Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. Ngāti Ruanui is one of the eight generally recognised iwi of Taranaki. Its historical treaty claims cover some of the southern part of the Taranaki region, and relate mostly to the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki in the 1860s, and to the loss of property through the confiscation of land under the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863. The claims also relate to the treatment of prisoners during the wars, to the Crown’s unconscionable actions in its dealing with the Parihaka community, and to the inadequacy of the West Coast commissions. This settlement addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi. The widespread loss of Ngāti Ruanui land has hindered its development throughout the past 160 years.

This settlement enables the Crown to apologise for its atrocious behaviours towards Ngāti Ruanui, especially in relation to the people in that area. Ngāti Ruanui suffered a heavy punishment due to a decision of the Government of the day to make an example of it, in order to deter other Māori from taking up arms against the Queen’s authority. The Crown has acknowledged that its actions had a prejudicial impact on those of Ngāti Ruanui. In particular, that impeded the ability of Ngāti Ruanui to exercise control over its taonga and its wāhi tapu, and to maintain and foster spiritual connections to its ancestral lands. The Crown apologises unreservedly for its actions, which breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. As well as an apology, this settlement provides for financial redress of $41 million, which includes the transfer of six commercial properties, and a variety of cultural redress that aims to recognise and protect the interests of Ngāti Ruanui in sites that are particularly significant to them, and to enhance their relationship with the Crown.

This bill makes it clear that this is a comprehensive and final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngāti Ruanui. This settlement is an important milestone for Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown. It will enable us to move forward and renew our relationship as treaty partners. I know that members of Ngāti Ruanui would like this settlement to be finalised as soon as possible, to enable them to begin their development plans and to look to the future. This settlement is also significant because it is the first in the Taranaki region. I hope that this settlement will encourage other claimants to enter into and complete negotiations with the Crown.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered this bill and submitted its commentary on the bill to the House. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with certain proposed amendments, and I thank it for its timely and thorough consideration of the bill. The committee made some observations concerning objections to the bill in relation to some individuals within Ngāti Ruanui and, in particular, with regard to some members of Tangahoe and Pakakohi, who have opposed parts of the settlement throughout. That opposition led to mediation, several judicial conferences, and proceedings before the Waitangi Tribunal and the High Court. On the whole, those inquiries found in favour of the settlement proceeding. I am glad to note that the majority of the select committee was satisfied that the issue of whether Pakakohi and Tangahoe be included in this settlement has been well and truly traversed, and agreed that the settlement should proceed.

I note that the Green Party member on the committee holds a different view and objects to the inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe in this settlement, and I respect that position. I would like to point out to the member, however, that of the 16 Ngāti Ruanui hapū, Tangahoe members affiliate mainly to five hapū, and Pakakohi members affiliate mainly to six hapū. Also, the Waitangi Tribunal stated in 2001 that although each group traditionally had distinct identities, it is now very difficult to tell the people apart. Also, the settlement recognises that unique relationship and identity. All members of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi will be able to benefit from the settlement wherever they may now live.

I note that the committee has made a few minor amendments to the bill, generally to reflect the recently approved survey plans for the cultural redress properties that are to be transferred. As is noted in the committee’s commentary on the bill, further amendments are to be made to the bill, reflecting, among other things, the change under Landonline from a certificate of title to a computer register. Those have been provided for in Supplementary Order Paper 72, which has been tabled in the House.

It was in April 1998 that the previous Government recognised the mandate of Ngāti Ruanui negotiators. A deed of settlement was then finalised and signed in May 2001. This settlement has been achieved in a timely manner, and it is important that we now finalise it to enable Ngāti Ruanui to receive the redress. I acknowledge the work done by the former Minister, and the Associate Minister, in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who contributed to this settlement.

I also want to thank the other Ministers involved, and in particular the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Māori Affairs, who have supported the process throughout. I acknowledge the support and assistance of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for treaty negotiations. I wish to thank the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements and other Government departments for their work in seeking a just and fair settlement.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the individual kaumātua, members, and negotiators of Ngāti Ruanui, whose commitment on behalf of their people, their ancestors, and their descendants has led to this pathway to reconciliation. I commend this bill to the House.

I am very pleased and proud to speak to the second reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. I commend the Government for finally getting the bill to this stage. I also say that I am satisfied with the work that we did in the Māori Affairs Committee and that this bill should certainly now proceed with, hopefully, swift passage.

As the Minister has already stated, the settlement that gives rise to this bill involves the Ngāti Ruanui people of South Taranaki. It aims to give effect to a deed of settlement dated 12 May 2001, which has been ratified by a majority of Ngāti Ruanui. Specifically, 88 percent of the adult Ngāti Ruanui voted, with agreement from 60 percent of the total, which, in terms of a mandate and a brief to go ahead and do something, is a very reasonable majority. I will come to the issues raised by Pakakohi and Tangahoe later, because I would imagine, given the depth of feeling with which they came to the select committee to raise their concerns, they will still be feeling some loss that this bill is now proceeding through the House.

