Hon Derek Quigley MP ACT New Zealand
Wednesday 28th Jul 1999 Derek Quigley Media Release -- Governance & Constitution
Text of Speech to Urgent Parliamentary Debate on Maori Language - Te Reo Parliament, Tuesday 27 July 1999
As the first person to participate in this debate who does not have any Maori blood, I want to start by saying that I
have some reservations about some of the implications that I have heard so far during the course of this debate.
I raise that point, not because I do not think the Maori language is important, or, might I say, to my friend Tariana
Turia out of any disrespect for Maori or what Maori hold dear to them. I raise it for three specific reasons. Let me
deal with those.
The first issue that I raise is that I think this debate has the potential to deal with what I term 'the feel-good
factor', or political correctness. Before today's debate I took the trouble to get out the original Maori Language
Legislation of 1987. I noticed that one of the crucial clauses was amended in 1991. It is worth quoting from the first
part of that before I lead on to the particular point that I want to make on this particular area. The title of the
Maori Language Act states: "Än Act to declare the Maori language to be an official language of New Zealand, to confer
the right to speak Maori in certain legal proceedings, and to establish" - and I use the European word; the Maori
Language Commission-"and define its functions and powers."
I cannot help but recall the debate that we had a few days ago in this very chamber on a piece of legislation where we
considered a number of recommendations by illustrious bodies. One of those illustrious bodies was the Maori Language
Commission, which had comments to make on whether the word "whanau" could be used with the English language. The Maori
Language Commission said, no. It was appropriate to use all English words or to use all Maori words. In its wisdom, this
House voted to take the word "whanau" out of the title to that particular piece of legislation. I said that I thought
the approach that was being adopted at that particular time was precious. Why did I say that? I said it for, I think,
very good reason.
We continually use in our language Maori words on their own. We continually use English words on their own. And we
continually use a combination of both Maori and English words. What I said was that I was speaking last week in the
place of Donna Awatere Huata. There is an illustration of what I think is the preciousness of the Maori Language
Commission in so far as its recommendation was concerned. "Donna" is not a Maori word and it is used with the two
surnames, " Awatere Huata". I was searching around the House for another illustration of the use by some other Member of
Parliament, or a potential Member of Parliament, of an English name and a Maori name together. I thought, after I had
sat down: "Why didn't I use the words John Tamihere?" We are all perfectly comfortable, are we not, to use those two
words together, just as we are perfectly comfortable to use the words " Donna Awatere Huata'' together, and a whole host
of other words, which other members, I am sure, can bring to mind. That is the first point I want to make.
The feel-good factor, if it is carried through to its logical conclusion, can get us carried away by political
correctness. I want to lead on to some other points from that. The second point, which I think raises some concern,
certainly, as far as I am concerned, is what I deem as the ''slippery slope context''. I think there may well be some
who are pushing things like an exclusive bicultural society in New Zealand. When I say that I do not think that New
Zealand is a bicultural society, I do not believe that is a denigration of wither Maori or non-Maori. I think it is a
recognition that New Zealand is comprised of a whole host of races. The signature of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the
treaty of Waitangi itself, is a very, very important part of New Zealand's culture and New Zealand's history. But it
does not mean to say that we have got in this country an exclusive bicultural society, or that the Treaty of Waitangi,
as some would have us believe, set up a status called Maori sovereignty. So I think we need to question these things in
a constructive sort of way. That really leads me on to the third point that I want to make. I do not know that this
debating chamber -- because of the word ''debate'' that is centred on it - is necessarily the best sort of forum for us
to discuss these sorts of issues. A debate, as we all know, is about people taking sides. One side puts forward its
argument and another puts forward the counter-argument. Because we have seen it here so many times, we know that in the
course of debate, people very rarely change their points of view.
So what we should be doing, instead of debating these sorts of issues, is talking about them so that we can develop the
best points of view that we can use to the advantage of all New Zealanders. Let me raise some of the issues that I think
we should be talking about instead of focusing on the narrow issues that we have heard so far during the course of this
debate. How do we as a country develop equality between all the races in this country? How do we establish a situation
where we have one law that all New Zealanders are comfortable with? If we are to establish something like that, we have
to recognise people's differences, we have to set up a structure so that people can enjoy their own culture, so that
they can profess and practice their own religion. I think that we have to go beyond that. We have to look at things we
do not normally talk about, like the contemporary status of the Treaty of Waitangi - the document that was signed in
1840. What does that document mean to New Zealanders today? How can we take the best from that document and use it to
the advantage of all New Zealanders. Finally, what I really worry about is that we spend our time talking about these
issues without focusing on the real cause of disadvantage in New Zealand. How do we get access to good education? How do
we get access to good health? How do we get jobs for all New Zealanders? The worry I have is that we may well save the
Maori language but destroy the Maori people and, at the same time, destroy a crucial part of New Zealand's history. So
let us look at the wider issues and how we can advance them instead of the narrow issues.
ENDS