Finlayson Christopher: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18929] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on Part 1. It contains the usual clauses one expects to find in Part 1 of a settlement bill. It sets out the purpose makes certain acknowledgments contains the apology and then has various interpretation and jurisdictional provisions. It may be thought that these are really boilerplate provisions but those who think that would be wrong because clauses 7 and 8 are at the heart of the bill. As Mrs te Heuheu mentioned those clauses are very very significant. Clause 7 sets out the text of the acknowledgments. I am intrigued that the New Zealand First Party which earlier this year introduced legislation complaining about principles of the Treaty— 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s coming. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —oh I see it is coming is it—is quite happy to support the legislation. I was going to praise New Zealand First for its sensible attitude. To say that one could remove all references in this legislation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles would be absurd because that is at the very heart of it. But I had better withhold my praise until the member has made his contribution. I will be interested to hear what he says about clauses 7 8 and 12. 
The acknowledgments are there for all members to read and they should be read very carefully because they outline a litany of woe on the part of the Crown a litany of failings which as clause 7(5) records results in a sense of grievance that exists even today. Clause 8 is an extremely important clause and it should never be regarded as nothing more than a boilerplate clause because it sets out the apology. It is all very well for the Crown to recognise the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of the affiliate in pursuing their claims for redress and it is all very well for the Crown to profoundly regret and apologise for breaches of the Treaty in its principles but importantly the Crown goes further than that. I refer to clause 8(4) which states that “the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and assist the process of healing with this settlement and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with the Affiliate.” 
So often in these settlements the Crown has apologised has said it is going to atone and then moves on to something else and promptly forgets that once the bill is enacted the relationship between the Crown and the affiliate has undergone a fundamental change. The Crown has obligations under this legislation that it must not ignore or forget. So often in my experience the Crown gets into trouble as it has no institutional memory and therefore moves on to the next issue of the day and forgets that the relationship has indeed changed. It behoves this place to make sure that that never happens. 
Next I refer to clause 12 which deals with the meaning of affiliate historical claims. The Minister’s amendment which was tabled today proposes an amendment by adding a new subclause (5). I must say I think that amendment is sensible even though I share the view of the Minister that it is probably legally or strictly unnecessary and is there as he says to avoid doubt. 
Subpart 3 deals with the mechanics of settlement—settlement of affiliate historical claims is final—and there is the consequential amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. In particular schedule 3 is amended by including this legislation once it is enacted. Subpart 4 deals with miscellaneous matters such as perpetuities access to the deed of settlement and the date on which actions or matters must occur. There is no real magic in that and I need not detain the Committee by dwelling on Subpart 4. National will support the passage of Part 1.