Susan Wood interviews Te Ururoa Flavell and David Round
Susan Wood interviews Te Ururoa Flavell and David
Round
Maori Party says discussion
around role of Treaty of Waitangi in NZ’s Constitution
will not go away
The Maori Party’s Te
Ururoa Flavell told TV One’s Q+A programme that the
current review of NZ’s Constitution was a way forward for
both Maori and non-Maori in order to bring the country
together under one agreed law.
The Maori Party
negotiated a Constitutional review into its Coalition
Agreement talks with the National Party after the 2008
election. A panel of 12 New Zealanders is looking into the
pros and cons of having a constitution written down in a
single document, the role of the Bill of Rights 1990 in a
constitution, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in our
constitution, how Maori views should be represented in
national and local government, and electoral issues such as
the size of Parliament and the length of its term, as set
out in the Review’s Terms of Reference.
Mr
Flavell said that even if nothing came from this review, the
issue would not disappear.
“Treaty rights are not
going to go away. On the 6th of February every year, the
discussion will be exactly the same, and until such time as
we enter into the dialogue about how Treaty rights can be
brought to the fore and recognised for Maori and also
obligations on the Treaty partner – Te Taha Tiriti –
then we will always be in conflict, because they will not
have been settled. I mean, justice delayed is justice
denied,” Mr Flavell told Q+A host Susan Wood.
But a group opposed to the Constitution’s review
say it’s a major threat to NZ’s
democracy.
David Round says until there is
consensus on the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi and the
principles within it then it has no place in the
Constitution.
“The principles are simply modern
political interpretations, and essentially they are the
distillation of whatever Maori choose to claim next. And so,
for example, we have various Maori saying it is not the
Maori way to bind future generations, and therefore there
will inevitably be another round of Treaty claims in another
generation. Now, if our Treaty principles were in the
constitution and judges were to say, ‘Oh yes, that’s the
case – Maori can’t bind future generations,’ then in a
generation’s time, we would find courts declaring that
current full and final settlements are not full and final,
and we will have claims forever.
“I think that
for the last generation, we have actually been heading in
the direction of increasing separatism in this country, and
this strapping and snarling is actually leading us further
towards an apartheid state, which is where we’re going to
end up if we’re not really careful,” Mr Round
said.
But Mr Flavell said that the issue would not
go away, so it was important to have a discussion on where
the Treaty fitted within a Constitution so that as many
voices could be heard as possible.
“We as a Maori
Party and as a political movement are part of a bigger
history about the recognition of Treaty rights in this
country. Simply because we happened to take it off the
agenda at a political level, it won’t stop… so for
anybody to believe that it’s just going to fall off the
table by itself and nothing come of it, they’ll be
dreaming. That’s why we need to have a good discussion
about it,” Mr Flavell said.
Q+A, 9-10am
Sundays on TV ONE and one hour later on TV ONE
plus 1. Repeated Sunday evening at 11:30pm.
Streamed live at www.tvnz.co.nz.
Thanks to the support from NZ
On
Air.
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA
and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
Q + A – April 28,
2013
TE URUROA
FLAVELL
Maori Party
MP
and
DAVID
ROUND
Independent Constitutional
Review
Interviewed by SUSAN
WOOD
SUSAN
Te Ururoa, good morning to you.
TE
URUROA Tena koe,
Susan.
SUSAN
How can the Treaty principles be enshrined in some sort of
written constitution when there's still so much disagreement
on what they actually mean and how they can be
applied?
TE URUROA
Well, I think we’ve got to go back to the very starting
point that constitutions for us are about promises. They are
a declaration, if you like, about how we want to move
forward as a country. They are sort of not road maps, per
se, with detailed instructions, but very much around
sign-posting things that we should have in front of us. The
Treaty of Waitangi is our promissory note that sets a way
forward for the country for both you and I,
and—
SUSAN
So if that promissory note were to be enshrined in a written
constitution, everything we did would have to run through an
1840 document, essentially, wouldn’t it?
