Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill

As we are all getting accustomed to now in this Chamber, after a number of years of these settlement bills coming through, the ability of anybody to change any provisions in a settlement bill is pretty limited. What sits behind bills of this kind is a deed of settlement, and of course that is what we have with this bill.

The role of Parliament and the select committee is pretty clear; it is to scrutinise the bill. I want to comment on three of the parts of the bill, and in particular on clause 13 in Part 2. Nearly all of the many submissions that the select committee heard revolved around the inclusion of Tangahoe and Pakakohi in this settlement. Clause 13 “Meaning of Ngati Ruanui” says who is part of that. It means the iwi, and so on, and every individual, etc. It also includes certain hapū, and then includes Tangahoe and Pakakohi. Just so that we are all aware, in this case these two hapū had extreme objection to their inclusion. I want to remind us all—I am sure the Minister may do so as well—that this is an important issue; it is very important to hapū. In the end, however, this settlement will proceed, with their inclusion.

We reviewed what was done, to see whether it was fair that they were included, but the committee knew that there was not a lot we could do about it. The inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe has been to the Waitangi Tribunal three times in the last 2 years, and of course the tribunal traversed their inclusion, as to whether it was right and proper that they should be included. On all of those three occasions the tribunal was not prepared to recommend that the Crown change its approach, and found in favour of the settlement proceeding. There was also a challenge to the High Court, but the claims of these two hapū were rejected—there being a finding that there was no justiciable basis for there to be anything else. The committee was also privy to Cabinet papers that had traversed the issue with a lot of scrutiny.

On balance, while I guess these two hapū firmly believe that they should be treated individually and separately, in the end certain judgments have to be made, and those judgments have come out against their wishes—but well traversed. In the end members can only show that they have had the best advice, and the best material available to them to make a judgment. In my view the matter has been well traversed. Having said that, there will still be members of those hapū who will feel disaffected. None the less, clause 13 is very clear that they are included.

As I said in my second reading speech, I hope that the runanga who have the responsibility once the transfers are made and once the bill becomes law, and who will receive the settlement assets, will work very, very hard to make sure that these two hapū are indeed included, not just in word, but in action, and in the way that the settlement starts to devolve in terms of value to all those who are entitled. It is incumbent upon us at all stages of this bill to make sure that we acknowledge the submission and the entreaties of these two hapū and show that we have given them serious consideration.

This bill is now at the stage where I would say that the claimants are close to a mood of celebration because of the bill coming close to finality. New Zealand First has supported the bill, and still supports it at this stage so that the Ngāti Ruanui people can bring this issue to a closure.

As stated in my last presentation, I hope that those concerned have learnt from the procedures that have taken place, the need for more funding for the Waitangi Tribunal, and also that matters can be more streamlined to assist in clearing the backlog of claims waiting to be settled. I know that Ngāti Ruanui will settle their affairs amongst the hapū concerned, namely Pakakohi and Tangahoe. If members understand tikanga on the marae, people are allowed to view their own personal thoughts on subjects and topics, and those issues remain there on the marae. I am sure that Ngāti Ruanui, with their expertise and wisdom, will be able to negotiate with the two hapū concerned. I am very confident and hopeful that in time Ngāti Ruanui will, through expert advice and counsel, administer to their affairs in a pleasing and positive manner. We have learnt from history the things that have not been done right and that have gone wrong, and the repercussions that follow. I am sure that Ngāti Ruanui, with the wisdom their kaumātua have, and the leadership of their iwi, in conjunction with those who have not yet agreed, will come to some amicable agreement.

New Zealand First recommends to the Committee that the bill be fully supported, so that Ngāti Ruanui—and I am sure that some of their members are here—will go back to their hapūs and their iwis and say: “Let’s prepare now for the future.” We know that there are other bills to come and we hope that Ngāti Ruanui’s presentation and submissions will be a positive example for other claimants. [Interruption] Kia ora.

So on behalf of New Zealand First we would to add that again, and re-emphasise the things that need to be done. I must also add that not only will they have to work hard, but smarter. That is where it is. One can work hard and get nowhere, but if one is smart, one will have positive results. Tenā koutou Ngāti Ruanui. New Zealand First supports this bill.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this bill today as the member of Parliament for Taranaki - King Country. Obviously, that is the area that the Ngāti Ruanui iwi comes from, although I think its boundaries are slightly south of where the boundary of my electorate starts. This legislation and this process have a very long history. I suspect there are people not very far away from us right now who have had a very long journey to this point, and I welcome them and congratulate them on the efforts that they have put in. I also congratulate the Minister on finally getting the legislation to this point. This is an important process that we must go through.