The Ngāti Ruanui claims are settled through this bill. It is important to note that under clause 15, the Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of the Ngāti Ruanui claims. The clause states that the settlement of the historical claims effected under the deed and the legislation is final. That is a feature of all the settlement legislation that comes through the House, and hopefully it gives some confidence to all, both inside and outside the House, that, given goodwill and settlement packages that are fair and reasonable, these can indeed be said to be final settlements of the historical claims of iwi.

The settlement provides for an apology. The background to that apology is the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki, the land confiscations that followed the Waitara purchase, and the invasion of Parihaka in 1881, following a period of passive resistance. That was not a good period in our history, and the Minister has alluded to that. I want to remind the House that things happened during the wars that were waged and during the invasion of Parihaka that none of us can be proud of. All of us, therefore, should be pleased that with the passage of this bill, this House makes some atonement for the dreadful things that happened to these people.

Interestingly enough, those actions still live on, in the way that these people present themselves to us today. One can only imagine that if people are living with a history in which their tūpuna were invaded and imprisoned without trial, with some being sent away and imprisoned in caves down in the South Island—some never to return and others to return, but to no homes—even though that happened back in the 1880s, the legacy of those kinds of injustices to a group of people may, in the minds and hearts of those people, never be made right. Hopefully, this settlement at least shows good faith and goodwill on the part of the Crown and this Parliament, to make up for those actions.

The settlement provides, as I say, for an apology, and also for a redress package, which consists of commercial redress in the form of cash and properties, and also cultural redress. That package is extremely important, because with the alienation and the dispossession of land came the loss of an economic base, which the tribe no doubt widely expected to be able to develop along with the emerging nation. That is why the tribe signed the Treaty of Waitangi, but that did not happen. But while the redress package is important, it is also very important that the Government, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, makes this apology. As I say, people who are interested might want to read through the full preamble, which sets out exactly the reasons that the apology is important. Essentially the commercial and cultural redress follows the same kind of package that was developed for previous settlements. It has proved to be a worthwhile structure for settlements, and I would imagine that future settlements will also be based on the framework that is now present in this bill.

This is the first settlement in Taranaki, as the Minister referred to, and like the Minister I would hope it acts as a spur for both the Government and the other iwi of Taranaki to move, sooner rather than later, to settle their historical claims. Nobody needs to feel guilty about this claim, because none of us here today was responsible for anything that happened to Ngāti Ruanui, but we have a great opportunity to make up for the things that were done in the past. I think it is always a very worthwhile thing that the House does to show that the Crown is capable of good faith and of making atonement for the actions or inaction of past Governments. I always feel proud when we do one of these settlements, and I hope everyone in this House does, too.

None of these settlements will be perfect. Nothing can ever be done to fully make up for the losses incurred by iwi that have resulted in these historical claims, but we in New Zealand are foremost in the world in the way in which we address these injustices. I think New Zealanders should be very proud of the fact that we have a framework in place to address them, and that when we put our minds to it, we are very diligent in going about settling these injustices. There can be no equality of citizenship while this sort of injustice sits and waits to be atoned for.

This is a good night. This is a worthwhile debate. The select committee, hopefully, did its job reasonably well. We were satisfied that the issues raised by Pakakohi and Tangahoe had been well traversed by the Waitangi Tribunal. There were also some Cabinet minutes available to us. The issues about whether those two sub-tribes should be included in the settlement had been well traversed. The select committee has no power to change a deed of settlement. The best that we could do was to make sure that due process was followed, and in this case it appears that it was. I hope that in time those who feel disaffected, and who came before the select committee with much depth and emotion, will be able to put that behind them as well, to join together with the rest of Ngāti Ruanui, and, as the Minister says, to use this settlement as a beacon to go forward into the future.

United Future supports the second reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. Indeed, it is United Future’s view that the claims settlement process needs to occur with a great deal more speed than is apparent. I would like Ngāti Ruanui to be aware that the reason this bill is being passed in urgency is that United Future requested it to be included in the list of bills to be debated under urgency this week. Without that, the bill would not be here tonight.

We believe it is important that the process of settling grievances be resolved as a matter of urgency. We believe that until we can get the grievances between Māori and the Crown resolved and the settlements out of the way, we will be inhibited as a nation from moving on together. We are concerned that there are delays in the whole settlement process, and at the length of time that the Government is taking to get the settlements through.

However, turning to the bill, I am particularly glad to see it progressing with speed. As I said in my first reading speech, I trace my own great-grandparents back to the town of Maxwell. They were farming at the time that a lot of these events would have happened. In the first reading I expressed my concern that my ancestors, who were around at that time, might have been involved in them, or might have had land given to them or sold to them by the Crown that, in fact, was Māori land. I apologised at that time on behalf of my ancestors for any grievances that they might have been party to. I noted from the deed of settlement with Ngāti Ruanui that the Crown adopted a policy of attrition, or a scorched earth policy, in regard to the southern Taranaki operations. That resulted in many villages being destroyed, in bush-scouring campaigns, and in much loss of life and property on the part of Ngāti Ruanui. It is over time that we as a nation recognised that, provided an apology to Ngāti Ruanui, and recompensed them, albeit modestly, for the losses that they suffered.

