Jones Dail: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20202] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First would much prefer not to have the words “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in the legislation but the amendment that has been put forward by Mr Franks wants to delete a whole clause and it is really looking at the matter in isolation. We have to look at all the clauses together; there is a package. We have to go on and look at clause 14 and at clause 15 to understand how it all works. 
Essentially what we have in the legislation are these clauses in Part 1 that relate to an agreement that has been entered into. New Zealand First and I am sure the National Party do not want to go back and say to everyone: “Renegotiate the whole thing otherwise we will not agree to it.” because if we go on to clauses 14 and 15—and I hope the Committee will bear with me—they state that where the expression “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” has been used it is a historical claim. It is something in the past. Then clause 15 states that the settlement of those historical claims is final. So that is the last use of the phrase “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” for historical claims in so far as this particular group is concerned. That is a package. It is completed. 
If I were pleading this case in a civil claim I would say that we do not agree with those principles and we deny that they exist but in all the circumstances they have no effect whatsoever because this matter is now at an end. This bill brings the concept of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in this context to an end. We have to look at the whole package to understand it. I think that is what Brian Donnelly was trying to explain in his way the other night when he followed what Mr Franks had to say on this legislation. 
We do not accept that the words “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ add anything to this but even if they did it is almost irrelevant because this thing is at an end. It is finished now. It is over and done with so what is the point in arguing about it? When we had the Ngati Awa case of course we then had a situation—as my friend and colleague Pita Paraone has explained—where some new groups were created that had never existed before even in the 1985 Maori regulations. We objected to that new breach of the Maori traditions as Pita Paraone was saying to Judy Turner. 
So while we would prefer to see the principles of the treaty not included we accept that an agreement has been reached. New Zealand First wants to see this treaty process brought to an end. The last thing that we want is to have these things going back again for ever and a day. We are satisfied that the way in which the bill has been drafted taking into account clauses 14 and 15 brings it to the end. The words “principles of” are really irrelevant. They do not mean anything. We believe that they mean nothing and as they mean nothing they cannot have any effect on anything anyway. If we look at it in that context they are meaningless. So why argue about something that is meaningless in this particular context where the matter is at an end? We will go along with it in this particular context and situation bearing in mind that for example in a State services piece of legislation or in some other new legislation that is continuing into the future this ends it—this finishes it. 
We will always oppose any new legislation that looks at the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being brought in for future reference. But this settlement is a finalised matter; it is ended and I think that is the way in which it should be considered. New Zealand First wants to bring the treaty process to an end and this is bringing it to an end. I think that people like those members of the ACT party who want to continue moaning and groaning about what Maoris do and what Maoris are claiming become very upset when we do have a settlement because it gives them one less thing to moan and groan about when it comes to election day. We want to see this finished we have set dates for when these matters should be finished and we are pleased that this settlement is being given effect to by Parliament.