I also acknowledge those who have gone before this Minister. I acknowledge the Hon Jim Bolger, and the leadership he showed with regard to bringing about the settlement of the grievances that have gone in this country now for far too long between the indigenous people and the rest of society. I congratulate the Hon Doug Graham on the work he did, despite the controversy around bringing this whole package together. I have to say that the $1 billion fiscal envelope was not the most popular decision that any Government could come up with, so I acknowledge both the Hon Jim Bolger and the Hon Doug Graham. I also acknowledge the work that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has done, and is continuing to do, on behalf of the National Party in that regard.

The issues in the various parts of this legislation should not be taken lightly. There is no question in my mind that a whole group of New Zealanders was done an injustice by previous Governments and previous majorities in this country. The research that has been done to get the Ngāti Ruanui claim to the point where the Crown has now accepted a settlement of $41 million is substantial. The research that is behind this claim, the information that we now have, and the final process that has brought us to this point are substantial, and that should not be brushed over lightly.

Various clauses in this bill highlight some of the difficulties in the process. In particular, two hapū have voiced an enormous amount of concern. During the Māori Affairs Committee process there were 44 submissions, 29 of which were opposed to the bill. In a democratic society that would suggest that this legislation should not proceed. But, given the history behind the claim and the amount of research that has brought this legislation to this point, it would be absolutely churlish for any member to stand in this Chamber at this point in time and say that because there is a group—no matter how well meaning it is—that is opposed to this legislation, we should not proceed with it. For that reason, I endorse the fact that we are now proceeding with it.

I also say to the various interjectors on the Government side of the Chamber who clearly have a view on this bill that they should take a call in order to tell us their view. Some of the people out there in society listening to the radio broadcast of these proceedings will be interested in what the Māori members of the Labour caucus have to say on this bill, particularly during the Committee stage, with regard to the two hapū that feel aggrieved because this process is proceeding, and particularly with regard to those who made submissions to the select committee. I urge those members to take a call in order to state their claim. It is unfortunate that some members of Parliament will not support this legislation going forward. It would be excellent if we could have unanimous support for something as significant as this bill. However, those members have very good reasons for that, and once again I invite the Government members to take a call and tell us why they think this bill should go ahead. I am sure that those who are opposed to it will take a call to tell us why they think it should not.

I should also say that this settlement will allow a group of people within the Taranaki area to go forward and contribute to society in a way that it has never been able to. Those people have been disadvantaged. I have grown up in that area, so I understand the grievance and the heartache. I understand that generation after generation of Ngāti Ruanui has had deep concerns about the way in which it was treated. The facts that that has never ever been acknowledged, that the Crown is now saying it accepts it has made mistakes, and that an apology has been given are in themselves very good reasons for this legislation to go ahead.

I endorse everything that my colleague has been saying. Obviously, he is from Taranaki. He is a good old Taranaki boy, and is probably more familiar with this issue than I am, because I am from another part of the country. Of course, our colleague Mahara Okeroa is from there, but that goes without saying. I am pleased that Shane Ardern is here in the Chamber this afternoon to add to our support for the bill.

I just want to comment on clause 15, which contains one of the extremely important provisions in any claims settlement bill. That refers to the jurisdiction of the courts and the tribunal, which are henceforth excluded from inquiring into or looking into any of the Ngāti Ruanui claims. The reason I want to make a couple of comments about it is that a lot of people outside this House—Pākehā people and some Māori—always have some anxieties. They say it is OK that we are settling a claim, but they are concerned that what will happen is that the claimants will come back to the Crown again. I would imagine that the only reason anybody would come back to the Crown again would be that a settlement was patently unfair.

If we look at the provisions of this settlement, we see that the members of the rūnanga said that while they accept that the Crown can never fully make up for the grievances they suffered, none the less there was an acceptance of the provisions of the deed of settlement. However, for the benefit of those people who might be listening to the radio broadcast of this debate in the Committee stage, I say clause 15 basically states that the settlement of the Ngāti Ruanui historical claims effected by the deed releases the Crown and discharges it from all obligations and liabilities in respect of the claims hereby settled. Henceforth no court of law can inquire into or make any findings or recommendations concerning any of Ngāti Ruanui’s historical claims, the deed of settlement, the redress provided under that deed or this legislation, and this legislation itself. Clause 16 contains similar provisions in relation to the Waitangi Tribunal.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you mispronounced the member’s name.