I was also aware that Ngāti Ruanui was part of and contributed to the Parihaka community. That community was an example to New Zealand, in terms of its peaceful existence and the way that it operated as a community. It was a community that was based on the scriptural principles of the Beatitudes, and it tried to live in a peaceful way with the English. Unfortunately, the British did not respond in the same way. We know the story of Parihaka and the way that the armed forces dominated that community, and endeavoured by force and intimidation to make those people leave their land. Eventually a lot of them were exiled to the South Island, and there were many deaths as a result of that.

I am also particularly pleased to support this bill because a lot of the Ngāti Ruanui people settled in my own area of the Hutt Valley. Te Whiti led a number of people down from Taranaki to settle in the Hutt Valley. Te Whiti Park, which is a key park in the Hutt Valley, is named after Te Whiti because that is where the people settled. Therefore, in terms of my current area of residence, I feel an affinity with the Ngāti Ruanui people and I am delighted to see this bill progressing further.

I have indicated the frustration that United Future feels at the slowness in resolving the treaty grievances. I note, for example, that the Gisborne inquiry process—the newly developed process that came into effect last year—is still awaiting the publication of a report as to its effectiveness. The Attorney-General advised this House way back in September that the assessment was being completed, yet many months on from that we still find a situation where the Gisborne inquiry report has not been published. It is expected that the report will be positive. The Attorney-General has indicated that once that report is received, if there is a need for more funding then that will be looked at. Yet we are now getting close to the Budget round, where the Government will be considering the provisions it will make in order to expand its policies. There is an urgent need for things like the Gisborne inquiry process, which has by all accounts been effective, to be extended to all the other claims throughout New Zealand so that we can speed up the Waitangi Tribunal processes, resolve the grievances, get the legislation into this House, and pass it.

As I indicated before, it is the view of United Future that until we can get the grievances resolved and the whole job completed, we are inhibited as a nation from moving forward. We have a thorn in the side of our history that prevents us from moving into the future together. So I encourage the Government even more strongly to provide more funding and to speed up the process. I encourage it to give more urgency to getting the resolutions through, tabling the legislation, and passing it through the House. Many iwi and hapū have been waiting for too long to see their grievances resolved. I know that there are issues, such as mandating issues and things like that, that fairly need to be completed by the iwi and hapū themselves, but it seems to me that even greater resources could be provided to the Office of Treaty Settlements. That would enable the claims development teams to be expanded, so that they take a proactive, and not simply a reactive, role in having disputes resolved. The Office of Treaty Settlements should be approaching iwi and hapū, encouraging them to get together, and facilitating in every way possible the resolution of their issues. I am not talking about taking away the authority and the decision making from Māori, but simply about working alongside them and providing all the resources possible to speed up the process of the iwi fulfilling the aspects that they need to fulfil, so that we can reach some resolutions and get the settlements through.

However, the second reading of this bill is important for Ngāti Ruanui, and therefore United Future supports it. We are keen to see the bill go through the House with a degree of speed. We commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora anō tātou i huihui mai nei i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei pō. Ki ō tatou manuhiri, ki ngā rangatira o Ngāti Ruanui, nau mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings once again to all of us who are gathered here tonight in this House. To our visitors and chiefs from Ngāti Ruanui, welcome, welcome. Greetings to you all, greetings, greetings.]

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading of this bill. Between 1990 and 1995 the Waitangi Tribunal investigated 21 claims concerning Taranaki Māori, including Ngāti Ruanui, made to the Waitangi Tribunal under section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. In 1996 the Waitangi Tribunal released its interim report on the Taranaki claims. Its report was based on the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry up to the date of the report, in order to expedite negotiations for settlements in relation to the Taranaki claims.

In April 1998 the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāti Ruanui Muru me te Raupatu Working Group, including Tangahoe and Pakakohi, in its negotiations. The Crown and the working-party reached a heads of agreement in September 1999, which recorded that in principle Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown were willing to settle the Ngāti Ruanui historical claims.

The Crown and the working-party then finalised a settlement offer, which was put before Ngāti Ruanui for ratification. Ngāti Ruanui approved the ratification by a majority vote of 87.8 percent of participating adult members of the claimant community who were eligible to vote. On 12 May 2001 the Crown and Ngāti Ruanui entered into a deed of settlement. Throughout the negotiations members of Ngāti Ruanui, representing some members of Tangahoe and Pakakohi in particular, and in some cases members of Hamua, Hapotiki, and Ngāti Tupaia hapū have opposed the settlement. That opposition has related mainly to the inclusion of the Tangahoe and Pakakohi claims in the Ngāti Ruanui settlement.

