Finlayson Christopher: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5363] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to raise a couple of new matters and they are important. Part 1 as we know deals with the purpose of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and with acknowledgments the apology various interpretation provisions and miscellaneous matters. I want to say something following on from Mr Flavell about Subpart 3 “Settlement of claims”. 
When we look at clauses 15 and 16 we might think that these boilerplate provisions would make it tolerably clear that the settlement was full and final and that any attempt to relitigate would fail. But I can tell the Committee now that these clauses can be easily got round depending on the facts of the particular case. These clauses will not get in the way 20 30 or 40 years hence of the disgruntled would-be claimants having their day in court or their day in the tribunal. That is why it is very important not simply to enact boilerplate provisions but also—as I said in an earlier contribution—to really try to deal with the substance of the issue which is to sort out all these problems of mandate and these lingering problems. Otherwise these problems will come back. I have had experience in getting round jurisdictional clauses and I am sure that Mr Chauvel has too. At the end of the day—depending on the facts—it is a piece of cake. 
Can I raise a couple of definitional issues. I must express my amazement at the approach of New Zealand First. As I understand those members’ comments about comments I have made about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi they will support these provisions now only to have them deleted later on. That is a weird approach if ever there was one. It can be described only as absolute humbug. These clauses—and I particularly refer to clauses 7(2)(d) 7(4) and 9—are in my opinion reasonably easily able to be remedied. In my first reading speech I outlined about nine key principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which had been derived from cases and brought together by the Waitangi Tribunal and by academics over various times. I think it should be very easy to remedy those clauses. For example if one takes clause 7(4) we have an acknowledgment by the Crown that it failed to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as part of the 1922 agreement and that that was a breach of the principles of the Treaty. Well what principle? At one stage when I was talking about this matter one of the Associate Ministers called out: “It is the principle of protection.” and I asked why the Government would not put it in. So it is a reasonably straightforward exercise to spell out with some specificity what principle of the Treaty of Waitangi we are talking about. 
Pita Paraone 
: So you are supporting it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well on behalf of the National Party I have said that we will support the legislation although it is pretty crummy legislation. For example it seeks to delete provisions that are already deleted—in a piece of masterly drafting on New Zealand First’s part. But in answer to the member we will support the bill. However it will need a lot of hard work done on it; the Justice and Electoral Committee will do that. 
The second point I make is about the Crown’s acknowledgments. There is a general point and a particular point. I will ask the Minister about the general point and I know that his preliminary response will be to say that the National Party did this when it was in Government—and I acknowledge that it did. I ask whether it is wise given the experience of time—and after all that lot have been in for 7 years now—to include in the body of the legislation acknowledgments and an apology. Should they stand as part of the deed rather than our run the risk that they can be subject to statutory interpretation concerns later on? I personally think that those acknowledgments should not be contained in the legislation. I want to know why they are there. But having said that there is the particular question of what exactly these acknowledgments are. What is spiritual importance? What does that mean and how does it relate to cultural importance? How does it relate to traditional importance? These terms are vague and—I am telling the Minister now—they will give rise to concerns later on. 
The next point will come up more in Part 2’s debate but I will touch on it now. It is the definition of “Crown stratum”. From my researches I think this is the first time it has appeared in legislation and I would be very interested to know how this concept developed. There is of course an assumption that the Crown owns the stratum. 
The final point I make relates to clause 17 because I am not sure about the practical impact of it. This clause deals with the rule against perpetuities not applying. What are the relevant rules of the Perpetuities Act 1964 that could apply here? If the Minister could explain this provision I would be very grateful.