Richard Prebble: former ACT Party leader explains decision to step away from the Waitangi Tribunal

A combination of factors led to former ACT Party leader Richard Prebble stepping away from the Waitangi Tribunal.

He's resigned after being appointed in October.

The tribunal was established in 1975 in a bid to deal with unresolved Treaty grievances.

Prebble claims the Tribunal doesn't take any notice of Parliament - and says it believes there's two Treaties.

He says it's creating more grievances.

"It's a rewriting of history - and I know historians do re-interpret history, but one thing you can't do is you can't bend facts."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
In the days of resignations, Richard Prebble has stood down
from the White Tongue Tribunal. He says the Tribunal has
turned the treaty into a socialist manifesto and he wants
no part of it. Richard Prebble's the former AT Party leader,
now former White Tongue Tribunal member and Labor MP. Good Evening.
Good Evening had a range of texts on this this afternoon.

(00:22):
Some people saying, what did you expect going into this
because you've only been there since October? Did you not
realize this is what it would be like there?

Speaker 2 (00:33):
That's a reasonable question. I've been following the Tribunal for
fifty years and reading its various decisions, but I have
to confess that I had not appreciated that the Tribunal

(00:53):
ten years ago basically said it wasn't bound to follow
its previous rulings that I'd be reading, and had decided
that actually there wasn't one treaty, that there was two,
and it basically turned the treaty on its head. The

(01:15):
second thing that I don't know if I really appreciate it,
but the effect of it turning it on its head
has turned the Tribunal into the body that creates grievances
rather than solving them. One of their rulings is that
for those who Article three of the treaty basically made

(01:36):
everyone British citizens, that Tribunal has ruled, but the citizen
clause means that the government must make everyone equal. Well,
I'm no government anywhere in the world never managed to
do that. Governments can fry, but people will never be equal.

(01:58):
You give people opportunities, take them, some don't. But then
to say that the fact that we're not equal is
a breach of the fitting means you can bring claims
basically against the government for every single government program there is.
And then looking at the strategic plan, which no, I

(02:20):
couldn't look at before I was a member of the Tribunal.
In fact, I only got it myself a couple of
weeks ago. When I looked at that strategic plan, I
saw that the tribunalists forecasting a huge increase in claims
and its workload. And again it seems to me the
tribunals turned its function on its head. And I was

(02:43):
part of the Parliament that helps extend the Tribunal and
the purpose of the Tribunal was to resolve grievances, not
to create them.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
You're talking about economic equality, right, that's what they are
striving for, and you've said that, you know it's socialist
to think that we that we should all be equal
on an economic footing.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
Well, I mean, I've done my best as a as
a minister to actually try to reduce inequalities in New Zealand.
But I've never been silly enough to believe that society
will ever be equal. You give people opportunities and some
people take them and others don't. That's just the that's
the that's a fact of life everywhere, except apparently on

(03:30):
the Tribunal, which now now says that the treaty as
they've interpreted, means that the government has a duty to
make sure that everyone everyone's equal. Well, I hate to
break it to them, but no government, I mean even
if a Marray party got into office, God help us,
they couldn't do it. What no one's done it, No communist,

(03:51):
no communist government anywhere in the world has managed to
achieve it. And to suddenly say a treaty which is
only tree clauses long, which basically says the ground sovereign,
the property rights are to be predicted, and that we're
all citizens is now being interpreted, as I say, into
it as a socialist manifesto. And there's been a lot

(04:16):
of criticism of David Seymour for suggesting the principles of
the treaty. But the tribunals actually invented the most of
these so called principles, but just not to be found
either in the English or or the married text. And
much as some people obviously would love the treaties who

(04:39):
have said these things, they weren't said in eighteen forty
and you can't say them now.

Speaker 1 (04:47):
What is the point of you mentioned in your column
for the Herald today, the fact that the tribunal can
make rulings and the government can just ignore them anyway,
It doesn't really matter. It's now going ag against some
of the rulings that it has self itself has made
in the past. I mean, what is the point here?

Speaker 2 (05:08):
You mean point of the tribunal?

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Yeah? Yeah, what should it be?

Speaker 2 (05:11):
Oh? The normal the normal way that legal bodies act,
as they have great respects for previous previous rulings, because
that leads to stability. But when you suddenly have a
tribunal that announces that it doesn't have to take any
notice of the courts, it's not taking any notice of Parliament,

(05:33):
and then says it doesn't have to take notice of
forty years of rulings by previous tribunals, and that it
can suddenly say that there are two treaties, that the
treaties aren't and aren't translations of each other. I mean,
that'll come a great surprise to the people who translated it.

(05:53):
And it's a rewriting of It's a rewriting of history.
And I know historians do reinterpret history, but one thing
you can't do is you can vent Thanks.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
Thanks very much for your time. I'm Richard. I'll just
find him before you go. Willie Jackson said, this is
a stunt? Is this a stunt?

Speaker 2 (06:13):
A stunt?

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Yes, stunt?

Speaker 2 (06:16):
Bye? Who by me? By you? Yeah? Resigning, Well, that's
an interesting way of putting it. I put a lot
of a lot of thought before I decided that I
that I would resign. I mean, I'm a confession to you,
I'm now seventy seven, and I thought to myself, am
I going to fit on this tribunal as a lone

(06:39):
voice saying this is lenacy and with no one listening
to me. No, I'm not. I don't agree with what
is what is happening, and I think I've got a
duty to resign, and I've got a duty to tell
people why I've resigned. I don't particularly want to be
in the news, but you're entitled.

Speaker 1 (06:58):
To know, fair enough. In other words, you're too old
for this, you're over at Richard, Hi, thanks for your
time this evening. Really appreciate it. Richard Preeble, who's no
longer a member of the White Thing, he tried burnal
seventeen to six.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live to
news talks.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.