resolution of outstanding Treaty
claims. There are more than 900 registered claims on the Tribunal's
register still waiting to be heard. Whilst some of these claims
have the potential to be incorporated into other claims, which
could reduce the register by one third, the balance of claims
would still be disturbingly high. As a matter of priority, a timeframe
of ten years, i. e. 2002-2012 is proposed to clear and settle
the majority of claims. This represents a 50% extension to the
Government's current five-year timeframe.
The Waitangi Tribunal
The Waitangi Tribunal
is a key institution involved in Treaty issues and as such has
a critical role in the on-going development of New Zealand's constitutional
system. Since its inception, the Tribunal has investigated and
reported on numerous claims and as a result, built up an extensive
body of Treaty jurisprudence.
Unfortunately the Tribunal has a long history of being poorly resourced and its activities are generally not well understood by the public. Successive governments have adopted a fragmented approach in dealing with Treaty settlements, policy development and implementation. These problems combined have severely constrained the ability of the Tribunal to carry out its statutory obligations.
An additional allocation of 30% on the existing budget per year for the next 10 years will enable the Tribunal to significantly clear the majority of claims on its register. The funding will also be used to carry out its inter-agency collaborations, particularly in the area of Treaty education and claimant/iwi consultations. The Tribunal will be given a six-month period to divest itself of its research capacity in order for it to fully concentrate on its programme of hearings.
The Tribunal membership will also be increased by the addition of eight new members, the effect of which could mean an additional two new teams available for hearings and a more efficient roster system.
Treaty of Waitangi Commission
It is essential that
an integrated approach to managing Treaty issues is adopted and
maintained. Accordingly a Treaty of Waitangi Commission will be
established to manage Treaty issues more effectively and efficiently.
The Commission will be comprised of eight members, four appointed
by the Crown and four appointed by Maori. Representatives of the
Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Chief Executive Officer
of Te Puni Kokiri will have ex-officio positions on the Commission
and will be two of the Crown appointees. These two reserved positions
are important because unlike the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries
Commission, which is a profit driven entity, the proposed Commission
will be settlements oriented.
The Commission will be responsible for strategic planning of Treaty issues, policy development and have a coordinating function in respect of working with other key agencies on Treaty matters. These key agencies include the Waitangi Tribunal, Te Puni Kokiri, Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS), Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Crown Law Office, Land Information New Zealand, National Archives, Alexander Turnbull Library and the Legal Services Agency. The Commission will collaborate with these agencies regarding the implementation of a strategic Treaty policy programme, which will include an annual schedule of Tribunal hearings over a ten-year period from 2002-2012.
The Commission will also manage funding of claimant research to allow the Waitangi Tribunal to focus on the investigation and reporting of claims and advice to government. It will inherit and develop the existing research capacity of the Waitangi Tribunal. A six-month period is estimated to enable the transition of the research function to occur.
Claims Negotiation
It is essential that
the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) is retained and adequately
funded in order for the negotiation and settlement of claims on
the Direct Negotiations Register to occur. To this end, an annual
increase to the OTS budget of $2M will be allocated. The additional
funding will enable OTS to employ further fulltime staff and assist
claimants by contributing to some of their negotiation costs.
Fiscal Implications
As a general rule, there
will be no Fiscal Cap for the settlement of claims, however it
is expected that all settlements will be fiscally responsible.
The settlement of claims will have a positive multiplier effect on the economy and will enable many Maori to move out of grievance mode and focus their resources on more productive enterprises.
To maintain the momentum of settling claims within the 10-year timeframe OTS and the Waitangi Tribunal have the right to approach government for further funding to achieve this deadline. Any such approaches must be supported by reasoned argument.
