Franks Stephen: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4749] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I waited until I had heard a number of speeches in this debate because my party does not now sit on the Maori Affairs Committee. When this bill was first introduced the leader of my party expressed views that were intended to remind Parliament that while sentiment remorse and a desire to do good are essential Parliament is also a trustee—a steward—of the interests of all New Zealanders and we should subject these matters to the same careful scrutiny that we are required to give to anything else. So I listened to the debate having read the very brief report of the select committee and was obliged to rely on its report so far as it can be relied on. 
I have to tell the House that we will not be supporting this bill further. We will not vote after the second reading debate. We need more answers than the select committee has given. We need answers from the Minister because the select committee’s report essentially puts us all on notice that it had concerns that it does not address. The select committee says that we cannot amend these deeds. We cannot amend the bills that reflect the deeds. We treat them as we treat international treaties and it is a yes/no decision. So effectively the committee has said to us that there are matters here that perhaps would be of concern but there is nothing it could do about it. If I am reading that wrongly no doubt we will be told during the committee stage. There clearly seems to be a warning about the adequacy of mandate. I took that message also from the speech of my colleague Metiria Turei who came back to that at the end. 
There are also problems in the bill that perhaps go further than in just this Ngati Ruanui settlement. Treaty settlements are of course in respect of high-handed breaches of contract. There are cruel and even foul deeds and betrayal of values that had been taught by missionaries and that had been developed by Maori such as Te Whiti. But the matter is now too old to allow us to get at the truth and even the problem in establishing a mandate is an instance of that. The fact that no one can authoritatively deal with the two hapu or representatives who do not wish to be bound by and have their claims settled under this agreement is a warning of just how unlikely it is that true justice can now be arrived at at this length and how approximate this is. 
We have a difficulty in that we cannot trust the Minister in these matters. We cannot trust the Crown to approach these matters looking at them in the same way as it does with international treaties. The continuation of a Crown prerogative to enter treaties is based on the fact that no nation wants to wash its dirty linen in public before foreigners. It is based also on history on an assumption that the best judgment of the Crown will be in the interests of the nation—that in external matters internal politics should be put aside. That is a complete misapplication of doctrine in relation to treaty claim settlements. These are with ourselves. These are highly political internally. It is an absolute nonsense that this House and the committee will not look at the detail of these agreements and at the long-term effects of some of these settlements. So ACT will not be bound by any convention that purports to treat these contract breaches and criminal act settlement proposals—these compensation proposals—as if they were international treaties under the convention of Crown prerogative. 
This bill says that it settles claims arising from the principles of the treaty. We cannot rely on the Government because the Government will not tell us what those principles are. We have asked repeatedly in this House and the Government will not tell us because it does not know. It was very cunning or perhaps it was lack of courage; I do not know what it was 15 years ago but when the courts were told that they had to invent principles for the treaty of course they had to do it. But since then the Government will not define those principles and we do not know whether it is cynical or naïve. Whatever it is it is not creditable. 
We voted to send the bill to select committee as I said but we need clear answers about the effectiveness not only of the mandate in terms of potential contenders—competition for this mandate—we also need to know whether there are unrecognised problems in the mandate. Is it full and final? Who can tell? The Minister Tariana Turia concluded her address in the first reading debate by saying that the Crown must continue to support Ngati Ruanui as they move forward into the future. Was that mere rhetoric or was she just telling us as others have told us that these are not full and final settlements? What is it when a Minister of the Crown effectively says that this is not the end of it? 
Secondly I see nothing in the committee report on the quality of the governance entity and that is something that the Crown and this House should be taking an interest in. I have never really recovered from reading a book about the Alaska settlements where I think US$11 billion was lost by the 13 different tribal bands. I do not think that that is to the discredit of those bands. It is very very hard to hold wealth if a person has not actually earned it because earning it gives the skills to hold it. Very few listed companies last more than one generation and very few entities can hold wealth for more than one generation. It is the responsibility of the Crown to make sure that the governance entity is robust enough for this settlement not to become a cause of embarrassment should it be lost because the finger will be pointed whether or not it is fair. 
In that context it is proper to raise the question of the £5000 in the previous settlement which was probably more generous than the current settlement in real terms. That £5000 per year has obviously not been adequate—no one now thinks it was adequate. But the form of the new settlement has all the risks of setting neighbour against neighbour. ACT and this House need to know what is meant by the words in Part 5 of the bill which essentially say that the statutory acknowledgments can affect the lawful rights and interests of people who are not parties to the deed of settlement. The statutory acknowledgments are to be given regard by the consent authorities under the Resource Management Act. So it appears that Ngati Ruanui will be tempted into exercising a political privilege for ever in relation to land that is not their own. That is not something they can sell and they cannot turn it to good account. All that does is to put it into a position where some of its best brains will be occupied in appearing to frustrate Ngati Ruanui’s neighbours—and what does that do for relations? 
This is not a sensible settlement if I am reading it correctly. It may be that the Minister can reassure us during the Committee stage but as I read it there is an express warning that it does affect the private property of people who are not parties to the deed—that is neither the Crown nor Ngati Ruanui. This is not a light matter. The temptation to think that assets are the same as prosperity and health for a community is very very clear in the discussion in this House. It is not about assets or land; it is about the habits of thrift and respect for education—the sorts of “strength of character” things that have been gutted by unemployment benefits and domestic purposes benefits and by unearned income flowing to people who know that it is not appropriate. If this is a proper settlement of a property claim it is doing what article 2 of the treaty says it should do. But if instead it is creating permanent political privilege on the basis of inherited status; it is only a poisoned gift from this House to the people of New Zealand—both Maori and Pakeha. 
Bill read a second time.