Mr Chairperson, I commend you for the effort you are making to pronounce my name correctly. We have been having a bit of practice at that tonight, and we will do some more of that.

I was making some comments earlier about clause 15 in Part 3. To allay the anxieties of a number of New Zealanders who say to me that they understand this is a full and final settlement but who ask what the bet is that the claimants will come back to the Crown, I said before dinner that claimants would come back to the Crown only if a settlement was not fair. In the case of Ngāti Ruanui, it has basically indicated to us that it understands that full restitution cannot be made for the losses it has suffered, but, on balance, it thinks that this settlement is something it can take and start to build a future on. I was talking earlier about the fact that henceforth the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal are excluded from jurisdiction in terms of the claims that are settled by this deed of settlement and this legislation.

The Minister may think it is worthwhile to confirm that, as well, for the benefit of those who are listening to the radio broadcast of these proceedings. As I say, it is very important that members of Parliament who support the settlement recognise the importance of giving an assurance to other New Zealanders that we have done our best to provide a settlement to these people that is fair and just in the circumstances. We will set them on a path for the future in that way, and minimise any possibility of them coming back to the Crown. In any event, that is ruled out by this legislation.

Tēnā koe e te Heamana. I mua i te haere tonu o tēnei tū, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou Ngāti Ruanui, nā te mea ko tēnei te wā tuatahi e tū ana au i roto i tēnei kaupapa. Nā reira, koia nei te take e mihi atu ki a koutou. He mihi hoki ki ērā o ngā whanaunga, karanga maha i hinga atu, ā, i tēnei wā ka hoki te mahara ki Maui Prime. Ko ia tētahi i whaka tīmata mai i tēnei kaupapa. Nā reira i te pō nei, kua pūawai. Nā reira, e mihi kau ana ki a rātou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman. Before I continue, special greetings to you, Ngāti Ruanui, because this is the first time I have stood up to speak on this matter. It is the reason I am greeting you now. Greetings also to those relatives and the many callings who have passed away. At this time, the mind goes to Maui Prime. He was one of the ones who started this matter. And so tonight it has blossomed. So I acknowledge them particularly.]

I will keep my comments brief. I have just acknowledged the Ngāti Ruanui representatives who are in the gallery tonight, and also those who have passed on, particularly Maui Prime, who was one of the people instrumental in initiating the whole process that has allowed this bill to come to the Committee tonight, helping Ngāti Ruanui to realise the dreams and aspirations it had when it first lodged its claim.

However, although New Zealand First supports the bill, we note in the commentary on the bill that the apology is to Ngāti Ruanui only. Previous speakers have made reference to Tangahoe and Pakakohi, who are relatives of Ngāti Ruanui. Although this bill will certainly go some way towards meeting the claims submitted by Ngāti Ruanui, I think that the Crown is placing an imposition on the tribe in this legislation, and that imposition is to deal with its Tangahoe and Pakakohi relatives. Given the number of representations made during the process that has allowed this bill to get to this stage, I believe it is now incumbent on the principals of Ngāti Ruanui to deal with their kith and kin within Tangahoe and Pakakohi as part of the settlement process. I want the Committee to realise that that imposition has been placed on Ngāti Ruanui as a consequence of this bill.

Secondly, I will comment on the amount of $41 million. I suppose that if one says it quickly enough, it does sound like a lot of money—and it is. However, I am not quite sure whether that amount will provide the settlement that Ngāti Ruanui and its various hapū deserve, given the suffering they have had to bear, as has been evidenced by history. I wonder whether the Crown has sold Ngāti Ruanui short.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I do not really wish to interrupt the speaker, but someone has a phone on. Could that person turn it off?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I heard a cellphone. There have been several instances of cellphones ringing in this Chamber, and that practice is totally unacceptable. It is discourteous to members who are speaking, and it is also an affront to the business of the House and to the Speaker. It is not necessary. The practice in select committees is for the offender to provide all members with morning tea, and if the use of cellphones were to become the practice here, the member concerned would certainly incur a hefty fine. Cellphones, when switched on, are not permitted in this Chamber. I will leave it at that.