I am positive that all in this House would dearly love to have these claims settled for once and for all, so that people can move on after an arduous time-span of negotiations. But I ask the question: what of the concerns of Pakakohi and Tangahoe? Are their claims valid enough, given that many submissions were before the Māori Affairs Committee towards the end of the year 2002? Crown policy is that it is for claimants to decide who will represent them, and how to select those representatives. Representatives are selected through an open and a transparent process, and only when certain criteria are met will the Crown recognise the mandate of a claimant group. Those criteria are, for instance, that the mandate process was open and transparent, was representative of all claims and descent groups, has wide support from the claimant community, and represents a large natural grouping of claimants’ interests. Those factors and many others all require careful judgments by officials, and ultimately by Ministers. There will invariably be opposition to any mandate recognition decision. What the Crown needs to be certain of is that a clear majority of the marae, hapū and claimant community members support the mandate, and that those who do not are still able to participate in the process.

After considering the Office of Treaty Settlements and Te Puni Kōkiri assessments, in April 1988 Cabinet decided to recognise the working-party’s mandate to represent Ngāti Ruanui, including Pakakohi and Tangahoe. I ask members to allow me to add that as long as there is division amongst the people, how can we live together as a nation? New Zealand First recognises the mana of those concerned, and that it has always been part and parcel of Māori make-up. But for the moment, I ask that we look at the common sense of these issues. After all, we are whānau, and hapū is an extension of the whānau concept. I am sure that for the sake of peace for our tamariki and mokopuna, all the parties concerned can sit down together in a spirit of tranquillity and negotiate an amicable agreement that would be profitable for all.

New Zealand First supports the bill, but we also recommend very strongly that the leadership of Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi, and Tangahoe, and others whom I may have omitted, gather together on their maraes of abode and negotiate a peaceful and satisfying agreement. I believe that this can and will be done within the confines and wairua of our tupuna. New Zealand First would be happy to facilitate that if required, in order to bring these matters to finality. I am sure that the sore that may burst can be cured. Kei te kata koe.

[You are laughing.]

To Ngāti Ruanui and all the hapū concerned, I say the bill has been before the Waitangi Tribunal. It has been before the select committee, along with all the submissions for and against it, and we know and feel those concerns and the heritage that is represented there. The indications are that this bill will receive the stamp of approval. My question will be bandied around amongst many: where to from here? Taku whakahoki ki tēnā pātai, kei a koutou tēnā. My reply to that query is that it is now over to the hapū. New Zealand First endorses and will support this bill, and hopes that all will proceed for the good of all hapū. No reira, ki a tātou, ki a koutou ngā rangatira o Ngāti Ruanui, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, i tae mai nei koutou ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, e whakawhitiwhiti ana i waenganui i ngā mema o tēnei Whare. To those of Ngāti Ruanui, I thank them for being present and listening to the conversations and the debate that has been going on this evening. Greetings to us all.

Ā, tēnā koutou e kui me te rōpū e haere maomao mai, mai raro i tā tāua nei maunga a Taranaki me te tihi o taua maunga. Uhia mai te tīpare rau kawakawa hei tohu nō te mate ki a rātou kua uhia mai i te korowai aroha i a rātou tīmata ai ō rātou nei hīkoi ki te mātātoru, te iti me te rahi, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou ō koutou nei maia ki te haramai ki te rongo atu i ngā kōrero kua whakahūātia kei roto i tēnei pouwhare. Kua rongo hoki koutou, kei te tautoko, tino tautoko mai te nuinga o mātou i te tikanga o tēnei pire. Nā, ka maumahara au i tētehi o ngā whakatauākītanga kōrero e whakaputa mai i ō tātou nei poropiti a Te Whiti ki te iwi i a rātou e noho i runga i te marae o Parihaka. Ka mētia e te poropiti ki a rātou ngā rōpū, “E te iwi ka riri mai te hau ki a mātou, ka piko. Ka mutu te riri e te hau ki a mātou, ka tū anō.” Nā, kua tae te wā. Ka tū mana anō koutou, mātou te katoa o ngā iwi o Taranaki i tēnei wā. Kia whakatūtuki pea i ngā auwētanga, i te haehae o te whatumanawa o rātou rā ngā tau heke, ā, kua ngaro ai te katoa. Me kī, me rātou rā e mauherere ai kei roto i ngā āna kei Te Waipounamu. A rātou rā kua mate ai, kua tanumia ai kei te whenua o Te Waipounamu. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you the elderly womenfolk, and the group who travelled here from afar and from that mountain of ours, Taranaki. Greetings to its summit. Cover us with the sprig of leaves from the kawakawa tree that is worn around the head to mark death, and to honour those who have been shrouded in the cloak of love as they began their journey. To the multitude, to the meek, and to the illustrious, greetings to you. Greetings to you and on your boldness in coming to hear what is being said in this House. You have also heard that the majority of us support what this bill is about—really support it. Now I recall one of the wise sayings that this prophet of ours, Te Whiti, said to the people when they were living on Parihaka Marae. The prophet said this to the group: “When the wind is angry with us, we bend over. When its anger is over, we stand up again.” The moment has now arrived. At this moment, you and all of us of Taranaki stand with authority. To carry out the anguish perhaps to its completion, and the things that cut them up inside, all have disappeared over the years—let us say those held captives in caves in the South Island; those who died there, and are buried there. Therefore, greetings to you.]

