Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20694] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is always hard to follow some of the speeches on the settlement bills and it is particularly hard to follow speeches from members like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu Metiria Turei and others who have a very honourable purpose who want to see the best for their country and who are making acknowledgments to folk who have been hurt. They wish the parties all the best and certainly they wish the recipients of the treaty settlements all the best. They wish them to have prosperity pride and a focus on the future which are things that every New Zealander hopes for from the treaty grievance process. But I believe it is important that someone in this House—and ACT is prepared to do this however much the other parties may howl at us—warns of the danger of believing in one’s own rhetoric and of being persuaded by one’s own fervent wishes. I look at the settlement bills and I see that they are being passed as Acts of Parliament. They are statements of law and the claim is that they are intended to put grievances behind us. So I look at them as a lawyer and as a lawyer who is aware of just how tempting it is to other lawyers to find more problems where there should have been settlements—to turn what was intended to be a solution into permanent grievance work. 
When I look at this bill I see in it a pattern that this Government and earlier National Governments have perpetrated: a pattern of self-deception. The bill contains deliberately vague terms. It contains deliberately fuzzy language. It contains promises that are deliberately intended never to be called upon. One clause may contain assurances but 10 or 20 clauses later those precise assurances are negated. The generation that we are part of may understand that the bill is an attempt to reach a political compromise. It may be well meant but the generations to come will simply look at it and be mystified. They will ask how it could have been that the Parliament of New Zealand in trying to settle grievances that had festered for decades and decades because of a complete mismatch in understanding or because one side thought the other had been tricky with regard to language could go ahead and pass law designed to do exactly the same thing again. 
We look at the protocols and the statutory acknowledgments that the Crown sets out in the schedules—accounts of mythology accounts of special value and accounts of guardianship values that NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty will be given an opportunity to impose on areas that are important to it. It looks at first sight as though the Government is handing over a genuine power of protection. Then we go a little further on and find that the clauses expressly state that all bets are off. The environmental authorities and the various bodies that have delegated government powers in the Bay of Plenty are told that they must have regard to those things that they must be solemnly recorded on titles and that they have to be drawn to the attention of people who are looking to use land. However we then find that those same bodies are told that they are to give them no more weight than anyone else’s submissions and that they have no effect in law. They are simply statements of empty rhetoric. I do not think that that is a recipe for a durable settlement. I think future generations and courts will say that they cannot imagine that Parliament actually meant this settlement to have no practical effect and they will make it have effect. What effect? That will be invented by judges on the basis of contending bitter claims. 
Another reason why ACT will not vote for these kinds of settlements is that they rewrite and falsify history without even making it consistent. In this legislation the Crown apologises because land was handed back presumably in a good-faith attempt to try to mitigate what had been a wrong. It was handed back in individualised titles. The complaint now is that the original wrongs were wrong because collective punishment was meted out. Although some of the iwi had rebelled others did not but the Crown did not distinguish between them when it exacted its own redress—when it took revenge if you like; utu or muru—on the land that was held collectively. So why do we now have pages and pages of grovelling apology that states that the Crown “done wrong” because it handed back individual land titles when the people complained initially that their collective land was taken? One cannot have it both ways. If people are to be treated as individuals and as not being responsible for what their whanau or hapu have done and if they are treated as individuals and the only assets that are available for seizure are those that are held individually why would the Crown not create individual titles? One cannot have it both ways. 
I also think it is shameful that this Parliament is apologising for actions that as clause 8(3)(f) states “eroded the traditional social structures mana and rangatiratanga of NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty). The Crown failed to adequately protect NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) from the impact of these actions and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” The “Winston Peters Party” which is busy promoting a bill to abolish the so-called principles of the treaty is voting for this bill despite that utterly fraudulent apology. This is a Government that is deliberately eroding social structures. It is not only eroding the social structures of Maori but is eroding the mana of men throughout our community. It has changed schooling so that courage is a lost virtue. It has specialised in making everyone victims in whining over spilt milk and in providing a remedy for every pretended wrong. That has nothing to do with the grievance industry of the treaty. This Government has set out to undermine the status of men and families. It has set out to take any concept of muru or utu out of justice. This Government does not believe in punishment and in right or wrong yet we have a formal apology in this bill for eroding traditional social structures. That is unbelievable. The Government has destroyed the distinction that New Zealand was so proud to have created over a century ago between Church and State and that is now included in the bill. We passed a secular education Act and we tried to make sure that we knew the difference between religion and the State. Now we have a bill that deliberately recreates a form of coercive force to statements of spiritual values. 
This is not a bill to be proud of. It grasps at a temporary political solution to an embarrassment for both National and Labour which set out and encouraged completely unfulfillable expectations. Now they are creating documents that are full of weasel words that no one even in this Parliament understands or can define. The Government will leave it to the judges and to future generations to argue about what it meant. The bill does not deal with the treaty. It cannot be a full and final settlement. It does not even pretend to be full and final in terms of contemporary claims. It is a shame that the members of another generation are being set up to regard each other with suspicion.