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:20208] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I want to address an amendment that Mr Dail Jones for New Zealand First has proposed and just spoken on. The effect of his amendment is to remove from clause 14 the reference to the principles of the treaty. That would leave clause 14(a) defining historical claims as being every claim that is founded on a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or arising under legislation common law aboriginal law or fiduciary duty in relation to Acts before 21 September 1992. Now this may seem like simple party point-scoring—and I would like to be able to support the amendment because I do not like those words—but I think that New Zealand First has the order of things around entirely the opposite of what it really intends. 
There is only one place in this bill that should refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that is clause 14 because that clause is the definition that tries to state that the settlement is full and final. When parties state later on in the operative clause that they accept there will be no more historical claims that is defined in clause 14. Unfortunately clause 14 refers to the Treaty of Waitangi Act where section 6 uses the phrase “the principles of the Treaty”. In other words the only reason we are having this settlement is that there was deemed to be a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So this is the one place where those words have to stay simply in order to get rid of them. 
In the earlier part the words were redundant. If we believe there is no such thing as the principles and there is only the treaty the words are utterly redundant and should have been removed in order to make sure that we were not endorsing and continuing that redundancy. In clause 14 the situation is the opposite of that. In clause 14 we have to refer to the principles of the treaty because we are actually getting rid of them. Therefore although I would very much like to vote for a New Zealand First change of heart to get rid of these principles in this particular case clause 14 is the one place where it is necessary to refer to them. I believe that is what the Hon Georgina te Heuheu would say too. She has looked at this issue and as a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal she knows that however much the words “the principles” confound things—however hard it is for people to decide exactly what they are supposed to cover—that is the wording that the legislation used and it is what the tribunal had to apply. Therefore when we settle a claim those are the words that need to be used in order to state that it is all over and that people cannot settle it any further. When we remove the words “the principles of the Treaty” from the Treaty of Waitangi Act then we will never again need this kind of loony definition. Mr Jones’ instinct was right; it is a loopy thing to have in our law. But as a technicality clause 14 is the one place where we need to use it. 
I am glad to see that New Zealand First will bring forward an amendment of this kind. That is courageous and I wish that I could support it. I think that possibly with a bit more time and if we had had time to sort this matter out not in sight of the microphones we might have reached agreement on just what should be done with regard to the references to the principles of the treaty. But as the situation has turned out New Zealand First has found the courage to propose the elimination of the reference to the principles of the treaty one part too late in this debate. I will of course watch very closely to see how National votes on this amendment and to see whether the Hon Georgina te Heuheu takes a call again to explain just how National will vote on this move by New Zealand First. 
I have found the speeches made by the National members very interesting. Dr Wayne Mapp’s very thoughtful speeches show just how long he has been thinking and what a long trip he has had to take to get to where he is at today from the position he was at 3 years ago. But that is something to be commended and he has made it obvious that it is not just a reflex backflip but is reasoned.