Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18819] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 We have had the benefit in the Committee stage on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill of explanations by the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton. I have appreciated his attempts to aid our understanding. In Part 2 “Interpretation” the definition of the Ngati Awa governance entity in clause 12 does not seem to explain anything. It is possible that there is a Supplementary Order Paper that covers that definition and I am sure I will be quickly corrected if there is. But clause 12 simply states that the governance entity “(a) means a body that represents Ngati Awa; and (b) is the appropriate body to receive the redress provided to the Ngati Awa governance entity by this Act”. 
What is completely mysterious to me is how this Parliament can propose to pass a bill that contains such a vague definition when we well know that the mandate is a particular issue in this settlement. I would certainly be appreciative of the Minister explaining a little better what the Ngati Awa governance entity is or will be or explaining the tests the Government will use to determine whether it is “appropriate” and how the Government will test whether the governance entity represents Ngati Awa. Recitals in the preamble to the bill refer to various procedures that were used to approve the settlement and I wonder why the same procedures are not used to identify the governance entity. Or is this still an open question and if so why? It is possible to take note of the fact that a private bill the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill which would create an entity that looks like the body that should take these settlement proceeds is also at the Committee stage. I have heard no explanation of why that bill is not a Government measure or why it is not going through at precisely the same time as this bill. That bill has to be debated on members’ day so we may end up with this bill and that bill being out of sync. I certainly would like to know why the definition of the governance entity is so vague. 
I am also interested in having and I had hoped that we might have had a contribution from New Zealand First members—who drew this matter to our attention—as to the significance of using “Ngati Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngati Awa ki Poneke” in clause 13(3). I would imagine within a short time there may be an equally significant group of Ngati Awa living in Sydney so why do we not have that listed? Will the people who went via Poneke to Sydney still qualify under that hapu mentioned there? If the matter of qualification is entirely up to Ngati Awa why is paragraph (a) included in the definition of “Ngati Awa governance entity” at all? If it is not up to Ngati Awa then the Committee ought to know what we are trying to state in these provisions. Are hapu affiliations passed by blood line? Or do they pass by residence? If it is by residence why does clause 13(3) refer simply to Poneke and Auckland? Why not refer to Tauranga or to other areas where people live who must I assume fall outside the other hapu but who would nevertheless trace their membership back to Ngati Awa? It does not seem too much to ask that there be a brief explanation of just why that provision is in the bill. 
I am aware that the two terms in subparagraphs (xx) and (xxi) in paragraph (a) under the definition of “hapu of Ngati Awa” in clause 13(3) have been used in earlier legislation—I understand that they appear in regulations—but that does not explain why they are being used in this context and it does not explain why we are bothering to include them if it is possible for Ngati Awa to simply include people outside its rohe anyway through one of the other descent lines. How is that defined? Is it something that the electoral roll will also use? Do we find those hapu having entitlements to register through the electoral roll? I am just guessing that the sort of dispute that Ngai Tahu has now got into over the entitlement to membership of its chief genealogist could be a very prominent form of dispute in future as the direct lineage becomes more and more distant and perhaps more debatable. I do hope that the Minister can give a succinct explanation of this matter—I know that he has officials on hand who can explain what it is about—so that the Committee does understand why it is of interest.