In 1989 Geoffrey Palmer, Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General when the Treaty of Waitangi Act was passed, gave a speech entitled The Treaty of Waitangi - principles for Crown action.
He had this to say:The public impression concerning [the Treaty] is confused and uncertain.
On no subject has more nonsense been talked over the last few years than on the subject of the Treaty of Waitangi. Partly that is because it is not clear what the document means. Partly it is because the document is essentially political - and many political arguments about what weight should be given to it have become strident, confused and downright absurd.
Some of the scholarship surrounding the Treaty is highly suspect, fuelled as it is by political motivation rather than detached analysis. And much misleading information has been conveyed by the media. This has had two effects. It has raised public fears about what the Treaty can bring about. And it has raised Maori expectations about what may be achieved under it for Maori. Both impressions are exaggerated, distorted and unfortunate.
The first casualty in this debate has been the reasonable middle ground. And it is upon this ground that the future of this nation depends - the future does not belong to the extremists on either side.
He concluded:
New Zealanders are involved at the moment in a somewhat introspective examination of what their heritage means to them. To outsiders the process must seem somewhat curious. Yet it is not inappropriate in the 150th year after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.
We cannot ignore our history, neither can we change it. We must come to terms with it. We are not governed by the dead hand of past events, but neither can we ignore the effects of those events in shaping our attitudes and approaches. For it is these things which have made us what we are. The relationship between the races in New Zealand will not be determined by the Treaty of Waitangi. It will be determined by the attitudes of individuals and by a collective sense of justice, fairness and tolerance.
In the past few years the Treaty has been called in aid too much. It cannot bear all the weight that some seek to place upon it. It is a significant constitutional document. It sets up a framework for addressing some of the important issues between Maori and Pakeha. And in that respect what it offers is distinctly positive. But we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in a stream of political and media hype on issues of complexity and delicacy. All branches of government have a part to play in resolving these issues - central, regional and local government, the courts, Parliament, and the Waitangi Tribunal. But there are no magical solutions and there can be no grand design. The issues must be worked through carefully, one by one, with patience and tolerance on both sides.
What matters most in all of this is the innate sense of justice and fair play.
In 2006 Sir Geoffrey made a presentation as part of the Te Papa Treaty of Waitangi Debate Series called THE TREATY OF WAITANGI - WHERE TO FROM HERE? LOOKING BACK TO MOVE FORWARD
Sir Geoffrey summed up the current status (in 2006) of the Treaty issues:
The Treaty of Waitangi has spawned a vast scholarly industry of great variety. It is a literature of some distinction and it is unique to New Zealand. It is hard to know which Treaty prism to look through in order to distil insights of any value. Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence as it has developed in New Zealand by now has become a big field of near Byzantine complexity. And that is just the law as it is. Debates on what the law ought to be seem to me in political terms to have become unmanageable. The politics of the Treaty has become a battlefield upon which people have become increasingly reluctant to tread.
He proffered his summary of the law relating to the Treaty:
In important respects the Treaty is half in and half out of the legal system. Whether it is part of New Zealand’s domestic law and can be enforced in the courts depends upon whether it has been incorporated in statute.
He concluded:
In the end I am an optimist about the Treaty and its place now and in the future. We are a long way from 1840 now. But we have accomplished much and while there is more to be done I am confident developments will take place in the fullness of time, perhaps in ways we do not yet discern. Issues between Maori and Pakeha will endure in New Zealand, including issues concerning the Treaty. The New Zealand sense of national identity is uniquely defined by a contribution from Maori. Tolerance and a generosity of spirit remains a predominant part of the make-up of New Zealanders.
In the end our political system will find ways of binding us together on Treaty issues, not driving us apart. But the time is not now - we need a pause for reflection, analysis and reconsideration. We do not want, as Lord Cooke put it to the inquiry into New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements last year, “discord and confusion”. The issues will not go away and they will have to be faced up to and dealt with in the future. As the expatriate historian Professor John Pocock recently put it “New Zealanders, somewhat against their inclinations, have come upon interesting times; it is to be hoped they survive them”.
My message should not be misunderstood. While big policy steps are not possible at the present time, we are presented with the positive challenge to develop new paradigms and approaches. This will allow us to face the issues that it is New Zealand’s destiny to handle with enlightenment. In 2023 the situation is far worse. Despite the Treaty and its Articles not being part of New Zealand law, successive governments has fanned the flames of "Treaty rights" to such an extent that they have infiltrated almost every aspect of the life of New Zealanders.
There has been much hyperbole, overstatement, and a lot of misrepresentation that has both raised the expectations of Maori and been of great concern to a large part of our community. Our fundamental democracy and the principle of equality seem to be slipping away.