I am very pleased to hear, so far, the level of support that has been expressed for this bill following the start of the debate on its second reading by the Minister, the Hon Margaret Wilson. It shows a very collective consciousness towards addressing ngā he rawa o mua ake [the things that went wrong before], because many of our people, not only those in Taranaki, have had that kind of mamae for generations. As a former long-term trustee of Parihaka—as an uri of Parihaka, just like those in the gallery—I am very, very pleased and privileged to stand here as a former chair of the Parihaka trustees, and now as the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga, and sometimes for Taranaki, to express our view.

We understand and you understand, without doubt, the kinds of statements that have been made about te auwētanga [the anguish], because we have lived it. It has been our reality. We understand fully, as well, the kinds of implications it has had for our people. It is not just about land. Ehara mō te whenua anake. To see you here tonight, Mate, your having travelled to Wellington as you have done for—I do not know—the last 4 decades, kawe mai i taua take i konei nā, i mua i te aroaro o te Kāwana [to bring this matter before the Government]. Seeing you here, of course, causes reflections of memory, and I see beside you many other people, including my mother. There is a whole range of people involved here, not just those who are physically with us, me te tini o rātou mā kua whakawairua [but also the vast number of those who have died].

I think that is very important, because we are talking about not just ourselves, who are here physically, but also those who are no longer here, and those architects of the Taranaki claim, which was first sought under the umbrella of the Taranaki Māori Trust Board. We are here to celebrate that. I am really looking forward to the third reading, which I think we will have as soon as possible, kia haere tika ai te kaupapa, kia whakawātea mai pea te toimahatanga mai rā anō i noho i runga pokohiwi.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[so that the matter proceeds in a proper way, the burdens that have sat on our shoulders are perhaps cleared away.]

I want to acknowledge also, along with the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations, the work that was done by the previous Minister, and the Associate Minister, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, and her sterling support as deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. We hope that continues, I say to her. I also acknowledge the other members of the select committee. So, ahakoa te ruarua hoki o ngā kupu, kei te noho tonu ai te aroha ki a koutou me te katoa tae noa atu ki te wā wahakatutuki mai i tēnei kaupapa.

[even though the words are few, the regards for you and everyone remains and will still be there right up to the time when this matter is completed.]

There is just one more thing. When we took the submissions it was extraordinarily difficult for me to sit there as the chair of the select committee, partly because we were in a situation kei te haere wehe wehe mai [where we had come separately]. But as I said, as the chair, a select committee is not a court of law, nor can it address issues outstanding and seek legal solutions. That was sought, as the honourable Minister has already alluded to, through the Treaty of Waitangi in the High Court. We were compelled to pursue the path of the majority.

In answer to the pātai from the honourable member from New Zealand First, I say there are seats for everyone to participate in the structure after the claim. It is there, he tūru mō ngā hapū, iwi katoa a Ngāti Ruanui Tangahoe me Takakohe. Kua kite ai te hiahiatanga kei roto o te wairua o rātou, kua waiho kotahi.

[a seat for the subtribes and all the people of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Takakohe. What is desired can be seen in the spirit of others; it has been left as one.] That is the answer to the question the member posed, and I do not think we need to go up there and facilitate it. Thank you Mr Chair, kia ora mai, rirerire hau, pai mārire ki a tātou katoa.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member gave the answer to my good colleague’s question, but I did not understand it. Can I ask the interpreter to interpret?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member most certainly can. Can we have an interpretation, please?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

Kia ora koutou katoa. He mihi nui he mihi aroha ki a Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, me Pakakohi.

[Greetings to you all. An affectionate and appreciative greeting to Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe and Takakohe.]

First I must pay my respects to those kaumatua, kuia, hapū, and whānau who have travelled all this way tonight to be here for the second reading of this bill, and to those who have worked so terribly hard for it and are now able to celebrate it. The journey for them to this point has been long and arduous, and many hardships and sacrifices have been made, but this particular process is almost at an end. To those whom this bill causes sorrow, we acknowledge your pain and your struggles also.

We in the Green Party have weighed very carefully our support for the restitution of claims, and our deep concern about the treaty settlement process. For this particular settlement, we have decided, in these circumstances and out of respect for Ngāti Ruanui, to support this bill. [Interruption] Kia ora. The restoration to the iwi of land, particularly wāhi tapu, and the ability to enhance and advance Ngāti Ruanui hapū through the settlement are, for them, significant gains, and we acknowledge Ngāti Ruanui’s efforts to achieve some form of justice and restitution for the grave losses suffered by the mana whenua of Taranaki. The Greens acknowledge that delegated representatives of the Crown have breached, and continue to breach, te tiriti rights of Māori, and we support resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and current breaches.

We gave very serious consideration to abstaining from the vote on this bill. We are loath to suggest to the Government that we support the general process by which this settlement was reached. I want to make clear to the Government that we believe that the treaty settlement process is seriously flawed, and cannot fully resolve the breaches of te tiriti because of those fundamental flaws. It is some of those issues that I want to address tonight.

