Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18830] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This part of the bill is relatively small. It appears immediately after some long recitals of pretty contentious rewritings of history and it then goes on to define and include the provisions that members are considering as to how long they will last. Mr Mapp and Mr Pita Paraone of New Zealand First raised in this connection whether this part contemplates these deals lasting. It does not appear that the Government itself expects them to last. 
When we look at the arrangements that are contemplated and the documents that are to be entered into and that have been protected on the basis of this bill—I mention clause 19 the protocols and so forth—all that is required is for the Environment Court the Historic Places Trust or whoever else has to take account of them to have regard to them to have particular regard to them or to be consulted on the various formulations. That does not seem like a very solid kind of obligation. 
Plainly as well as this the settlement will have a substantial sum of money—one imagines it will; they always do. I do not think that this document tells us what the amount of money is. Instead it refers separately to the deed of settlement which is not itself set out in the bill. So I imagine that the amount is set out in the deed. But I would like the Minister to tell us or just remind us what the amounts are under the Ngati Awa deed and the ancillary deeds because this part states that they will be a full and final settlement of historical claims. 
It is not easy to know why they will be a full and final settlement of historical claims. A clean break principle is usually considered desirable in nearly all disputes. That is the principle that we eventually introduced to underlie our family law—the clean break principle. But this part provides for removing memorials on land and provides for the Waitangi Tribunal to continue to have jurisdiction to interpret the deed of settlement. 
If this is just a contract why would it not be the Maori Land Court? The Hon Georgina te Heuheu raised the question of whether the Government really considers that the tribunal will be around in 50 years’ time because it has made those documents endless. The perpetuities period used to be effectively 21 years plus a life—a life in being. As a lawyer one could convert that to a crude assumption that it is intended to go for around 80 or 90 years. Will there really be a Waitangi Tribunal still adjudicating in 80 or 90 years between Maori and Pakeha or between Maori and the Crown as if Maori were not part of the Crown—as if Maori were a separate tribe from the rest of New Zealand? Is that what the Government is considering by expressly telling us that the Waitangi Tribunal will deal on contractual disputes under this settlement? Is the Government telling us that the rule against perpetuities does not apply so that they can last at least 90 years? 
What sort of message is the Crown trying to send in putting into this small part provisions that tell us that the Government does not expect the country to be able to put an end to the grievance industry? Because that is what the legislation is saying. In clause 16 section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act is expressly amended to exclude the tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the historical claims but to preserve the jurisdiction in respect of the interpretation and implementation of the Ngati Awa deed of settlement and the ancillary deeds of settlement. 
I think the Minister ought to tell us just what persuades him that this will be the end particularly when we know that Ngati Awa did not give this settlement an overwhelming mandate. Presumably there are Ngati Awa who argued against accepting it who will come back and say: “Deal’s off. We didn’t approve it it wasn’t for us and it’s defective anyway.”