Perhaps the phone that was ringing belonged to one of the departed members of Ngāti Ruanui, who was calling to say that what I am saying is right, and that I should bid for more than $41 million. Although I say that in jest, I am serious about the concern I have about the amount of the settlement. I am a little disappointed that the Government member representing Ngāti Ruanui has not raised that issue.

After looking at the number of objections that were made during the process that has brought the bill to this stage, I wonder whether the Crown is leaving itself open to further litigation, and therefore to further claims, by the Tangahoe and Pakakohi hapū. They feel that a further breach of the treaty will occur if they are included in the bill under the collective definition of Ngāti Ruanui. I just caution this Committee that although we may be settling one grievance, we may be establishing another. I reiterate that the imposition we have placed on Ngāti Ruanui may come back to haunt us.

The Greens have outlined our concerns about the treaty settlement process at some length, and we are committed to those concerns and to trying to find ways to deal with them constructively. We believe the treaty settlement process is seriously flawed, and that it causes and creates further injustice. Of particular concern to us are clauses 15 and 16 of this bill, and their reference to finalising this settlement for ever. Those clauses will prevent any further investigation, under any circumstances, by any court or organisation, into the historical claims of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi, and they will prevent for ever any reconsideration of the redress package and the concerns addressed in the bill.

The Crown itself admits that, in providing this redress, it cannot truly compensate for what was lost. It also clearly admits that the redress it provides is whatever is possible and appropriate at this particular time, at this particular place, and in these particular circumstances. So the Crown is itself aware that the redress and compensation is confined to what is possible now. But what it seeks from claimants is not a recognition of that—that this compensation is what is possible here and now—but that the claimants give up their claims for ever, as far into the future as anyone can see, and will never enter into further discussions, concerns, or investigation into this particular set of compensation. So the Crown is, essentially, establishing for itself its own rules about what it is prepared to do at this particular time, but is requiring that a different set of rules be followed by these claimants, who are prevented from ever entering into any further negotiation on these particular claims.

We consider that to be a serious issue. We consider it to be part of a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and a clear indication that the Crown is not committed to the ongoing resolution of treaty settlements and treaty claims. That provision is not about developing a long-term relationship where there is open discussion about the validity of the issues raised and the level of compensation provided. As we have raised before, the issues raised in terms of clauses 15 and 16 are particularly important for Tangahoe and Pakakohi, because they will never be able to come back and have another look at this legislation and readdress the issues that they have raised very seriously through the courts and in the Māori Affairs Committee. For them, these clauses essentially legislate them out of existence—legislate away their rights as Māori under the treaty to be able to get the redress that they believe is imperative for them.

So the Greens consider the effect of this legislation to be extremely serious for Tangahoe and Pakakohi, and to that end we have put forward amendments to delete clauses 15 and 16 of the bill. We are aware of the constraints on amendments to the bill, particularly as it is a treaty settlement bill, and we are aware that those amendments may not go any further than the Committee stage. But we have put them forward out of respect to Tangahoe and Pakakohi, out of recognition that these claims are not in any sense final but will continue to live on because this process creates a further injustice that must, and will, be dealt with in the future, and out of recognition that these clauses are a complete anathema to the passing of good legislation in this Chamber. It is important for us to stake a claim now, in order to make it clear that this Parliament recognises and understands the importance of what it is doing in legislating away these people’s rights into the future and preventing them from ever being able to reconsider the compensation—compensation that the Crown accepts is acceptable only in so far as its resources are currently available. It is important to recognise as well, for the benefit of those people who will look back on this debate and want to see what we were thinking at the time, that we do understand the consequences of legislating a settlement that will be closed off to future generations.

I urge members to support the amendments to the bill. We will certainly be voting in favour of them. We will vote for the bill regardless of whether those amendments go through, out of respect for Ngāti Ruanui. But as an indication of the importance of understanding and acknowledging the injustice that those clauses will cause, we strongly urge members to vote to delete them from the bill.

I was not thinking of participating in this Committee stage, but I do so to say that the ACT party most certainly will not support the Greens’ suggestions that this is not a full and final settlement. I tell the previous National speaker that it is a fond hope that it is a full and final settlement. The reason I say that is that for parts of the land involved, this is the fourth settlement. I know it is fashionable to say that our predecessors never tried to settle anything. That is just not true. Parliament itself passed settlement Acts that, in today’s dollars, were more generous than what we are doing today. Three different commissions have been involved—two in the 1880s, and one, the Sim Commission, in the 1820s. If members read the reports of those commissions, they will find they are a great deal better than those of the Waitangi Tribunal, which has that caused a great deal of offence by rewriting history and describing things as a holocaust. Well, it is regrettable. What happened was wrong, but it was not a holocaust. In that sense, I tell the member from the Green Party that I think the bulk of New Zealanders, both Māori and non-Māori, do want to settle Waitangi claims. They do want to put those things—to use Helen Clark’s favourite phrase—behind us and move on. In doing so, the ACT party supports this bill, even though it has some reservations about the process that has been gone through. We too would like to see reconciliation in Taranaki.

