Paul Goldsmith: Treaty Negotiations Minister believes the Treaty Principles Bill is a poor way to address topic

The National Party is standing by their choice to go against ACT's controversial Treaty Principles Bill.

A haka by Te Pāti Māori MPs interrupted the first reading of the contentious bill today, causing Parliament to be briefly suspended.

Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says National believes the bill is no way to deal with a difficult and sensitive topic. 

"Our view is - yes, address these issues, but the best way to do it is issue by issue."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now the Treaty Principals Bill has finally this afternoon passed
its first reading, but scenes earlier Parliament was suspended after
opposition parties, particularly the Maori Party and people in the
public gallery, interrupted the vote with a huge hucker. Willie

(00:28):
Jackson from Labor got himself thrown out after calling David
Seymour a liar and refusing to withdraw and apologize. Prime
Minister Chris Luxon wasn't there to speak, but National's Paul Goldsmith,
who's obviously the Justice Minister, had that job for him. Paul, Hello, Hello,
I'm very well, thank you. So it seems to me
National's argument, which we've finally got, is basically twofold. Number one,

(00:49):
this bill is too simplistic for dealing with a complex issue.
Number two, it's distracting you guys from getting New Zealand
back on track. Is that about right?

Speaker 2 (00:58):
No, I would expand on that and to say, yes,
it's a crude way to handle a very sensitive topic.
This thuty years of legislation that would be overturned in
the stroke of a pen. But secondly, our plan, we
believe is better because there are issues that need to
be dealt with in terms of where the Treaty sits
today and how we navigate our way between the desire

(01:21):
to honor the Treaty but also move away from the
psick expectations of people living in a modern democratic society.
And so our view is that we've got to do
that issue by issue, which is what we're doing on
the Marine Coastal area when we're talking about Marie Health Authority,
all those things issue by issue, rather than just trying
to do it with one sweep of the pen on

(01:41):
one bill, which is too simplistic.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Do you broadly agree or at all agree with David
Seymour when he says the courts have gone way too
activist on this in deciding that the principles of partnership exist.
For example, look.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
There's a Minister of Justice. It's a good way to
get sectors to criticize the judiciary directly. I think that
the the onus on Parliament is to be clear about
what we mean in legislation, and so, you know, one
of the things that I'm going to be focusing on
next year in terms of the Treaty is going through
all the twenty ape or so major references in legislation
to the treaty and its principles and going through and

(02:17):
being very clear about what we do and what we
don't mean, and that I think is the role of
Parliament to be clearer about what we mean.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
Level the most egregious principle, at least from the Act
Party's point of view, is the principle that this is
a partnership. Do you agree that the treaty is a partnership.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
Well, look, that has been a legal sort of interpretation
put down every over the past few years. But what
exactly that means in any given circumstances is a debatable point.
But the vaguest Parliament is in its legislation, the more
room for interpretation there is. And so that precisely is

(02:57):
what we want to be clear. You know, when it
comes to the Act and the Education Act, and they've all.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
Got these very big This is to the very heart
of what the Act Party is saying. Right, the courts
are coming up with principles like this, and then you
and I go, okay, well the principle exists, but your
interpretation of the principle is different to my interpretation of
the principle of partnership, which is not in the treaty.
This is a made up principle, and so what the
act party wants to do is be very clear about

(03:22):
what the principles are and what they mean. I mean,
there's some logic to that, isn't there.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Well, But the point is that this has been This
is not sort of developed a last week or the
week before. It's been over thirty five years. And just
to sort of come along with one act, wampa, you're gone,
and then put it to a referendum the majority will
probably you know, win, and that it's no way to
sort of deal with what is a very sensitive and

(03:47):
difficult topic. And so our viewers, yes, address these issues
for the best way to do it is issue by issue.
So you know, we're dealing with the marine and coastal space.
We're dealing with that and we sought that out. Now,
if you're talking about the role with local government, you've
got to sort that out. But at holdess a Bottles
just like that is not a recipe to actually have

(04:07):
sustainable sort of good relations and that's what we want
to achieve.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
Listen, Paul. On another subject, is the media bill dead?

Speaker 2 (04:17):
Now, I wouldn't say that, but we're working our way
through that. I'd never said it was an easy or
simple matter, and so we haven't quite got to a
situation where we can bring it back to the house yet,
but as soon as I am able to let you
know about it, I.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
Will, as Google got you over a barrel.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
No, but we're dealing with, you know, a rapidly changing
media landscape and evolving international situation and so I'm just
working my way through what's the best outcome that we
can get for New Zealand. And so you know we
haven't got something to say, we will good.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
Stuff, hey, Paul, Thank you very much as always Paul Goldsmith,
Justice Minister. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive and
Live to News Talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio