Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21861] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to talk in a few moments about some of the points raised by Stephen Franks but before that I want to compliment Dr Mapp on his contribution to the Committee and on his comments relating to his concerns about the veracity of the preamble particularly recital (15). It is interesting that he chose to use the example of the Ngai Tahu settlement as being such a clean-cut sort of arrangement. He may be interested to know that when the dissidents from Parihaka were put in custody they were first incarcerated in Dunedin until some time later a helpful group from Rapaki offered to contain them on an island in what is currently called Lyttelton Harbour—those groups being supposedly more friendly to the Crown but ultimately in the position of having to settle grievance as well. 
 I do agree that in these recitals history should be well recorded and give ample weight to all the views and motivations around at the time. The problem we face here of course is that to get picky about that right now at this stage deprives those who are expecting a settlement and who have negotiated that settlement in good faith the outcome they are looking for. I know that that was not what Dr Mapp was intending. He was signalling that in a very short period of time when a different administration is handling these matters preambles such as the one in this bill will be dealt with in a different way. 
It is worth noting that when a bill like this is being dealt with increasingly the  
Hansard 
 record becomes important. The motivations of MPs in supporting this arrangement or in pointing out things they find are not quite right can be well understood by those who might look back on it in some years to come. I suggest to Mr Franks that in some part that is an answer to his concern. Obviously every party cannot be at every select committee looking at every piece of legislation. But ultimately Parliament has to try to deal with things in a way that recognises the fairness intended in any law before it. In fact we do that in this settlement process for the very reasons Mr Franks outlined—for the reason that article 2 guaranteed to Maori the same property rights that all British subjects understood they had. If that were not the case there would be no basis on which to bring treaty grievance claims to the Government for settlement. If the House were to consider that to its fullest extent we could be left to conclude only that the Maori Party will have very very soggy ground to stand on in future if it continues to be a participant in the process of this House because there is no room if these settlements are to progress for any suggestion that anybody other than the Crown has some obligation to settle grievances around land issues. 
I conclude my remarks by saying that although the National Party has reservations about a number of aspects in the textual arrangement of this bill we do not think it would be fair to vote against it because although we can all argue the history history is something that has a perspective applied to it. 
Jill Pettis 
: Because there’s an election looming. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Members have just heard the Wanganui fishwife scream across the House that an election is looming. Everyone knows that. The National Party has never voted against a settlement bill that has gone through the due process of consideration by this Parliament. It has indicated that there is only one arrangement of those the Government is entering into that we will not support. This bill is not one of them. These settlements are in fact a legacy of the former National Government and a testament to our commitment to the settlement process.