Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19607] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill with a sense of weariness. Once again we have a bill that repeats the errors of the past. Members have gloated over the very techniques that got our forebears into trouble. We have had sanctimonious speeches—like the speech made by the previous speaker—full of unction with speakers claiming superiority over people on the spot 140 years ago and alleging that those people did not know what they were doing when there is no way now of deciding with any kind of certainty who was right and who was wrong. 
I am also concerned because I think I heard New Zealand First members who finally discovered enough integrity in relation to the last settlement bill that came before the House to refuse to support it because it contained references to spurious principles say that they would support this bill. That reverts to the pattern they have had for the last 2 or 3 years of loudly denouncing in this House the so-called principles while busily voting for bills that contain references to them. I draw the attention of New Zealand First members whom I assumed would have seen those references because those members were represented on the Maori Affairs Committee to clause 10(2) which refers to the Crown profoundly regretting and unreservedly apologising for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. So the Crown has not yet purged those nonsense words from the legislation. 
That is not the only instance. Again I draw New Zealand First members’ attention to clause 14. In the most important definition of the bill and in the only provisions that make this settlement worth proceeding with is the provision that states that the claims are settled. That is the definition of historical claims. Clause 14(a)(i)(A) refers to a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or from the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. To be fair to New Zealand First in this connection it is probably sensible to put that definition in because people may still assert that they have rights arising from the principles even if we now find that the principles are so contentious and insubstantial that a definition should not be included in legislation. So I could understand leaving that reference in the bill for the sake of completeness but I think that New Zealand First has lost some of the mana I was prepared to concede to it last time for finally acting in accordance with its claimed principles and aligning with ACT’s view. 
In the time I have been in this House ACT has always voted against these bills because they contain words that are undefined are not capable of a proper definition and are not able to meet the standards that this House should insist on for legislation. That is it is legislation that sets people at each other’s throats with words that at the time we pass the legislation we know will have different meanings to different people. That will cause the parties to go back before judges and to spend money on lawyers because the words mean different things to each side of the deal. The function of this House should be to make sure that we do not do that. We should make sure that the law we pass has clear and accepted meanings and that disputes are being resolved. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The senior Government whip from Whanganui is interjecting as she always does in these debates. I will not use the pejorative descriptions that are often applied to her approach but I will draw this to her attention and ask whether she wants to participate in the debate to explain to me just what is meant by the protocols and the acknowledgments. This bill is offering to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty the legal equivalent of bangles and beads. This bill is offering shiny baubles to get an agreement with words that either have a substantial meaning in which case they will cause trouble in the future or that mean nothing in which case it is fraudulent to be offering them. 
I draw Ms Pettis’ attention to clause 41—it is just a sample; there are many clauses like this—where the Historic Places Trust and the Environment Court are directed to “… have regard to a statutory acknowledgement in forming an opinion under … the Historic Places Act …”. In clause 48 we find that relevant consent authorities must have regard to the “geothermal statutory acknowledgement” which is a novelty with this bill. We find in clause 52 that the statutory acknowledgments are not: “(2) … binding as deemed fact on—(a) the consent authorities: (b) the Environment Court: …”. In other words for legal purposes they have no evidential weight. In clause 60 we find a cute little instruction that states: “(b) no person in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under a statute regulation or bylaw may give greater or lesser weight to the association with or use by Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) of a statutory area or the geothermal energy or geothermal water … than that person would give … if no statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition existed …”. In other words in this statute the Crown goes through the rigmarole of telling people that they are getting something of significance and then carefully states that it does not mean a damn thing. Nevertheless the court has to have regard to it. 
I would really appreciate a member of the select committee explaining now or during the Committee stage on this bill exactly what is meant by this duplicity. The rest of Parliament might be quite content to go along with these things saying that they are just matters of form and that everyone knows that Maori do not really care that they are getting a bauble. 
Members of this House stand up and make grand speeches in Maori about how proud they are to be part of settling these longstanding grievances when they well know that a future generation will look at this legislation and say that Parliament must have meant something by it and that it cannot be as empty as it appears. We cannot assume a new round of bad faith in what is supposed to be a settlement of old breaches of faith. Descendants of the people who sign this deal are sure to be back saying that no one could have expected after 150 years of grievance and solemn promises to put it all in the past that their people could have been offered utterly empty assurances and utterly useless deeds of acknowledgment. 
So what will the descendants do? They will assert and future historians—probably sounding as unctuously confident as the United Future member who has just spoken—will say: “Of course they didn’t know what they were really doing. Of course we’ve got to read some meaning into this. Yes we will convert this into the ownership rights that should have been created.” 
If this were a real settlement we would be creating real ownership of the kind promised in article 2 of the treaty. Article 2 of the treaty did not offer a shadow; it offered classical property rights—the kind of property rights this Government does not give a toss about despite its members being champion tossers. 
This bill may be the first—I am not certain—that the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Margaret Wilson had brought in herself from the ground up. She could have broken with tradition. She could have broken with the National Party’s habit of making meaningless deals. She could have taken note of the select committee’s decision that the so-called rules that say it cannot recommend substantive changes are not worthy of this House and allowed the select committee to look at this bill and do something meaningful with it. Instead of course the Crown is here apologising for allowing someone’s culture to be changed.