Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18828] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to speak on Part 3 of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. In relation to the part we are talking about concern has been expressed about this matter going on forever. I think that concern is very properly raised when the bill itself has a clause in it that excludes the rule against perpetuities. 
That rule was developed out of centuries of English experience of how unfortunate it is to have assets and land tied up for generations. If one has very long-term trusts over time it is very difficult for the land not to fall into some kind of decay. The original purpose of the settlement has long passed the people who knew what it was about have long gone and the values that drove them and their interests have become redundant or anachronistic. So the rule against perpetuities was a rule developed by those old English lawyers to try to make sure we did not have the embarrassment of property that could hardly be used or was useless at the same time as putative beneficiaries who should have been getting a benefit were living in poverty. 
Yet each of these settlement bills is setting up rather vague entities. Each one is setting up very very curious rights on the part of those entities and then is excluding the rule against perpetuities so that those things go on forever. I am not sure whether that has ever been questioned in this Parliament before but as I look at the bill and listen to for the first time in my experience here a substantial debate on a settlement bill—a debate not caused just by ACT saying: “Hey the emperor has got no clothes.” but a debate joined by New Zealand First and very substantially and with excellent contributions by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Dr Wayne Mapp—I share the concern just expressed by New Zealand First that this bill is not a full and final settlement and that in its very terms it is contemplating future grounds for grievance. I think it will be used by another generation to show how careless the Crown still was of Maori interests in that we lightly set them off on a route with governance entities of a fragility that was predictable given long experience and with exclusion of the rule against perpetuities so that they could last forever. 
What is being set up in this legislation to last forever? As far as I can see it is a document entered into to give effect to the Ngati Awa deed of settlement. Well that includes these protocols perhaps; it includes these declarations of interest which are called “deeds of recognition”. On the other hand a deed of recognition which one would think was pretty long-term and permanent is expressed later on as being meant to die when the Minister changes—so it looks as ephemeral as a bubble. I am at a loss to understand why there is so much concern to exclude the rule against perpetuities while at the same time there is created the legislative equivalent of beads and bangles—things that could be gone and lost as soon as they are created. 
In fact the deeds of recognition and the protocols can be dispensed with tomorrow if a Government Minister decides to do that. The legislation does say that there must be consultation. So what is the point of then and what kind of documents are contemplated by clause 19 which states that the rule against perpetuities is excluded? The Minister might be able to explain. The substance of the bill or its next part contemplates things that appear as if they are rights and look to be redress but are in fact very insubstantial indeed. 
I am also puzzled about the contemplated role of the Treaty of Waitangi tribunal.