TE
URUROA Well, certainly
that’s a part of the discussion to be had, but, I mean,
the Treaty sets out rights and obligations on you and I as
Treaty partners, and at this point in time, the big picture
is that 60 per cent of New Zealanders say it is our founding
document, according to a Human Rights Commission report last
year. Fifty-one per cent say it belongs to us. Against that
background, look, the Treaty of Waitangi must be a part of
any discussion around the constitution for our
country.
SUSAN
Very different, though, a founding document to actually
making it work in 2013 and beyond, isn’t it?
TE
URUROA Well, I mean, I think
people have struggled over the years with how to make it
work in a practical sense, whether that be in hospitals and
schools or whatever. This opportunity is great for us as a
country, because it allows us to enter into that debate to
find out the big-picture items, as your other speaker talked
about, enshrining the issues of the Treaty into the
constitution of the country, but also it may well be a
dropout to practical implementation of Treaty principles at
the
workplace.
SUSAN
Let me bring David Round in here. Good morning to you, Mr
Round. You said in a speech this month that including the
Treaty in the constitution is a con job. What do you mean by
that?
DAVID
I mean
that Maori themselves know, many of them, perfectly well
that this is not what the Treaty actually promised. What the
Treaty actually said was that we all were to be one people
under the Queen’s law. And at the time of the last round
of full and final settlements, which we’re now coming to
the end of, the promise then was that after those full and
final settlements were gone and settled, we would move
forward as one nation. And yet we find ourselves constantly
now being subject to more and more extreme claims, of which
this one is just the
latest.
SUSAN
But let me just stop you there. If we regard the Treaty of
Waitangi as our founding document – we’ve just heard Mr
Flavell refer to it as that, and I think it’s a pretty
common acceptance that that’s what it is – what is the
harm in entrenching it in a written
constitution?
DAVID
Well,
because there is no certainty at all as to what the
principles are. The principles as given by the courts are
simply a list of platitudes. The courts themselves have said
that those principles are going to grow, and the principles
as they are misinterpreted now are actually the very
contrary of what the Treaty actually said. Mr Flavell talked
about the principle of partnership. There is no partnership
between the Queen and her subject, yet nevertheless if we
have partnership enshrined in our fundamental constitutional
document, then that is going to give equal rights to a small
minority of the population with the rest of the
population.
SUSAN
So are you saying that Maori will get special privileges? I
think you’re quoted as saying, in fact, that it would make
all non-Maori second-class
citizens.
DAVID
That’s got to be
inevitable.
SUSAN
How? How does it do
that?
DAVID
Simply because the Treaty is misinterpreted now to mean that
Maori have special privileges in our constitution. The
principles are simply modern political interpretations, and
essentially they are the distillation of whatever Maori
choose to claim next. And so, for example, we have various
Maori saying it is not the Maori way to bind future
generations, and therefore there will inevitably be another
round of Treaty claims in another generation. Now, if our
Treaty principles were in the constitution and judges were
to say, “Oh yes, that’s the case – Maori can’t bind
future generations,” then in a generation’s time, we
would find courts declaring that current full and final
settlements are not full and final, and we will have claims
forever.
SUSAN
Mr Flavell, let me get you to respond to that.
TE
URUROA Which part? Let me
start with one or two things in the first
part.
SUSAN
Well, actually, specifically that the claims will go on
forever, for example – not binding future
generations.
TE
URUROA Well, I mean, Mr
Round talks about the extreme desires on Maoridom and
possibly being subject to special treatment. I mean, if Mr
Round believes that getting two per cent of the real value
of Treaty claims back to Maoridom is special privilege, then
I think he’s badly, badly informed. Second point is, that
of course, the problem that is in front of us here is that
there's different interpretations of the Treaty. In that
sense, he’s right. But the one thing that we haven’t
come to agreement about is that there are two versions.
Clearly one written in Maori, one written in English. My
understanding is that that Maori is one is certainly the one
that’s bought into by most Maori in this country as a way
forward for us to move. The downside is, of course, that the
government has a different view, and that’s why this
discussion is so important. If it is that it’s cause for
so much concern for at least just the small minority of
people that Mr Round might represent, what we do need to do
is have this discussion, and this panel is one way of
opening the discussion, following up on efforts in the past
by people like Sir Paul Reeves to open discussion
up.