It is regrettable that the Minister has not taken a call to assure the Committee that, in fact, the settlement is fair, and that those Māori groups that have complained have been treated correctly. I was not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I would have expected the Minister, on an important treaty claim, to address those issues and answer them. I notice that the Greens put in a minority report on that matter, then basically did not speak to it.

💬 Hon Member: Yes we did.

No, the Greens did not speak to the question of whether they thought the objections being raised by hapū in Taranaki do have merit. In fact, what the Greens appear to me to be saying is the worst sort of politics. They just wave a green flag at it without making a decision one way or another. I tell the Minister that I am relying on the committee and the Crown to have acted properly, because my party was not represented on the select committee. I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister, in this Committee, that this is a fair settlement, a full settlement, and a final settlement.

I have a lot of difficulty in understanding the Greens’ position. It seems to me that I hear a lot of problems from them and not too much in the way of solutions. The question is: how long do we as a nation—that is, Māori as well as non-Māori—really want the treaty settlement process to continue? How long do we want to keep on debating treaty grievances before we move on as a nation, having put that part of our history behind us once and for all? I find extreme difficulty with the proposed amendment that would make the settlement not a full and final settlement. That simply says for us to give them some money now and, in fact, invite them to come back again and ask for more. I think it is in everybody’s interests that we to try to get these proceedings out of the way, get a resolution, resolve the issues, and move on.

I am aware that there were concerns from Tangahoe and Pakakohi in terms of their legitimate representation. It appears that, in all those grievances, there will always be a minority view that does not agree with the way the settlement is going to go. In fact, in this settlement we have one of the highest proportions of agreement: 87.8 percent of the people, including Tangahoe and Pakakohi, agreed to the settlement process; 94 percent ratified. It seems to me that we will not get any better than that. To suggest that, because there is a small minority—and numerically, on those figures, it has to be a very small minority—that is not comfortable with the settlement, we should therefore allow relitigation of issues by that minority, or, in fact, as the Greens would have it, by anybody in Ngāti Ruanui at some future stage, is simply ridiculous. We need to have a balance. I am also aware of the arguments as to whether it is iwi or hapū that should be negotiated with. The Crown has mandated, and there are questions as to whether the Crown should unilaterally mandate and define the groups that will be the negotiating parties as iwi groups or as large natural groups, but in practical terms, that is probably the one direction in which we can go, if we want to try to get the issue resolved.

My major objection is that, despite the need for robust settlements, and for full and final settlements, the Government is still moving far too slowly in terms of this resolution. It proudly says it will achieve two settlements a year, on average. That is simply not good enough. We need to be moving much faster than that. We as a nation need to get to a position where those things are finished and behind us. On the basis of a prediction of about 50 claims to go, if we speed up the process—and that is simply a question of resources available to the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements—we could, by my calculations, get the whole matter finished by 2015. Then we could have a finite date by which we could say we have finally got these issues behind us, that Māori have the assets and the potential to be financially self-sufficient in order to move on and have accepted apologies freely given, that there has been cultural redress—which I am pleased to see, particularly in the form of the protocols in this bill—that there has been material restitution, and that all parties are, as far as can be conceivably expected, happy with the result. We could say that that was behind us and we had coloured in the whole country in terms of the processes of the Office of Treaty Settlements. We could then look forward to a relationship into the future and focus on where we go to from here.

I am concerned about the issue of where we go to from here, because I simply do not see any sense of vision by this Government in terms of where the relationships between Māori and non-Māori will be in 10, 15, or 20 years’ time. What does the Government see those as being? We continually get an almost schizophrenic approach to Māori issues, which comes from a lack of a sense of moving in any consistent sort of direction. We get an approach that, on some issues, means we try to get resolution and reconciliation and we try to set up a framework that moves us forward together, and the next thing is that the Government turns round and does things are simply divisive.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 15 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.