In the Māori Affairs Committee, many submitters talked of their feelings of exclusion, and their fears that their sovereignty and identity will be subsumed by the settlement process. It also became clear that the Ngāti Ruanui Muru me te Raupatu Working Group was not responsible for those fears, but that the process through which all of these people sought redress was inadequate and unable to deal with the complexity and enormity of the issues involved. One submitter in particular, Te Miringa Hohaia, talked of the duress of poverty, and of how this was the only deal in town for the relief of that poverty, and he also spoke of how the failure to deal with the whole of the Taranaki tragedy has led to the picking off of iwi, to everyone’s detriment. He is absolutely right. The Government has failed to find an adequate way to truly compensate mana whenua in the Taranaki area for the crimes committed against them.

I am talking about not just money and property, because there are other ways by which the injustices could be acknowledged—initially, and most important, by the Government being prepared to look at the process itself. Māori have never been able to be actively part of constructing the process by which they are to obtain resolution of their historical grievances. They have never been properly involved in the development of the treaty settlement process.

The process was constructed in the late 1980s, and involved at that time Cabinet Ministers and officials. It was not until 1993, after 4 years of planning, that it was finally recognised that Māori ought to have some level of involvement other than through Te Puni Kōkiri. There were 4 years of the Government planning and constructing a process, and only then was it taken out for consultation.

It would come as no surprise to many that the submissions and concerns raised by Māori were not taken up by the Crown, which by then already had 4 years of investment in its process. Never mind that Māori had 150 years invested in that process, and had thousands of deaths, and hundreds of wrongful imprisonments, and theft and dispossession invested in it. Never mind that the whole point was to recognise the treaty relationship, and remedy the failures of the Government in the past.

We can see those failures in the bill. On page 5 the preamble talks about the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, which was used to confiscate lands of Māori whom the Crown had assessed as being engaged in rebellion against the authority of the Queen. It was under that Act that much of the land of Ngāti Ruanui was taken. Sixty years later, in 1926, the Sim Commission was set up to investigate that Act and the confiscations under it. That commission’s recommendations were very poor. They were not discussed with iwi, and were never considered by them to be adequate.

The honourable member Georgina te Heuheu said in her speech tonight that there cannot be adequate restitution, and I agree. There cannot be adequate restitution for what was stolen, and taken, and done. That is why we must look at what this process does, and we must not confine our views about how to make restoration simply to propertarian rights. It is about much more than that. It is about constitutional structures, and it is about empowerment at a level that this Government and previous Governments have not ever considered. It is only by engaging with Māori in a direct process to determine how that restitution should come about that there will ever be anything like true restitution.

It is imperative that the treaty settlement process is properly reviewed by the previous claimants, by current and future claimants, and by Māori in general who are affected by those claims and need to be able to contribute. As with any restorative justice process, Māori as victims must be able to have some control over the process for their own restitution. Let us be very clear that the fact that Māori engage in this process does not mean that they endorse it. I return to the words of Te Miringa Hohaia: this is the only game in town; this is where the duress of poverty is at its most stark. Māori will do what is best for their people, and will take up the meagre opportunities for redress available to them, but there are very few opportunities, and it is a heavy obligation on rangatira to make every effort to achieve whatever is possible for their people. So much mana is vested in the successful outcome of this process—a process that does not respect that mana.

I turn now briefly to my minority statement in the select committee report. I have enormous respect for those of Tangahoe and Pakakohi who went through the court and tribunal processes in order to assert their tino rangatiratanga. Theirs has been a real struggle to have their issues recognised and taken seriously, and they will feel aggrieved by this bill. It is the underlying settlement policy of dealing only with large natural groupings that has seriously undermined the tino rangatiratanga of hapū within this claimant group—within Ngāti Ruanui. This further exacerbates the injustice that the settlement is designed to cure. The Greens believe that the Government should develop with Māori a diversity of models for restitution, premised on the tino rangatiratanga of hapū as the first principle. Clearly, hapū must not be punished for choosing not to participate in a Crown process that is extensively designed for their benefit, but that fails to recognise their needs and concerns. The Crown policy could be changed to engage with individual hapū, as set out in te tiriti. It could engage in a resolution process that focuses more closely on ongoing relationships, and less on fiscal and time constraints. It could accept alternative models for resolution that are determined by Māori themselves. We believe that it is the perpetuation of a serious grievance to require Māori who disagree with the process either to participate or to be left without restitution.

Finally, I acknowledge and recognise the members of the Māori Affairs Committee who were involved in hearing the claims and submissions on this bill. It is true that the best that the select committee can do is hear, since we cannot make any changes to the bill, but it is important that we do hear those claims and ensure that everyone’s issues are truly acknowledged. Kia ora koutou katoa.

MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki): Kāti, kia ora hui hui tātou. Taranaki maunga, Taranaki tangata, nau mai, hara mai, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tō kōtou hara mai rā i te nuku o te whenua i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Hei mātakitaki , hei tirotiro ki ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tā kōtou pire, nāna nei kua tae atu ki tōna mutunga. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā hoki koutou i ngā āhuatanga kei runga kei a koutou, ngā aituā maha, rātau kāre e tae-ā-tinana mai ana. Otirā, e tū poto noa iho tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mahi e mahi ana i tō tātou Minita, a Mākareta te Wirihana, ā, me tō tātou Komiti Motuhake mō ngā Take Māori, me te heamana hoki, tā koutou tangata a Mahara Okoroa, ahakoa kei Pōneke e noho ana, kei a koutou tōna ngākau. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā hoki tātau.