SUSAN
But if it were to be entrenched, it would give Maori special
privileges. It could make non-New Zealanders second-class
citizens— uh, non-Maori second-class citizens, couldn’t
it?
TE URUROA Look,
the Treaty is about us working and being together. It’s
not about taking away somebody else’s rights to give to
me. What it is about
is—
SUSAN
But it gives Maori special rights, doesn’t it?
TE
URUROA Say that again,
sorry.
SUSAN
Does it give Maori special right? That’s Mr Round’s
point.
TE URUROA
Well, as I said, treaties are about rights and obligations
that were signed in 1840. From a Maori perspective, they
continue to be relevant, and the discussion must be about
those rights and obligations for me as a Maori, but also all
other New Zealanders, and that’s why, as I say, this
discussion is so
important.
SUSAN
Mr Round, do you agree the discussion is an important one to
be having right
now?
DAVID
Well, yes, but the trouble is I think the terms of the
discussion are indeed stacked, as Professor Joseph pointed
out. The terms of reference of this panel themselves are
set, and indeed a large number of New Zealanders have never
even heard of this, and I’m afraid that the people who are
going to make their views known to the panel are mostly
going to be the vocal extremists – Mr Flavell’s
friends.
SUSAN
Mr Flavell, he has a point – it does seem that we often
hear the same voices.
TE
URUROA Well, maybe so, but
he says that we haven’t heard too much about this panel.
Well, I don’t see what the point is. At the end of the
day, Mr Round has accused this panel of having a
pre-determined outcome. Well, if we look at it, Mr Round’s
group also seem to have a pre-determined outcome that there
should be no reference to the Treaty in this discussion.
What we must do is focus on bringing the country together.
This is a way forward to do that. Treaty rights are not
going to go away. On the 6th of February every year, the
discussion will be exactly the same, and until such time as
we enter into the dialogue about how Treaty rights can be
brought to the fore and recognised for Maori and also
obligations on the Treaty partner – te Taha Tiriti –
then we will always be in conflict, because they will not
have been settled. I mean, justice delayed is justice
denied.
SUSAN
Mr Round, you also say— well, you actually said in the
same speech that I referenced before – we cannot trust the
judges, and one of your concerns is that if the Treaty were
to be entrenched in a written constitution, the power would
move from Parliament to the
judges.
DAVID
Well, that’s right. As in the United States – the United
States Supreme Court can actually strike down legislation,
and indeed already our Chief Justice – fortunately not
from the bench – has actually said that she considers
herself entitled right now to strike down democratically
made acts of Parliament. Now, if that happens, that would be
tyranny. That would be as much a coup d’état as if armed
men entered Parliament and drove the members out at
gunpoint. And of course, from the decisions of the judges,
there is simply no appeal. We would be subject forever to
judges’ possibly radical interpretation of Treaty
principles.
TE
URUROA
Susan—
DAVID
That’s very frightening. That would be an end to democracy
and the rule of
law.
SUSAN
Let me get Mr Flavell in here. Let me get Mr Flavell in
here.
TE URUROA
Susan, the sorry part about this is that Mr Round and his
group are already pre-determining the outcome of the
discussion. For him to say that this will happen and that
will happen, even before the discussion has actually
concluded, is basically scaremongering, and what we need to
do is move past that, have the discussion, allow the debate.
He and his group should be allowed to go along to the
discussion panels and have their say, just as much as
Maoridom under the Iwi Leadership Group should have their
say. Put it on the table, but let’s not pre-determine the
outcome. The hope will be that we actually bring forward a
document that brings together the views over a four-year
period, which is a long discussion in some regards, to make
sure that what we come out with – the end outcome – will
be something that we can all live with. But to scaremonger
against that is really out of
order.
SUSAN
You are really, though, committed, aren’t you, Mr Flavell
– certainly in your personal view and the Maori Party view
– to getting, if you could, the Treaty entrenched in some
sort of written constitution.
TE
URUROA Yes, that’s the
view, but let’s just put this in context as well. I mean,
the constitution review has five parts to it. It talks about
the Bill of Rights – something that has enshrined through
English law. We have electoral representation, Maori
representation. We have the Treaty and whether that should
be enshrined or not, and we… the bigger picture with
respect to all laws in the country. Let the discussion go.
