Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18856] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I think that although the term “settlement” is used in the title of this bill as the deputy leader of the National Party has already said a settlement is unlikely. As we have gone through the Committee stage we have seen this bill to be a reflection of scruffy casual practice by the Government—induced I think by years of an assumption by the two big parties that no one would seriously question them. We saw that in the report of the Maori Affairs Committee when it came back to the House. The committee stated: “we have been mindful of … the rules relating to legislation to confirm agreements such as deeds of settlement. These mean that we cannot substantively amend this bill in any way that is not acceptable to the parties to the deed being implemented.” What are those rules? There may have been some conventions. There may have been practices that the two old parties have adopted. But when we went through this bill we found there was not only a need but also a desperate willingness on the part of the Government to do a bit of amending. 
The Government had to amend the preambles because the Committee was misled when the bill first came to it about the lack of difference between the Maori text and the English text. Then we had considerable discussion about just what that may mean as a principle for this Parliament. If we are to stick parallel texts in legislation because it is thought to look fashionably sensitive to do so what do we do in order to make sure that they do mean exactly the same thing? The Committee did not use its own official interpreter. Instead we wasted hours in debate because the Government chose one of its own Maori members—a former Minister—to do the interpreting and then we found that he did not interpret accurately. Today we have had a debate about the absence of any statement as to which text is authoritative. 
We know that languages evolve and meanings drift and it is very hard indeed for a future generation even a few years hence to understand the motivation when deliberately obscure words have been used—and this legislation is full of them. This bill is full of casual deliberately obfuscatory words in English let alone possibly in the Maori text as well which I do not understand. We see a whole swathe of references to acknowledgements to protocols to deeds of recognition and to text that people are directed to have regard to or at a higher level to have particular regard to. But there is no indication of what that means. 
The Environment Court under this legislation is told to have regard to acknowledgements of Maori associations Maori beliefs Maori spiritual understandings and historic myths with no indication of what that regard is other than a statement that it does not have legal effect. What is a court supposed to do when it is having regard to such matters but is not giving effect to them? Should it piously run its eyes over a matter and ignore it or do what the courts have done: try to go through and make sense of instructions within a system that has struggled for centuries to ensure that the law is secular rational tolerant and courteous but is not beholden to any particular culture or any particular religion? We have the courts being directed to have regard to certain matters and then being directed not to give any legal effect to them. What does that mean? The Government has deliberately obscured that. 
The Government should have told Ngati Awa that those things are off the table. They might have been possible 15 years ago when Sir Douglas Graham and others of his kind were desperately looking for something to replace the faith that they grew up in. But they do not work now. We have heard the National Party and New Zealand First say that they will no longer subscribe to the beliefs that they have appeared to subscribe to and at least were voting for only 5 months ago. They have said they will no longer support references to the so-called principles of the treaty. They will no longer in the case of the National Party go along with the mythical partnership or at least with having it referred to in law. It may have been an extremely powerful analogy it may have been an excellent metaphor and it may have been a worthy statement of morality but it is no longer to be in the law. We will see more of that.