[Hello indeed to all of us gathered here. Taranaki mountain, Taranaki people, welcome, welcome, greetings to you. Greetings to you in respect of the circumstances that brought you here from the breadth of the land on this great day, to view and look at the circumstances that relate to your bill that has reached its passing. So greetings, greetings, and greetings to you. Greetings as well in respect of the many deaths upon you, they the ones who were unable to be here in person. Indeed, while this is a brief address, I rise in support of the work by our Minister Margaret Wilson, our Māori Affairs Committee, the chairman as well, your very own man, Mahara Okeroa; even though he is living here in Wellington, his heart is there with you. So, greetings, greetings, greetings to you and to us as well.]

I thank my colleagues, including the Hon Margaret Wilson, members of the Opposition parties, and in particular the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and more particularly the chairman, Mr Mahara Okeroa, for their endeavours during this entire process. I have to say that for many members on the Māori Affairs Committee, hearing submissions was not only difficult for them but very painful, because the issues that were being discussed were specifically about them and their history. I take this opportunity to acknowledge them and congratulate them on the strength they showed throughout the process.

I also acknowledge here in the House today representatives of Ngāti Ruanui. As I said: ā, Taranaki tangata, Taranaki maunga ahakoa he maunga titōhea, ka rere ngā manu ki reira unu ai, e kore e mimiti.

[and Taranaki people, Taranaki mountain, even though it is a barren one and birds fly there to drink, it never runs dry.]

By saying that, I mean that Taranaki has a tremendous history, a very, very long history, and a history that this country can be proud of. As I was sitting here listening to the speeches I thought to myself that I should be talking about the bill and about the process that this bill has been subjected to. But, then again, I thought to myself, well, everybody else here seems to be speaking about that, so what is there left for me to say, apart from the fact that we have not taken the time to acknowledge the history of Taranaki and its people?

Although I come from the sunny Bay of Plenty I do know quite a bit about Taranaki, because my people travelled in the early days to Taranaki to help with the passive resistance movement. Some of them never came home. They did not die there; they married there. I was kind of amused at a comment made by the New Zealand First speaker Mr Bill Gudgeon, who said: “Hopefully, one day we will sit together in tranquillity.”; I thought to myself that that was what Taranaki people were doing when the soldiers came. Maybe that is a part of our history we are not very proud of, but it is still part of our history.

A lot of comments have been made about, and a lot of references have been made to, Taranaki’s ancestor and their prophet, who is well known throughout Māoridom, Te Whiti o Rongomai, and his associate, Tohu. A lot of proverbs have been quoted here in this House tonight whereby the prophet heralded the way forward, and that was through passive resistance. That may not seem unusual, but it was at a time when no one throughout the world spoke about passive resistance, when taking up arms was the order of the day, and when people upon people were destroyed because of their views. And we see that happening today. But here was this man from Taranaki, who told his people to lay down their arms, and who said that they will not fight, but will resist. To this day they have held that line, and I am sure my colleague Mr Mahara Okeroa is proud of that history, although from time to time in this House I wonder whether he follows that practice! But I am only kidding.

As I say, I stand to speak very briefly. It would be good from time to time for us to think about the history of Taranaki, rather than the settlement of their claim, because the history is what has made them a great people, and the settlement of the claim is what will make them in the future an even greater people. There are opportunities and challenges ahead for the people of Taranaki, particularly Ngāti Ruanui, when they leave this place. At the end of this process, one can only hope that they never have to return under this sort of kaupapa, and that they not only face the challenges of social and economic development for their descendants, but also mend the bridges between themselves and other hapū and iwi of Taranaki. I know that they will, because they all share a common history. So without contributing any more to the discussion I just want to say to the people of Taranaki: kua tata tonu nei koutou ki te wā e tutuki ai tēnei nawe o koutou. Tāpae rīpenatahia kia wātea ai te huarahi kei mua i a koutou. Nō reira, rire, rire, paimārire, tēnā koutou.

[You are just about at the point where this trouble of yours is solved. Ensure that the way before you is clear. So, rire, rire, paimārire, greetings to you.]

I waited until I had heard a number of speeches in this debate, because my party does not now sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. When this bill was first introduced the leader of my party expressed views that were intended to remind Parliament that while sentiment, remorse, and a desire to do good are essential, Parliament is also a trustee—a steward—of the interests of all New Zealanders, and we should subject these matters to the same careful scrutiny that we are required to give to anything else. So I listened to the debate, having read the very brief report of the select committee, and was obliged to rely on its report so far as it can be relied on.