Let’s have the
discussion.
SUSAN
Mr Round, we should be having this discussion around all
those things, shouldn’t
we?
DAVID
Well, yes, and of course we are contributing to the
discussion. We’re not pre-empting it. We are contributing
to it. But in fact all these other things are actually a
smokescreen, because there is only one purpose behind this
review – the Maori Party isn’t concerned about the
number of MPs in Parliament or any of these other things.
The Maori Party is concerned about just one thing. This is
the big push, and if they succeed in this big push, then our
country will be stuffed
forever.
SUSAN
Mr Flavell, I need you to respond to that. I think he’s
saying “if you get the Treaty into the constitution, our
country is stuffed forever”, was the quote.
TE
URUROA Well, as I say,
that’s just scaremongering. At the end of the day, the
Maori Party went into this relationship with the National
Party to achieve a goal, which was to look at a document
that is about bringing people together, living together,
working together, carrying on in this country, building a
country that we’ll all be proud of. There have been some
issues along the way with respect to how the Treaty has
worked or has not worked for Maoridom and indeed the country
over the last 150 years. And in fact, legislation in this
country deliberately got rid of it and chose it to be a
nullity. Over the last— Since 1975, at least, there's been
a concerted effort by governments to at least put it on the
table. This is a part of the on-going discussion that we
need to have into the
future.
SUSAN
If you don’t—
TE
URUROA For anyone to
consider that we’re doing this for one means to an end,
then they’re simply wrong and it’s scaremongering, and I
hope that New Zealanders contribute to the discussion in a
bigger
way.
SUSAN
If, from your perspective, there's not a recommendation to
entrench the Treaty in some sort of written constitution, is
that failure?
TE
URUROA No, I think—Well,
it’s something that will be
on-going—
SUSAN
So you just keep ticking away?
TE
URUROA I mean, the Maori
Party’s going to be around for a
while.
SUSAN
If it doesn’t work this time, it’s something you’ll
keep working on?
TE
URUROA Oh, absolutely. I
mean, look, we as a Maori Party and as a political movement
are part of a bigger history about the recognition of Treaty
rights in this country. Simply because we happened to take
it off the agenda at a political level, it won’t stop. The
Ratana Church movement, for example, have had it on the
table since way back when, so for anybody to believe that
it’s just going to fall off the table by itself and
nothing come of it, they’ll be dreaming. That’s why we
need to have a good discussion about
it.
SUSAN
Quick final question: do you think this review is bringing
us closer together or – we’ve heard some different
views, of course, from Mr Round this morning – or taking
us apart as peoples?
TE
URUROA Look, I suspect that
Mr Round’s group are really just a minority group. The
good thing about the panel that’s been pulled together –
it’s 12 high-powered, highly intellectual people that are
on the ground listening to the views of New Zealanders, have
a background in this sort of stuff and constitutional
issues. We also have a Maori working party through the Iwi
Leaders Group, and of course there's the other one –
Muriel Newman – who has her group out there somewhere
trying to get views in. At the end of the day, I look
forward to the discussion and hope that we don’t pre-empt
it. Let it run, let’s see what comes out of it and the
hope will be, against the background that 60 per cent of New
Zealanders say that the Treaty of Waitangi belongs to all of
us, then I’m hoping that they see that there is a part to
be played by them and myself as Treaty partners in the
future of our country at a very high
level.
SUSAN
Sure. I need to give Mr Round a quick last work. Mr Round,
same question – do you think that a review like this
brings us— At least we’re having the conversation. Do
you think it brings us closer as
people?
DAVID
No, I think that for the last generation, we have actually
been heading in the direction of increasing separatism in
this country, and this strapping and snarling is actually
leading us further towards an apartheid state, which is
where we’re going to end up if we’re not really careful.
We seem to assume that whatever we do, everything is always
going to be fine. But countries can ruin themselves through
their own folly, and that is actually a possibility for our
own poor country
here.
SUSAN
Thank you very much both for your time this morning. David
Round from Wellington and Te Ururoa Flavell, who was in
Rotorua.
ENDS