PANZ RANKING
= [1] 'Seriously flawed'
A constitution based on the Green's revisionist interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi would bring about institutional racial inequality and the end of democratic rights and representation in New Zealand. That would flow over to all areas of public and private life, including the right to have a say on the management of public resources as well as to enjoy recreation on public lands and waters, without fear or favour. 'Shared guardianship' means 'partnership' - a flawed concept that will result in disenfranchisement of the majority of the population from an effective say over the management of public resources. Such approaches have no lawful basis in the Treaty. Rejection of use of the Conservation Estate as a cheap source of land for Treaty settlements, will only have limited meaning in view of popular alienation from management and use decisions while still nominally in public ownership.
The underlying assumption that the Treaty is the founding constitutional document of New Zealand ignores the constitutional structures, citizen rights and protections (including the property protections specified in Article Two), and well-recorded common law, all imported from England. The Treaty did not establish these. Existing constitutional protections for citizens from the excesses of the State, the Church, religious or 'spiritual' zealotry, and the predation of others would be liable to be overturned. The notion that the Treaty is a 'living' document, means that it is growing and evolving in effect and meaning and therefore unable to be defined. This is what the Treaty 'industry' and those wielding power, depend upon for their influence and accumulation of resources. The Treaty can therefore provide no constitutional foundation for a civilised, democratic society.
Green Party
Summary of Treaty Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
We support a national dialogue on developing new bicultural institutions.
We Support elected Maori representation on local bodies. Guaranteed Tangata Whenua participation in local governance.
Maori initiatives to improve the wellbeing of Maori people; shared guardianship of our natural heritage. The role of hapu as kaitiaki of their rohe must be recognised and strengthened.
In any ambiguity the contra preferendum principle applies, which means that a decision is made against the party that drafts the document.
The indigenous text takes preference.
Increased resources for the Waitangi Tribunal, including adequate resources for claimants to prepare and present their cases.
Support Maori initiatives to improve the wellbeing of Maori.
Promote and support an ongoing forum for dialogue on current Tiriti issues
Reject use of the Conservation Estate as a cheap source of land for Treaty settlements.
Green Environment Policy
Statement
Ratified 4th July 2002
SOURCE: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5414.html
Te Tiriti
Green Party
Full Treaty Policy
SOURCE: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5085.html
Tiriti o (Treaty of) Waitangi
Policy
Ratified 24th June 2002
Preamble
Green Party Charter
The preamble to the Charter of the Green Party reads:
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti O Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand.
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand recognises Maori as the Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Green Party Constitution
The objects of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand include
a commitment to honouring Te Tiriti O Waitangi.
Principles
1. The Green Party affirms
that Te Tiriti O Waitangi remains a living and fundamental constitutional
document.
2. The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which
3. The Green Party acknowledges that delegated representatives of the Crown have breached, and continue to breach, the Tiriti rights of Maori, and supports the resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and current breaches.
4. The Green Party believes there is a need for an ongoing dialogue grounded in Te Tiriti, both to give effect to the relationship that it enshrines, and to build a high level of awareness among all citizens of the unique role of Te Tiriti in the evolution of our nation.
Policy
1. Dialogue
The Green Party will promote and support an ongoing forum for dialogue on current Tiriti issues.
For example, removing Privy Council appeal rights or any move to a Republic, would need to be preceded by a full dialogue between the Tiriti parties to agree on how the Tiriti relationship would be given effect in any new arrangement.
2. Information
The Green Party will promote and support:
a. a public information and awareness programme on Te Tiriti O Waitangi. This will include:
These are the first steps towards healing the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual effects of colonisation on our society.
3. The Waitangi Tribunal
The Green Party will promote and support:
a. increased resources for the
Waitangi Tribunal, including adequate resources for claimants
to prepare and present their cases, and increased transparency
and accountability.
b. the development of a diversity of models for restitution and
nationally sustainable compensation over time.
4. Supporting Maori initiatives
The Green Party will promote and support Maori initiatives to improve the wellbeing of Maori.
5. Local Government and Resource Management
The Green Party will promote and support:
a. guaranteed Tangata Whenua
participation in local governance.
As more power is devolved to the local level, so the importance
of honouring the Tiriti relationship at the local level increases.