I have to tell the House that we will not be supporting this bill further. We will not vote after the second reading debate. We need more answers than the select committee has given. We need answers from the Minister because the select committee’s report essentially puts us all on notice that it had concerns that it does not address. The select committee says that we cannot amend these deeds. We cannot amend the bills that reflect the deeds. We treat them as we treat international treaties, and it is a yes/no decision. So effectively the committee has said to us that there are matters here that perhaps would be of concern, but there is nothing it could do about it. If I am reading that wrongly, no doubt we will be told during the committee stage. There clearly seems to be a warning about the adequacy of mandate. I took that message also from the speech of my colleague Metiria Turei, who came back to that at the end.

There are also problems in the bill that perhaps go further than in just this Ngāti Ruanui settlement. Treaty settlements are, of course, in respect of high-handed breaches of contract. There are cruel and even foul deeds, and betrayal of values that had been taught by missionaries and that had been developed by Māori such as Te Whiti. But the matter is now too old to allow us to get at the truth, and even the problem in establishing a mandate is an instance of that. The fact that no one can authoritatively deal with the two hapū, or representatives, who do not wish to be bound by, and have their claims settled under, this agreement, is a warning of just how unlikely it is that true justice can now be arrived at at this length, and how approximate this is.

We have a difficulty in that we cannot trust the Minister in these matters. We cannot trust the Crown to approach these matters looking at them in the same way as it does with international treaties. The continuation of a Crown prerogative to enter treaties is based on the fact that no nation wants to wash its dirty linen in public before foreigners. It is based also on history, on an assumption that the best judgment of the Crown will be in the interests of the nation—that in external matters, internal politics should be put aside. That is a complete misapplication of doctrine in relation to treaty claim settlements. These are with ourselves. These are highly political internally. It is an absolute nonsense that this House and the committee will not look at the detail of these agreements and at the long-term effects of some of these settlements. So ACT will not be bound by any convention that purports to treat these contract breaches and criminal act settlement proposals—these compensation proposals—as if they were international treaties under the convention of Crown prerogative.

This bill says that it settles claims arising from the principles of the treaty. We cannot rely on the Government, because the Government will not tell us what those principles are. We have asked repeatedly in this House, and the Government will not tell us, because it does not know. It was very cunning, or perhaps it was lack of courage; I do not know what it was, 15 years ago, but when the courts were told that they had to invent principles for the treaty, of course they had to do it. But since then the Government will not define those principles, and we do not know whether it is cynical or naïve. Whatever it is, it is not creditable.

We voted to send the bill to select committee, as I said, but we need clear answers about the effectiveness, not only of the mandate in terms of potential contenders—competition for this mandate—we also need to know whether there are unrecognised problems in the mandate. Is it full and final? Who can tell? The Minister Tariana Turia concluded her address in the first reading debate by saying that the Crown must continue to support Ngāti Ruanui as they move forward into the future. Was that mere rhetoric or was she just telling us, as others have told us, that these are not full and final settlements? What is it when a Minister of the Crown effectively says that this is not the end of it?

Secondly, I see nothing in the committee report on the quality of the governance entity, and that is something that the Crown and this House should be taking an interest in. I have never really recovered from reading a book about the Alaska settlements where I think US$11 billion was lost by the 13 different tribal bands. I do not think that that is to the discredit of those bands. It is very, very hard to hold wealth if a person has not actually earned it, because earning it gives the skills to hold it. Very few listed companies last more than one generation, and very few entities can hold wealth for more than one generation. It is the responsibility of the Crown to make sure that the governance entity is robust enough for this settlement not to become a cause of embarrassment should it be lost, because the finger will be pointed, whether or not it is fair.

In that context, it is proper to raise the question of the £5,000 in the previous settlement, which was probably more generous than the current settlement in real terms. That £5,000 per year has obviously not been adequate—no one now thinks it was adequate. But the form of the new settlement has all the risks of setting neighbour against neighbour. ACT and this House need to know what is meant by the words in Part 5 of the bill, which essentially say that the statutory acknowledgments can affect the lawful rights and interests of people who are not parties to the deed of settlement. The statutory acknowledgments are to be given regard by the consent authorities under the Resource Management Act. So it appears that Ngāti Ruanui will be tempted into exercising a political privilege for ever, in relation to land that is not their own. That is not something they can sell, and they cannot turn it to good account. All that does is to put it into a position where some of its best brains will be occupied in appearing to frustrate Ngāti Ruanui’s neighbours—and what does that do for relations?

This is not a sensible settlement, if I am reading it correctly. It may be that the Minister can reassure us during the Committee stage, but, as I read it, there is an express warning that it does affect the private property of people who are not parties to the deed—that is, neither the Crown, nor Ngāti Ruanui. This is not a light matter. The temptation to think that assets are the same as prosperity and health for a community is very, very clear in the discussion in this House. It is not about assets or land; it is about the habits of thrift and respect for education—the sorts of “strength of character” things that have been gutted by unemployment benefits and domestic purposes benefits, and by unearned income flowing to people who know that it is not appropriate. If this is a proper settlement of a property claim, it is doing what article 2 of the treaty says it should do. But if instead it is creating permanent political privilege on the basis of inherited status; it is only a poisoned gift from this House to the people of New Zealand—both Māori and Pākehā.

Bill read a second time.