Boscawen John: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10478] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I firstly acknowledge the contribution of Nanaia Mahuta who went to great pains to point out that the Committee should not be disappointed with the contribution of ACT or with ACT’s view. She is absolutely right because we are presenting a unique view. We are presenting a view that is different from that of any other party in this Parliament. Mr Garrett took considerable time and effort to explain some of the historical background to the negotiations between the Crown and Tainui over the last 150 years. I see that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is smiling. Well I am not sure whether he listened closely but Mr Garrett explained that in the 1940s before Princess Te Puea would agree to conscription she required that a settlement be reached. There had been a demand for a settlement previously but she demanded that a settlement had to be reached before she would agree to the conscription of Maori. That settlement was reached and Mr Garrett pointed out that it was an immediate payment of £5000 and an annual payment of £5000 thereafter. Those payments continued until the early 1990s. 
As Mr Garrett freely acknowledged that £5000 payment—$10000 in today’s terms—has been eroded by inflation. But interestingly inflation in New Zealand really took hold only from about 1975 onwards. Mr Garrett also pointed out that in those days £5000 was the value of a dairy farm. In essence there was a full and final settlement that was worth one dairy farm initially and was then worth one dairy farm every year thereafter ad infinitum. 
What was Mr Henare’s contribution? Mr Henare said that Maori were locked away. He said that Maori went to jail during the period from 1914 to 1918. That may well be so. Mr Henare may be absolutely right. But that is not what Mr Garrett said. He did not even comment on the period from 1914 to 1918. He said very clearly and I invite any member of the Committee to challenge it that before Princess Te Puea would agree to conscription during the Second World War she required a settlement and she got that settlement. 
It was also interesting that Mr Henare made that claim and he made it by saying that he was no scholar of history. He actually acknowledged before he uttered those words that he did not know anything about the subject but he offered to make those comments. But it was worse than that because we heard absolutely condescending comments from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations who said that Mr Henare correctly corrected Mr Garrett’s historical account. So there we have it. The Minister said that Mr Henare who freely acknowledges that he is no student of history corrected Mr Garrett. Once again I see the Minister smiling. Well it has come as a shock to me this afternoon and I do not think I would have understood it myself unless I had actually heard it with my own ears that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Christopher Finlayson is challenging the whole basis of our democracy. He knocks the concept of one person one vote. He made the condescending comment— 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to have the Hansard transcript changed from “should not be disappointed” to “should be”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. The interruption of a member’s speech is not something we should encourage. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: While I am on the subject something else is quite unique about the view of the ACT Party. In this very House last week we were the only party that stood up to support moves to reduce youth unemployment. We proposed a member’s bill to bring back youth rates which would have done something about Maori youth unemployment. If the member had been concerned about it she might well have spoken in favour of it and voted in favour of it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not know what that has to do with the Waikato River legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. I am sure the member will come back to the subject. We are debating the Waikato River legislation. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I certainly will. I would not have believed it unless I heard it with my own ears. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said that it was cheating the concept of one man one vote. He said that in New Zealand we have a one person two votes system. Yes we do; we have a party vote and an electorate vote. I say to the Minister that we may even have one person 100 votes. Someone who owns 100 separate pieces of land in 100 separate territorial locations has a vote in each of those local body elections. 
I noticed that the Chairperson allowed Nanaia Mahuta to speak for 15 minutes and I intend to speak for no more than only— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Chair decides the relevance of a speech and also who gets the call. I have given the member the call and we will carry on from there. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Let us move to the issue of co-governance. This bill sets up the Waikato River Authority which is charged with governing the Waikato River. Currently the Waikato River is governed by the Waikato Regional Council. Every person in the electoral district of the Waikato Regional Council gets a vote. It is one man one vote. That may seem a bit strange because earlier this afternoon we heard from Tau Henare who said that one person one vote was old hat. Well I wonder how many supporters of the National Party understand that the whole basis of our democracy is under threat this afternoon and I do not make that claim lightly. The Waikato River legislation appoints the Waikato River Authority and it allows the iwi of the Waikato area to appoint half the members. The other half are appointed by the Crown. The Waikato River is currently managed by the Waikato Regional Council and every member of that council gets to vote. 
I noticed that Maryan Street commented earlier this afternoon on Rodney Hide’s contribution to the second reading of the bill. She said that his comments were at best disrespectful and at worst despicable. Rodney Hide was speaking up for the people of New Zealand. He was speaking up for democracy. He was speaking up for the principle of one man one vote. Maryan Street also talked about evolutionary development. She said that if the Waikato River Authority is not a unique order if it has not previously been copied and she gave the example of Bastion Point in Auckland then it may well be unique now but it will be developed. We will have further evolutionary development. So I take it from that comment that Labour is very happy to put in place management structures and governance structures that are anathema; the concept of one man one vote is diametrically opposed. 
David Bennett 
: It’s a shame the ACT Party isn’t run by one man one vote. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is right. I hear clapping from Hone Harawira. He absolutely believes in that. 
One of the other things that the ACT Party presents a unique view on in this House is the Government’s decision last week to affirm the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in particular article 26. Mr Harawira who is sitting beside me and clapping would be well aware that the first point of article 26 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” When Mr Hide stood in Parliament last week and asked the Prime Minister what lands territories and resources Maori did not have before the arrival of Europeans the Prime Minister could not tell him. Now Maryan Street may think that Rodney Hide is being despicable or disrespectful but he is speaking up for the people of New Zealand. He is speaking up for the concept of one man one vote. If we are the only five members in this Chamber who are doing that then I am very proud to be one of them. Thank you.