A range of models have been developed around the country and the
Green Party supports this diversity.
b. shared guardianship of our natural heritage.
(i) The Green Party supports an ongoing dialogue on how shared
guardianship can be developed to protect and enhance our natural
heritage. The role of hapu as kaitiaki of their rohe must be recognised
and strengthened.
(ii) The Conservation estate is a treasure for all New Zealanders.
There is considerable scope for Maori and Pakeha to cooperate
in restoring and rebuilding this treasure as part of honouring
te Tiriti. Some good models for this already exist.
PANZ RANKING = [0.5] 'Gravely flawed'
A constitution based on Labour's revisionist interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi would bring about institutional racial inequality and the end of democratic rights and representation in New Zealand. That would flow over to all areas of public and private life, including the right to have a say on the management of public resources as well as to enjoy recreation on public lands and waters without fear or favour. 'Partnership' is a flawed concept that will result in disenfranchisement of the majority of the population from an effective say over the management of public resources. Such an approache has no lawful basis in the Treaty. Under a Labour-Alliance Government, the Department of Conservation has been actively developing major policy changes towards devolving control over public reserves to iwi, etc., under a spirit of 'partnership'. Such policies reflect Government directions in this regard. Government draft general policies for national parks and conservation areas reveal an intent of systematic alienation of the public from an effective voice over public lands. "Full and final" Treaty settlements are proving to be no more than starting points - they do not preclude undue influence over DOC's administration even when the lands concerned are excluded from such 'settlements'. Undefined 'partnership' or 'guardianship' relationships sanction everything, forever more.The underlying assumption that the Treaty is the founding constitutional document of New Zealand ignores the constitutional structures, citizen rights and protections (including the property protections specified in Article Two), and well-recorded common law, all imported from England. The Treaty did not establish these. Existing constitutional protections for citizens from the excesses of the State, the Church, religious or 'spiritual' zealotry, and the predation of others would be liable to be overturned. The notion that the Treaty is a 'living, organic' constitutional document, means that it is growing and evolving in effect and meaning and therefore unable to be defined. This is what the Treaty 'industry' and those wielding power, depend upon for their influence and accumulation of resources. The Treaty can provide no constitutional foundation for a civilised, democratic society.
Labour is CURRENTLY changing the essential constitutional character of New Zealand by stealth through incremental statutory amendments, policy and practice. It is likely to be assisted in this mission by the Green's or the Alliance in any future Government.
Labour
Summary of Treaty Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
Accepts the Treaty of Waitangi as NZ's founding document and as the basis of constitutional government.
Effective tängata whenua involvement in local government and its decision making is an important step to strengthening the Treaty relationship.
Encourage local hapü, rünanga and other tängata whenua authorities to participate in local district planning.
Committed to fulfilling [the Crown's] obligations as a Treaty partner to support self determination for whänau, hapü, and iwi.
Rejects the fiscal envelope concept.
Review the Treaty of Waitangi
Act to ensure its provisions continue to effectively facilitate
settlements.
Ensure that the Waitangi Tribunal is adequately resourced.
Resource a Treaty of Waitangi education program to improve the understanding of all NZers.
Committed to reaching a fair
and just settlement on a case by case basis.
Rejects the fiscal envelope concept.
Review the Treaty of Waitangi Act to ensure its provisions continue to effectively facilitate settlements.
Ensure that the Waitangi Tribunal is adequately resourced.
Give proper and speedy consideration to the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal.
Prime Minister Helen Clark's election campaign references to the Treaty being "a living, organic document".
Labour
Maori Development2002 Issues document
SOURCE: http://www.liveupdater.com/labourparty/LiveArticle.asp?ArtID=-455250040
Key Messages:
We continue to value and strengthen the relationship between Tangata
Whenua and the Crown enabling whanau, hapu, iwi and Mäori
communities to play their role as full partners
in this country.
PANZ RANKING
= [2.5] 'Partly acceptable'
National's recent renaissance on Treaty matters, as expressed in Bill English's thoughtful reflections, are not carried over into policy. The latter is solely concerned with settling historic grievances, at a faster rate than previously.
