Shirley Ken: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20260] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party has opposed this bill. We recognise that it will be passed. The ACT party recognises that there are legitimate grievances that need to be resolved and we certainly favour the Crown expediting the settlement of those grievances. That has been the ACT position. We heard from the National Party spokesperson that National had initiated the idea of bringing the treaty grievance industry to finality. I think that that is an expansion of the truth. 
I remind the Committee that it was Derek Quigley the co-founder of the ACT party and an ACT MP in that period who brought a bill to the House for a full fair and final settlement of the treaty grievance industry. He outlined a provision whereby firstly all claims would have to be lodged by a set date. Secondly the Waitangi Tribunal would have been resourced adequately so that it could do the work and sort out the wheat from the chaff. [ 
Interruption 
] I will come to that member. Thirdly the tribunal would have been wound up. 
What followed was an outrage. The National Party in Government had the opportunity to pass that bill. In Government it voted the bill down. Doug Graham and others actually called the ACT party racist for promoting that concept. Helen Clark in turn said it was impossible. Here we are in 2005 and the National Party to its credit has seen the error of its ways. It has adopted the ACT policy exactly word for word with the same date mechanisms. That was its policy in 2002 and it has been consistent with it. Good on the National Party but I ask it not to claim that it was the initiator of the idea. Of course Labour which said the idea was impossible and an outrage now in 2005 says: “Oh yes we have to set dates and time limits on the treaty grievance industry.” That is absolutely wonderful but Labour should not forget that ACT was the pioneer of that idea. It was a sound rational sensible policy when we announced it in 1997 and it still is today. 
I will come to the context of why the ACT party opposes this legislation. It is not because we are against settlement—far from it. It is because of the very fact Mr Mapp talked about. New Zealand First has railed against the principles of the treaty. Winston Peters has campaigned consistently about this nonsense of the principles of the treaty. I have to say to New Zealand First that this bill has the principles of the treaty in it yet Winston Peters and his merry band are prepared to vote for it. In other words they have to walk the talk. They cannot just say something at the election; when the rubber hits the road here in Parliament they have to walk the talk. I say to New Zealand First that that is absolutely duplicitous. 
Equally the National Party says that it is concerned about the style of the preamble. So is the ACT party. The preamble is all about metaphysical ill-defined concepts as Dr Mapp pointed out. That is why we are opposing it. That is why the ACT party says that this is not good enough. We are laying a bad foundation for the future when we perpetrate in legislation woolly-woofter conceptual feel-good mumbo jumbo that everyone may think is great but that no one knows the meaning of. I recognise the role of spirituality but it is not the business of the State and it is not the business of legislation. We are legislating for spirituality in this bill and in other treaty settlements. That is why the ACT party consistently opposes them—not because we are against a fair and final settlement. God knows all in this country—including those within Maoridom—are looking forward to the day when we can make these settlements and move forward as a nation.