Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20194] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I found very interesting the thoughtful comments—some of the most thoughtful I have heard on this topic—made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Dr Mapp in looking seriously at what many people have regarded as mere formalities. Part 1 is the part with the text of the acknowledgments the historical recital and I was pleased to see that those members took it seriously. I think future generations may well look at this part—and look at it in absolute amazement that we could have a long recital of history going back 140-odd years and that the Crown on behalf of the people of New Zealand is apologising for things that can scarcely be known and for wrongs that are done daily today. 
I draw attention to clause 8(3)(f) in which there is an apology effectively for eroding “the traditional social structures mana and rangatiratanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa” and for failing to “protect Ngati Tuwharetoa … from the impact of these actions”—presumably that means eroding the social structures mana or pride and rangatiratanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa. Well there is nothing whatsoever in the treaty that says that social structures mana and rangatiratanga will not be eroded. 
The treaty said that the protections of English property law would be given to property and those were rights that Maori did not have. Those were concepts of ownership that Maori did not have. It is perfectly in order for the Crown to apologise for confiscating land without compensation for taking rights by fraud or for punishing people who had not rebelled and giving their land away to others. That is perfectly in order but for this Parliament now to be turning round and grovelling because traditional social structures have been eroded is something the ACT party simply will not be party to. 
Traditional social structures may be good they may be bad; they simply are. There will be parts that we all regret to see gone. I regret the loss of the sense of community that I grew up with before television but I do not expect any Government to start apologising for the erosion of the institutions of civil society that occurred because the State started a television service that meant people stayed at home instead of going out. I do not see any reason why the anglicisation of property rights which of course did erode traditional society and the power of chiefs is something to apologise for. In just about every place where that has not happened traditional society has eroded just as corruptly. 
Indeed when the treaty was signed the missionaries would have been very well aware from the crusading investigative journalism of  
The Times 
 of London of just what the traditional power of the chiefs had done in Scotland. Indeed I think that article 2 of the treaty was a direct reflection of concern about the abuse of chiefly power that took for itself the value that should have been available for all ordinary people. The traditional social structure did not protect many of the people who had none of those so-called erosions when it became a new market economy.