There are no policies to ensure "common" or "one standard of citizenship". Unless future governments grapple with discriminatory laws and remove vague references to the "principles of the Treaty", etc., from the law, there can be no end to divisiveness. Growing and permanent favourable treatment (special 'relationships') with (some) Maori in all areas of government, irrespective of 'historic' claims and settlements, is becoming a far-greater handicap to society than the burden of formal monetary, land or fishery reparations.
National
Summary of Treaty Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
Require all historic claims to be filed with the Waitangi Tribunal by 31 December 2003.
Settlement of all historic claims by 2008.
Dis-establish the Office of Treaty Settlements.
Affirm and honour previous Treaty settlements as full and final settlements.
Active protection and promotion of Maori language and culture for the benefit of all NZers.
Require all historic claims to be filed with the Waitangi Tribunal by 31 December 2003.
Settlement of all historic claims by 2008.
Dis-establish the Office of Treaty Settlements.
Affirm and honour previous Treaty settlements as full and final settlements.
Active protection and promotion of Maori language and culture for the benefit of all NZers.
National
Full Treaty Policy
SOURCE: http://www.national.org.nz/
Treaty Policy - Time to move on
National's approach
National recognises the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. There is strong support among all New Zealanders, to honour the agreements of the past and go forward together. National will resolve historic injustices swiftly and fairly, putting grievances arising from historic breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi behind us. We will restore the honour of the Crown and replace Maori grievance with a shared sense of history and a common sense of purpose. National wants New Zealand to move forward, recognising the diversity of our people, our common rights and obligations under one standard of citizenship.
Settling Historic Grievances
National will:
Introduction
Over the last 25 years significant progress has been made in the recognition of the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in the founding and development of our nation. Today, the Treaty influences much of our public policy development, as we endeavour to fulfil the obligations that the Crown assumed on behalf of all New Zealanders, and to give meaning to the relationship that was forged at its signing.
That relationship is at the heart of National's approach to these matters. It was a relationship intended to benefit Maori, enabling their participation in and contribution to the developing nation. While the Treaty provides a measure whereby the Crown and Maori can review fulfilment of Treaty undertakings, the forward looking focus of the Treaty must now command our attention to ensure that all New Zealanders might grow and prosper together.
The resolution of historic claims under the Treaty of Waitangi has been very much the focus of government attention over the last fifteen years. National is proud of its record in Government in the 1990's in seeking the resolution of historic claims through comprehensive and consistent settlements.
In 2002 National commits once again to strong political leadership in resolving the Treaty claims that still lie before us. We do so on the basis of our experience, and our ability to balance the interests of all New Zealanders in the interests of our shared future.
The Problem
The settlement process has stalled under the Labour/Alliance coalition Government. Settlements concluded within the term of this Government were initiated by National and any negotiations currently in train are unlikely to be resolved promptly.
Claims resolution has become bogged down because of a lack of leadership and commitment to the process, and the absence of adequate means and resources for pursuing it. A generic approach to negotiations cannot respond to the merits of each claim and there are inadequate processes to deal with cross claims and boundary issues to achieve timely resolution.
In addition, the presence of unresolved claims minimises the potential for New Zealanders to reconcile with each other and develop relationships that are mutually enhancing. Strong relationships built on equality and respect will assist our mutual understandings of the ongoing role of the Treaty of Waitangi and help us address our common future objectives.
Settling Historic Grievances and Moving On
The previous National government achieved bold settlements, including Fisheries and the Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu land settlements. The current administration has struggled to make any significant progress having managed only to bring closure to two further settlements both of which were well advanced by National. With over 900 claims on the Tribunal register, the pace of settlement is unacceptable.
National proposes an enhanced framework to advance the settlement of historic claims.
National appreciates the importance of the judicial role of the Waitangi Tribunal in providing a durable basis for the settlement of historic claims. The wish of many Maori to have their history placed before a judicial forum is understandable in the context of the greater responsibility on the Crown to restore to Maori a sense of justice and respect for the law.
