Shirley Ken: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10250] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I am addressing the third reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill . The ACT party is certainly delighted at and acknowledges the process involved in hopefully bringing this claim to fruition. We certainly acknowledge the foul deeds that were done in the name of the Crown by the Governor in 1860 and the years thereafter which dishonoured the Crown. That certainly demands a settlement to anyone who believes in fairness. But having said that I say the ACT party will not be supporting this bill at its third reading. I would like to share with the House the reasons for that. 
ACT favours full fair and final settlements for legitimate treaty grievances. In fact we have campaigned since entering this Parliament in 1996 for full fair and final outcomes. But there are provisions in this settlement as outlined by the previous speaker that are unresolved matters. We do have concerns that the settlement may well create further injustices and highlight some of those unresolved issues. We have heard mention of the exclusion and the obstruction of the Ngati Tama people in the process of deriving this negotiated settlement with the Crown. I think the point was very well made that we risk a very serious situation if these settlements are to be nothing but examples of claimants becoming the passive recepients of State benevolence because that is a recipe for revisiting the problems that we face. So while we are delighted and pleased to see that the grievance has been addressed and a negotiated agreement reached we do think there are real problems with the process that may well mean it is not final and in fact that this very process may well be the trigger for further claims. That just exacerbates the perception we have in our society of a treaty grievance industry that is self-perpetuating. Where the Crown can ensure that remedies are full and final we will support it but we are not convinced that is the case in this situation. 
I also express the concern of the ACT party with regard to some of the language and the concepts that are interwoven into this settlement. In particular the settlement confers special rights on the Ngati Tama people over land that is not theirs. The amendments to the Resource Management Act and some of the language in this settlement confer privileges and rights over land that is not theirs and is not part of the settlement. That in itself is a recipe for ongoing litigation and conflict. Of course that is now interwoven in much of our legislation—in particular the Resource Management Act. I was surprised that New Zealand First is voting for this bill because like ACT Winston Peters has campaigned on and championed opposition to the principles of the treaty—those undefined principles—yet in this settlement legislation we have a lot of reference to the principles of the treaty. We do not know what they are. The Crown has never told us what those principles are yet it keeps legislating for them. ACT is not prepared just to accept benignly legislation that perpetuates those sorts of problems. 
So it is with some sadness that we cannot support this bill. We acknowledge the grievance we accept the effort that was made in terms of reaching a negotiated agreement but on conclusion we are not satisfied that this bill has got it right. I do think that the negotiated agreement is interesting in itself because we know that there are some 750 claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. In the 25-odd years that the Waitangi Tribunal has been addressing these issues it has on average managed one settlement a year. [ 
Interruption 
] The Government has just announced that it is stepping that up to two settlements a year which is encouraging. But on the basis of one settlement a year with 750 claims lodged even if no more claims were lodged we would have another 750 years ahead of us of the self-perpetuating treaty industry. 
That is why ACT consistently campaigns for full fair and final settlements. We must bring an end to the grievance industry so that as a nation we can move forward. I reiterate the other point which is that we firmly believe in one class of citizenship—one law for all. That is why we must oppose the provision in this bill whereby special privilege is given to a group of people based on their race—and it is a privilege and rights over land that is not theirs which is a breach of article 3 of the treaty. I think it would be wrong if this bill were to pass through this House without those issues being flagged.