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:20214] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This is the part that records the settlement. Clause 15(1) states that the settlement is final and that “on and from the settlement date the Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of those claims.” What is not immediately obvious from the words of clause 15 is that the definition that applies is set out in Part 2 which we have just considered. That definition relates only to historical claims. In fact historical claims do not even include any claims that may have arisen since 1992; they go from 1992 back to 1840. 
The Government should have learnt from the experience of the past 10 years or so that full and final settlement should be full and final settlement and then the treaty should be dead. We have created a generation of talented young people who are now growing into their peak years and whose lives have been built around grievance. Although many of those whom I saw and was impressed by at the Hui Taumata want to move on there are still too many who can hardly do that because their living their entire expertise and their authority comes from that industry. 
I am concerned that the Government is making these settlements and that it still has a residue of public support for them when in fact elements of the claims are expressly not settled. I imagine for example that Ngati Tuwharetoa will be pushing Wai 262—that unbelievable claim to own the flora and fauna in New Zealand when Maori and later Pakeha came. I do not think that the settlement in Part 3 or any of these settlements should be made while the Crown deliberately fosters the notion of a distinction between the contemporary claims under a treaty that goes on forever and that forever draws distinctions between New Zealanders on the basis of their ethnic inheritance and a treaty that deals with the terms on which two different peoples coexist for the shakedown period until they genuinely became one people—the one people that Hobson foresaw. So I think that the rather extravagant language in this provision which states that the Crown “is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities” in respect of the historical claims should be withheld until we know that New Zealanders are to be rid of the treaty once the settlements are made. 
I see no place in a constitution of a contented society for a document that people call a foundation document that states that people can claim inherited privilege on the basis of their ethnic inheritance. That is exactly what the contemporary arguments say. When the Hon Margaret Wilson became the Minister in 1999 she told the House that there would be a statement of the principles as the basis on which claims that were not historical would be approached. That document has never emerged. I do not know whether any work has even been done on it in the last 3 or 4 years. We were told in the first year that there was a lot of work being done on the principles for settlement of the so-called contemporary claims but we have never seen it. There was to be a whole-of-Government approach. I think the office that is represented by officials here today was to be in charge of it. It got too hard. 
The contemporary claims are now scattered throughout the Government and we have no idea whether there is any consistency in approach whatsoever. The honourable John Tamihere was in charge of dealing with some of them—the Wai 262 claim for example which I think is one of the claims that is most likely to cause offence between Pakeha and Maori. The Wai 262 claim which should have been included here is a matter that— 
Darren Hughes 
: Two percent support in the polls. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Is the Government whip complaining about another call being granted? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He is just observing that ACT is 2 percent in the polls. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Two percent. This is a very very arrogant Government. The arguments being put forward are arguments the people of this country have wanted to hear in this Parliament for 20 years. A speech from Dr Brash caused such a crumble in Labour’s support because it was what people had been dying to hear. A speech like that caused such a reaction and the Minister’s only response on a question of whether the treaty is truly a fundamental constitutional document was to throw out a jibe about party support. What a feeble and inadequate response! There must be something that he feels will be achieved. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Who is your target market? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The target market for this speech is in fact New Zealanders who are asking where this treaty industry is taking us. How do we know that anything is full and final? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Two percent! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Does the Minister think that only two percent of people are worried about that? The Minister needs to look at the polls that did not tell him what was creeping up when Dr Brash made his speech. When Dr Brash made his speech Labour was just as cocky. The consequences will come again. 
But the question that Part 3 raises is: what is a settlement? What is “full and final”? How do we know that this legislation matters at all when the contemporary claims have been left fully alive—that is anything that has happened after 1992? All of the sense of grievance can be regenerated in another generation. It can all come back. If there is not truly a partnership—if we are not all living here as part of the Crown under the Sovereign—and if instead we are negotiating through our representatives for a privilege based on our ethnic origins then there can be no final settlement. This settlement will mean nothing if that is the foundation for New Zealand’s polity. If that is the basis on which we relate to each other—that we share the spoils of power which is the way that Labour approaches government—then there is no end to this and the settlements are nothing more than a temporary payment to postpone the next instalment. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to.