The desire of all New Zealanders, however, to be able to reconcile our past and move forward, demands a political leadership that is unreservedly committed to that very objective.
National will ensure the proper resourcing and legislative support for the Waitangi Tribunal to enable it to complete its work in a more focussed and efficient manner.
National also proposes changes to the negotiations process that will challenge Government and Maori to an approach that results in more expeditious and timely settlements, while ensuring appropriate protections for claimants.
As the founding document of New Zealand, the Treaty created a nation based on the acceptance of difference, yet united in mutual aspirations of wealth and prosperity for all. In this context it was forward looking.
The Treaty provided for the organised settlement of New Zealand and acknowledged the Crown's common jurisdiction over all New Zealanders. While allowing for diversity, its promise was for a common citizenship and equality before the law.
The removal of the sense of injustice through the settlement of historic claims is an affirmation for Maori that our modern democracy can indeed deliver justice and equality, and guarantee for Maori their identity and culture.
The challenge for National is to create the environment that allows New Zealanders to flourish and grow. This requires of us to reconcile our past, and to encourage the resolution of ongoing Treaty issues through the exercise of our shared responsibility, and mutual obligations to each other.
National is more than capable of leading this reconciliation on the basis of our common citizenship, our growing diversity, our shared humanity and a desire on the part of all New Zealanders to grow and prosper together for our shared future.
National will:
One Standard of Citizenship
SOURCE: http://www.national.org.nz/
by
Hon Bill English
National Party Leader
Labour have been asked repeatedly in Parliament to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and they refuse to answer. The meaning of the Treaty in 2002 is fogged up by political correctness and a dread of open debate. The public are confronted with Treaty issues which offend commonsense while Maori worry that neither they nor the Treaty are understood. Government policy and judicial thinking are driven by vague assertions like "partnership" and "Treaty obligations" without common agreement on their meaning. We'd all be better off with more open and robust debate, and mutual respect for other points of view.
I believe in one standard of citizenship, where everyone has common rights and obligations as New Zealanders. Our common citizenship means we should resolve historic Treaty claims with good will and a sense of justice. It also mean we should be wary of Treaty talk that divides our citizens into two groups with different rights.
Demands for autonomous tribal government within New Zealand are unacceptable. That is tantamount to admitting that New Zealand as a country has been a failure for Maori, and we cannot accept that.
It's incredible that people are talking as if Maori autonomy is a foregone conclusion. We all acknowledge that the New Zealand and British Governments committed breaches of the Treaty but there is no need to apologise for being New Zealanders or to give up on our nation.
National will right the wrongs of the past by settling historic breaches of the Treaty fully and finally by 2008. National believes the Treaty plots a clear path ahead for New Zealand which lies between the extremes proposed by separatists on the one hand and by those who deny it.
There is a strong historical argument that the Treaty establishes one standard of citizenship for all under a single sovereignty.
British intentions in 1840 were clear - they wanted sovereignty over New Zealand (Article 1) to include Maori as British subjects (Article 3).
Maori had suffered devastation during the Musket Wars, when war lords overran other tribes. Traditional conflict resolution failed, at incredible cost to Maori themselves. Increasingly Maori saw British rule as the way to end conflict, and secure their land.
Both Maori and British could have chosen otherwise - New Zealand, or large parts of it, could have become a protectorate, in which case Maori would not have become British subjects. New Zealand could well have been partitioned between the French, British and Maori. However a liberal and humanitarian Colonial Office specifically intended to enter into an international treaty with Maori, to acquire their sovereignty.
The British had the best of intentions for settlers and Maori in 1840 but attitudes hardened. The 1860's brought war, and Maori subjection to the New Zealand Government. That's a separate issue from modern interpretations of what rangatiratanga means in the Treaty.
The Crown's sovereignty has been challenged since 1840 because Article 2 and the meaning of rangatiratanga have been misinterpreted or denied.
