Finlayson Christopher: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5377] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Very briefly a number of points of interest have emerged from this debate in the Committee stage. The first by reference to recitals (13) through (19) of the preamble is that negotiations were conducted at a very dilatory pace over a number of years. But at the end of the day the Government’s approaches to this particular Treaty settlement could be described in this way: the first approach—that of the Government to Te Arawa—is to “take it or leave it” as Mr Borrows said; the second approach when dealing with the legislation before the House and this Committee is to “accept it or forget about it and go and see a taxidermist”. I think those approaches are most unfortunate especially when there are very important and legitimate issues that need to be raised—and these in essence have emerged during the course of the debate. 
The first issue which has been unsatisfactorily dealt with by the Minister Mark Burton and the Government team concerns mandate. The report of the Maori Affairs Committee that deals with mandate questions is unsatisfactory. As I said when we debated Part 1 if mandate questions are not resolved satisfactorily—if the discordant remnants of Te Arawa are not brought into this settlement—there will be problems in years to come. 
That leads on to the second point. It is very easy to put into the bill jurisdictional clauses that have the effect of trying to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to matters concerning the Te Arawa settlement. I have seen such clauses before in relation both to Treaty settlements and to other attempts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts—but where there is a will there is a way. If there are issues of justice that remnants of Te Arawa want to raise in 20 years’ time and the courts consider those issues legitimate then they will get around the jurisdictional issues. So the kinds of points raised by the National Party and the Maori Party will not go away. 
The third issue raised in the course of the Committee stage concerns definitions. Right throughout this debate—in the first reading the second reading and again in the Committee stage—I have raised issues about the vague reference to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I have raised questions about what references to spiritual significance and cultural significance are and I like my friend Mr Flavell have referred to this interesting concept of Crown stratum that appears for the first time in this legislation. I think more care needed to be taken with some of the definitions and with some of the concepts. When looking at Part 2 I contrasted the scheme of this bill with the scheme for example of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998. So some interesting definitional issues were not properly addressed. 
Finally when my team on the National Party and I looked at Part 2 which deals with issues about cultural redress we said that some issues arose in the context of that particular part. I regret to say that they were not adequately dealt with. I particularly refer to clause 24. As Mr Borrows said it transfers lake beds to Te Arawa and provides for a scheme of transfer that means the people of Te Arawa have something less than full entitlements to their property. For example they are not able to dispose of or alienate a freehold which is a fetter on their rights as property owners. They are not entitled to grant or create a mortgage but they are entitled to lease the estate for a term of not more than 35 years. They are entitled to grant easements and licences. Those issues were not properly resolved. 
Above all if I can say this what I have found most interesting is the unique position of New Zealand First in relation to this bill. It has an approach that can only be described as bizarre. It will support this bill and the Treaty clauses in it but only as it were pro tem because as soon as Mr Woolerton’s bill on the issue of deleting Treaty principles comes back to the House New Zealand First will seek to delete them from this bill. 
As I have said on more than one occasion in this Parliament Treaty settlements are and should be a cause for great rejoicing in New Zealand. As I have also said before quoting Isaiah they give people the chance to undo the burdens of the past so that everyone can point to the future in a spirit of optimism and goodwill. But this is bad legislation. It really does not address some fundamental issues. If you like it is a paint-by-numbers bill that in a boilerplate kind of way seeks to impose on this settlement the standard forms terms and conditions of other settlements. As I have attempted to explain by reference to the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act every settlement is in a sense sui generis and it requires sui generis legislation. It requires people to look at the particular circumstances that gave rise to the settlement. I regret to say that with this legislation the particular circumstances of the Te Arawa people have not been addressed. That is why with great disappointment really and bearing in mind the history of negotiations over the years National will be opposing the passage of this bill.