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:20200] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 A number of speakers have made reference to the position of the ACT party on this legislation. We do vote against these settlement bills but we do not vote against them because we do not want to see settlement of claims for land wrongly and fraudulently taken and for property rights breached—breaches of article 2 of the treaty—we vote against them because they do an awful lot more than that and an awful lot less than that. This particular part is instance of that. I have an amendment that I am hoping New Zealand First will vote for which removes the subclauses that refer to the so-called principles. 
The leader of New Zealand First is making great play—indeed he has a bill on the Order Paper—to remove references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. But then for years since New Zealand First’s leader first realised that ACT New Zealand was speaking the truth when it pointed to the complete lack of definition of and the strife being caused by those references he has joined in that chorus and has demanded definition. Yet New Zealand First has voted for clauses in legislation passed by this Parliament that still contain those references. 
I would have liked my amendment simply to omit the phrase in each place where it occurred “and its principles”. That would have been quite sufficient but my problem was my inability to work out exactly what words referred to the principles in the Maori version. So in the speed of drafting the amendment I thought the safer thing was actually to omit the subclause as a whole. But if New Zealand First simply wants to put forward an amendment to my amendment so that it is only the words “and its principles” that are omitted from each place they appear instead of the entire text of the subclause I would be very happy to support an amendment from New Zealand First along those lines. 
I want to refer also to the comments of Dr Mapp where he too suggested that ACT did not support settlements. We are very conscious that New Zealand as a whole and not just Maori or Maori making treaty claims may have a very wrong idea of what constitutes wealth in a modern world. It is not ownership of land that marks the countries that are rich. The Singapores and the Switzerlands are either amongst the most densely populated the most land-short or the most scruffy and unproductive land areas of the world. There are vast areas of natural wealth that is being under-used. What marks rich countries is almost the opposite of land wealth. It is the fact that as peoples they have had to work out how to be rich without land. I think that these treaty settlements are in fact directing Maori down a very sad path. 
The worst example of a major settlement totally ruining an indigenous people must be very close to New Zealand on the island of Nauru. Its people became rich beyond all dreams of avarice and in one generation not only have they blown it but they have blown their health as well. That is not to say that that will happen as a result of these settlements but it does say that ownership of assets has next to nothing to do with either cultural or material wealth. Ownership of assets as the Bible says may in fact mean the very opposite. It may be harder for wealthy families to ensure that their children maintain the sorts of habits and the willingness to work that constitute true wealth than for those who are poorer. If the Government is going to apologise for eroding traditional social structures why is this Government not apologising for the welfare system that has totally devastated the Maori family? That is not a historical thing. This Government is doing it daily. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: This is another treaty breach. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is an absolute breach. If there was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles because there was a transfer of land into personal ownership what about the breach that means that 70 percent of Maori kids are growing up without a father? What kind of social erosion is that?