Tino rangatiratanga has a place. It affirms self-determination, but not a separate and unextinguished sovereignty over lands and taonga. If Article 1 was about ceding sovereignty, Article 3 about common citizenship, then Article 2 confirmed existing property rights under the Crown for the Chiefs, placing inter-tribal differences under one rule of law.
Rangatiratanga in Article 2 is not therefore about self-rule, but self-determination. It signals to Government that its policies should encourage self-reliance and self-determination at an individual as well as a tribal level, rather than dependency.
This is a sound principle for all New Zealanders.
It has been argued that where a treaty is in two different texts, interpretation should always favour the text of the indigenous people - the legal doctrine of contra preferentem. It should not, however, apply to an international treaty such as the Treaty of Waitangi.
New Zealand is a signatory to the 1969 UN Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 33 states that where two texts are in dispute, both versions should be reconciled in light of both parties' original objectives. This is commonsense and a sound principle from international law. This is the basis of an on-going two-way Treaty relationship, not contra preferentem.
We reject proposals in recent television documentaries that New Zealand should be partitioned into autonomous, tribal governments.
Rejection of separatism is consistent with New Zealand's reality in 2040, when about one-third of us will claim Maori whakapapa. New Zealanders will then be more of a fusion; increasingly one people.
Moving forward means ending the litany of misery. We need to replace the expectation that Maori are bound to fail with an expectation that Maori can and will succeed in fulfilling their potential. We should encourage aspiration, not dependency.
Maori need to use the assets that they already have, so that they can participate in the economy far more successfully. Ambitious and disruptive constitutional schemes aimed at iwi-states will not give them either the tools or skill-base. Maori need every opportunity to be more self-reliant, successful, participants in the community, freed from State-induced dependency.
The first step forward must be to resolve past grievances. We will require all historic claims to be on the table by December 2003, so we know what they are. To our knowledge, all major historic claims are already on the table.
By expressing a strong will to resolve claims, it is fair to expect claimants to bring their grievance to the table, so they can be addressed.
We will resource the Waitangi Tribunal to complete settlements by 2008 and establish a full-time Chief Negotiator of Treaty Claims to work to a full-time Minister of Treaty Claims.
What do we want for our children out of this?:-A New Zealand with a common sense of purpose between Maori, the wider public and the Government. Only then can we hand on to our children the united and tolerant country in which we would want them to live.
PANZ RANKING = [3] 'Acceptable'
NZ First partly deals with the two central difficulties with the Treaty - 'historic' claims and settlements, and contempory claims and new-found favourable treatment by government under vague Treaty 'principles'. The merits of the policies must be tempered by the reality that when in Government, NZ First did not deliver on similar sentiments.
NZ First
Race Relations
SOURCE: http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policy/racerelations.htm
"What on earth is this country doing, with hundreds of quasi-governmental groups making all sorts of interpretations, which the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Government are not prepared to own up to, and how are ordinary New Zealanders to understand where they fit into this long term policy making, when the Government has no idea what the principles are?"
Winston Peters.
Race relations - if mishandled - has the potential to destroy this country. Without a united society all our hopes, aspirations and dreams as a nation will count for nothing -because we will no longer be a nation.
New Zealand's approach to race relations must not rely on wishful thinking, make-believe or denial. We must start by acknowledging the facts which are that Maori are over represented in the statistics of social failure:
These are conditions that demand action. They must be faced up to and tackled. We cannot accept that any group of New Zealanders should face the prospect of enduring disadvantage - and let 's not forget that one in seven New Zealanders is a Maori.
But the current approach - far from improving the position of Maori and the state of race relations is having the opposite effect. Over the past 15 years, a huge amount of this country's resources in the form of money, time, and intellect has apparently been devoted to overcoming Maori disadvantage but that Maori disadvantage persists.
The main cause and culprit for the abysmal failure of the present approach to race relations is the thinking, the culture and the fraternity that has grown up around the Treaty of Waitangi. Currently over 30 pieces of major legislation refer to the Treaty or its principles.
