Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20203] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I think it is probably a shame for the honourable member who has just resumed his seat that he was not around 140 years ago. He would have been a very good land purchasing agent. He could have been out there basically persuading Maori that what they were getting was valuable and that black was white. It is the sort of sophistry I expect. Here is a man saying: “We need to do this. It doesn’t mean anything so therefore it does not matter if we vote for something that is against our principles. Don’t you worry about it.” That was the snake oil salesman’s logic. “Don’t worry about all those reservation that you have. Don’t worry about the fact that the title is being transferred to the Crown. We will look after you. We will set up reserves.” It is the same kind of “just don’t worry about the detail” statements that got this country into the position where there were differing expectations and where there were such gross breaches of faith. 
We do believe that there should be settlements of stolen property and of property taken without proper compensation. But we certainly do not believe that this Parliament in 2005 should be passing law when it does not know what it means. If there is anything we can glean from what the Rt Hon Winston Peters has said about the so-called principles it is that no one knows what they mean. And here we have a spokesman for New Zealand First standing up and telling us that it does not matter that we vote for four or five references to the so-called principles because we do not know what they mean and they do not matter. Well they do matter. There is simply a question of legislative integrity. 
The member who has just spoken went forward to clause 14. I will not do that but when we look at further clauses we find that kind of legislative drafting technique throughout this deed. We will hear about the so-called Ngati Tuwharetoa values which are spiritual but there is no definition. We do not know what they are. A whole set of statements and mythology—what legal effect do they have? There is a dishonesty about this approach that I believe will condemn future generations to another round of complaint. If we can apologise and pay compensation for eroding the social structures of 160 years ago—and if the senior Government whip Jill Pettis can say that it is completely irrelevant that the social structure of Maoridom is being eroded by the welfare system yet the inevitable individualisation of title 160 years ago is highly relevant—what kind of compensation will we have to pay one day for what has happened to the social structure as a result of the welfare State’s imposition? What will we pay to Maori families who have lost authority over their kids because they are not allowed to smack them? What will we say to the families where kids can go and leave home and give the fingers to their parents because they receive a living-alone allowance—where the State has stepped in and usurped the authority of parents entirely? 
This bill is apologising for eroding the social structure because of land transactions 100 years ago. What a lot of drivel! If there is any apologising that should be done by the Government of this country right now it should be for eroding the social structure of all the people of this country through a welfare system that rewards kids who do not listen to their parents rewards not working and discourages those who do work. For me to hear a New Zealand First speech that tells me not to worry about voting for the so-called principles because we can put it all behind us when in fact the very same words that are used in that apology could well apply in two generations’ time to a whole series of apologies to people for having destroyed their social structure then I do not think that New Zealand First values its vote at all. 
Here is a chance to put a stake in the ground. Here is a chance for those members to say: “We will vote for this settlement but we will omit the three words ‘and its principles’ wherever they appear.” If the Crown has to go back and ask Ngati Tuwharetoa whether it wants to re-ratify this deed without those words it should put it to the test. I would be very surprised indeed if Ngati Tuwharetoa is wedded to those words.