Treaty myths block trust says Peters

By HELEN TUNNAH deputy political editor

Winston Peters says it will be difficult to find anyone who can lead an inquiry into the Treaty of Waitangi and be trusted by New Zealanders.

This was because too many people in New Zealand's "establishment" had accepted myths surrounding the treaty.

Mr Peters, the leader of NZ First and a long-time critic of what he calls a "treaty grievance industry", said his party would not be part of any politically inspired inquiry into the treaty's status.

Prime Minister Helen Clark is considering an inquiry into the treaty and possibly into broader constitutional issues, which would inevitably include the possibility of New Zealand becoming a republic. She may take proposals to the Cabinet on Monday.

Options include a royal commission of inquiry, or backing the justice and electoral select committee's constitutional inquiry announced last September.

The committee of 11 MPs from all political parties has been negotiating draft terms of reference for its inquiry, and has brought discussion on them forward to next week.

Chairman Tim Barnett, a Labour MP, said they included consideration of what constitutional arrangements were in place now, how change had been handled in other nations, such as Fiji and South Africa, and how a national debate could be advanced.

The place of the Treaty of Waitangi in constitutional arrangements would also be raised.

The committee's inquiry followed concerns expressed during the setting-up of a local Supreme Court that the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council altered the relationship between Maori and the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Labour agreed to the inclusion of a reference to the treaty in legislation setting up the Supreme Court to secure Green Party support for the law change.

Debate about race relations and the treaty has intensified since National Party leader Don Brash warned in January of a dangerous drift to racial separatism, and claimed the treaty's interpretation was dividing New Zealand.

His party's fortunes have soared in opinion polls since, and National is now leading Labour.

After initially rejecting United Future's proposal for a royal commission, Helen Clark said this week she was now warming to the idea.

But without cross-party political support, a royal commission could struggle for credibility and meaning.

NZ First, National, Act and the Green Party do not think a royal commission is necessary or the best means for a national debate on the treaty or any constitutional change.

That means even with the support of Labour, its coalition partner, the Progressives, and United Future, only 62 of the 120 MPs will have endorsed a royal commission process.

Mr Peters told the Herald yesterday that it was unclear what the Prime Minister was intending with an inquiry, and whether it would be limited to treaty issues or be widened into a constitutional debate.

"What's required right now is for New Zealand to sort out what is it that was said in the treaty, and what is it in the present situation that has no business being part of the treaty argument in the first place.

"New Zealand First begins with the premise that the treaty is there for all New Zealanders. It's not just for Maori, but for all New Zealanders."

Mr Peters said finding anyone to sit on an inquiry would be hard.

"It would be difficult to find anyone who could look at it with fresh eyes and that people can trust," he said.

Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said yesterday that a public debate should not be managed by a royal commission, or politicians.

And Don Brash said the Prime Minister was trying to remove the treaty debate as an election issue by promoting an inquiry.

In turn, Helen Clark has accused him of opposing an inquiry because he was afraid of informed debate.

The numbers

In favour: Labour, Progressive Party, United Future

Against: NZ First, National, Act, the Green Party

Peters: Treaty myths block trust