In 2001 Mathew Palmer, Dean of Law at Victoria University, pointed to the dangers of infecting legislation with vague and generic reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. The incorporation of these vague and generic references to Treaty principles is eating away and undermining the legal and constitutional basis of our country. We have seen Treaty clauses included in international trade agreements!
A Treaty that should be a symbol of what unites and binds us as nation has become perverted into a source of division, rancour and resentment.
A Treaty that should be a source of national pride, has instead turned into a source of enrichment for a select few claiming to serve the interests of Maori.
What is required is a new approach, an approach that does not imply suppressing differences or requiring any New Zealander to deny their heritage or origins or imposing some sort of common culture but one which involves having a solid foundation and a shared understanding of what it means to be a New Zealander first. Without that secure foundation, our differences, and they are many in our multicultural society, will divide and separate us, rather than enrich us as New Zealanders.
For well over 130 years we have had two electoral sytems in New Zealand. The Maori Representation Act of 1867 provided a practical solution to voting entitlements which were then based on land ownership. That is no longer the case and there is little evidence that their has been any real advantage to Maori in this separate political representation. While we do not favour a separate electoral franchise such constitutional change should be the result of a decision by the people, not by a group of politicians.
This policy acknowledges the origins within "Ka Awatea " that the people must be able to fully participate in the future development of our country. Education is the key to upward mobility. Good health, sound housing and adequate employment opportunities are not colour barred.
New Zealand First will:
PANZ RANKING = [2] 'Poor'
In 1999 United led the field with a well-developed Treaty policy founded on Liberal principles of reason, knowledge and justice, rather than political correctness. The 2002 policy occupies so much middle ground, with some PC thrown in, as to be ineffectual. While the party is responding to public alarm about endless 'historical' grievances, it fails to address the underlying cause of expanding Treaty misapplication or the growing issue of contemporary claims arising from legislative 'principles of the Treaty'. It is unclear how the Treaty could be "an instrument of reconciliation" or how all New Zealanders could invoke its terms without fuelling a permanent state of aggrievement throughout society.
United Future
Treaty Policy
SOURCE: http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/treaty.
html
United Future New Zealand is committed to addressing Treaty of Waitangi issues in a manner which benefits all New Zealanders.
It is not considered to be in the best interests of Aotearoa New Zealand to lock a significant section of the population into a grievance mentality so United supports the policy of attempting to remedy provable historical grievances for all New Zealanders.
Principles
UNITED FUTURE WILL
Notable Points
United Future's response to PANZ Charter-
Maori Claims
United Future does not
agree with your proposal to abolish the Waitangi Tribunal. Substituting
the High Court would not achieve the any change since the High
Court is marred by the same judicial activism as the Tribunal
and would deliver more expensively the same sort of finding. United
Future considers that the principles of the Treaty should be embodied
in legislation so that any proposal to extend them has to pass
through the parliamentary process and be subject to parliamentary
scrutiny. United Future agrees that 'partnership' or 'co-management'
of the conservation estate needs to be granted very carefully.
PANZ Comment
Judicial activism has arisen because Parliament has provided the invitation to the Courts and Tribunal to be 'creative', through insertion of vague refererences to the Treaty and Treaty 'principles' into legislation. PANZ is very sceptical that Parliament can do any better job of defining (and hence limiting) what these 'principles' are, given that the Government cannot and will not define them. Removal of such references from law is the only prudent course. PANZ does not advocate that 'partnership' " needs to be granted very carefully" - duel control over public lands should not be granted at all.
Christian Heritage Party: no specific policies
Jim Anderton's Progressive
Coalition: no policies
available: web site inoperative
One NZ Party: platform of racial equality, but no specific policies.
Outdoor Recreation
NZ: no specific
policies, however -
Regularly seek counsel from New Zealand's outdoor recreational organisations, lobby groups and users
Back to: 2002 election guide to party policies
