Franks Stephen: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5272] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I waited to hear the contributions of the Green Party and other parties partly because so few of the questions that the ACT speakers have raised in the course of the progress of this bill have been answered or been taken as questions that are deserving of proper inquiry. I waited because ACT would like to be able to share in the spirit with which members approach these matters—in other words to see them as a ritual or symbolic act at the end of a long process whereby the issues have been settled. 
When I spoke on this bill in the second reading it was very clear from the select committee report that there were a number of I will not say outstanding but certainly unsettled disputes or matters of potential further unhappiness. I had hoped that the Committee stage would inquire into some of those issues. As it turned out most of the addresses of people in this House were in the nature of ritual protestations. There is nothing wrong with expressing the sorts of sentiments that I heard from Mr Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First which I respected. I found his speech a moving thing to hear. There is nothing wrong with expressing the sorts of wishes for the future that the Hon Tariana Turia expressed. But we are stewards of our votes on these matters and we should realise that we are making law. We should be trying to craft settlements that so far as possible end dispute and do not become a platform for further trouble. 
My primary concern is the reservation of positions that mean people will be set against each other. I think this particular claims settlement legislation is not as serious in that regard as many others. I found the schedules that record the statutory acknowledgments and the recognitions moving and helpful in understanding the limits of what is attempted by this bill. But on the other hand this bill states very clearly that these matters can affect and are expected to affect the properties of parties other than the Crown and Ngati Ruanui. In other words this bill acknowledges on its face that there are reservations here or at least the possibility of the exercise of rights that are intended to affect people who are owners of property that is not the property of the Crown and not the property under this bill or otherwise of Ngati Ruanui. 
So I look at this and say that as stewards of our vote however much we would like to have a unanimous view of the House we should be seeing this as a precedent as undoubtedly it will be. The settlements to be reached should in the view of ACT be what in family law we used to call “clean-break settlements”. In other words we should be trying to make sure that the foul deeds that were undoubtedly committed and the compensation that is being paid for them put an end to the causes of potential further irritation. I believe that when we have these somewhat fuzzy well meant but very ill-defined stewardship arrangements kaitiaki-ships or arrangements for recognition by the statutory authorities of ill-defined interests of Ngati Ruanui in land we are certain to end up with a mismatch of expectations. We are certain to draw some of the finest minds amongst Ngati Ruanui into exploring just what those rights might mean. 
They are not made properly tradable. They are not made as rights that are capable of being turned into concrete benefits. They are really rights to interfere rights to complain and rights to try to influence what one’s neighbours are doing. They are negative. Unless the very best of goodwill is present on both sides amongst all people the rights create a relationship that then gets recast and labelled as “holding to ransom” as “corruption” or as “misuse of powers” because it is not exactly clear what those powers were conferred for. On one side they will be used to try to exercise an influence that the other side will resent. To the extent that those powers on the face of this bill influence private property it will mean that neighbour resents neighbour and that is not a recipe for true long-term settlement. 
I was also concerned by the context. In terms of this settlement the Maori Affairs Committee urged that we should not reopen the matter. The select committee said that it had concerns that it could not address because these settlements are treated as if they are subject to the convention of foreign treaties—in other words all that Parliament can do is give a yes/no answer. We would much prefer to have been in the position where we had been consulted in some way and had had our concerns addressed because we think we speak as the true representatives of the majority of New Zealanders. Most parties in this House have for a long time been part of a conspiracy of silence in this area. We know from the opinion polls of growing unease and we believe that when the Ministers and the Attorney-General speak and when Crown Law negotiates there is a widely held fear that they do so with one hand tied behind their back that they do not challenge as they should that they are not true negotiators and that in effect for the reasons that Metiria Turei just gave negotiation takes the place of investigation. Negotiation is taking the place of full fact finding. 
What that may be leading to rightly or wrong is a view that these are political settlements to achieve political outcomes for a Government that is determined to maintain the votes of its Maori members. It was not reassuring for us to hear before this debate applause for the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia when it appeared to this House that he was not taking full responsibility for what may be financial misfeasance or lack of financial probity in his own portfolio. We would have hoped that the people who were coming here to welcome this bill would be concerned about that and would not take what appeared to be a partisan approach. We think that is confirmation of the concern about this being a political settlement. 
Finally I simply want to balance—not because I disagree with the optimism that has been expressed by many—the view that has been expressed numerous times in this House in relation to these settlements: that in some way the settling of assets is a path to wealth and happiness. The assets that matter are sometimes harder to acquire and hold when one is rich than when one is poor. The assets that matter are attitudes to education attitudes to work and attitudes to self-reliance and family responsibility. For many of us the old saying of rags to rags in three generations says it all. The generation that ends up with wealth that it did not earn is the generation that sows the seeds for it being lost. Because of that wealth it loses the ability to maintain the drive and the respect for work and education of its children. We were mischaracterised by the United Future party as being opposed to reconciliation; we are not at all. We believe that reconciliation is imperative but we do not wish it to be on a false basis. The assets may be more of a hindrance to growth than a benefit.