Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Today is a special day for the people of Ngāti Ruanui and for the Crown, marking as it does a further step in the journey towards reconciliation. It will enable new pathways to be forged, enhancing Ngāti Ruanui’s economic, social, and cultural well-being. It will help foster more effective and durable relationships between Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown—relationships based on goodwill and trust. This bill will bring an end to the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngāti Ruanui, and will settle all the historical treaty claims of Ngāti Ruanui.

The historical background to the claims makes sober reading. It provides an account of New Zealand’s history that saw Ngāti Ruanui faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership, and seeking to build strong relationships based on mutual respect and trust. But the Crown did not act like that in return. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngāti Ruanui for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown, which I will shortly read out publicly at Pariroa Pa.

Ngāti Ruanui has been in direct negotiations with the Crown since April 1998, when a deed of mandate was recognised. A heads of agreement, recording agreement on the main components of a settlement, was signed in September 1999. A deed of settlement—the formal Crown offer to Ngāti Ruanui to settle the claims under the treaty—was then developed by the Crown and the Ngāti Ruanui negotiators. The deed was signed on 12 May 2001, and subsequently ratified by a significant majority of the people.

This Government is fully committed to progressing the settlement of valid historical treaty claims. I know that some members of Parliament and some among the public like to criticise the current treaty settlement process. Those people forget that it is a process involving two parties that seeks to restore—and in some cases to establish—a set of relationships, and to resolve all the historical treaty claims of a group of people. This Government has streamlined the treaty settlement process and better aligned it with the Waitangi Tribunal’s new case-management approach. As a result, we are now seeing a comprehensive settlement achieved every 6 months.

The Crown has withstood challenges in the Waitangi Tribunal and in the courts concerning its policy approach to settlements. This settlement was itself inquired into by both the tribunal and the courts, and I am pleased to note that on the whole those inquiries found in favour of the Ngāti Ruanui settlement proceeding. We should all be reassured by the fact that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill, and has negotiated with the interests of all citizens in mind.

It remains for me to acknowledge all of those from Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown who, over so many long and arduous years, have given their all to enable us to arrive at this day. Their passion, commitment, and can-do attitude have greatly assisted in this process. There are so many of them who deserve acknowledgment. They know who they are, and they are entitled to feel a tremendous sense of satisfaction for their achievements. I know that this process has been daunting, it has been arduous, and it has taken its toll.

In particular, I acknowledge Pat Heremia, the chief negotiator for the settlement of the historical claims of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi. I know that Pat has worked extremely hard to bring about this day. His zest, commitment, and understanding of things Māori and of Crown processes greatly assisted in this settlement. We acknowledge them all, Pat.

I would encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngāti Ruanui deed of settlement. It is a grisly history, of which some people are aware, but unfortunately, many more are not. It is a history that we must all be familiar with so that we can move forward together.

I wish the people of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi—their ancestors, their elders, their descendants, and their negotiating team—well for the future, whatever it may hold. Their journey ahead looks extremely bright, and I wish them well in their endeavours. The dignity, wisdom, and judgment they demonstrated in the settlement process will greatly assist on the pathways opening ahead. The enhancement of their cultural, social, and economic development awaits them. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi ki a koutou ki te maunga o Taranaki, mai Tongariro, te whare o te Heuheu, tēnā koutou. E mihi nui ki a koutou i tēnei rangi, he rangi nui tēnei. Nō reira, ki a tātou katoa, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

[Greetings to us all. Greetings from the mountain of Tongariro and the household of te Heuheu to you the mountain of Taranaki. Greetings to you on this great occasion. To us all here, greetings to us all.]

I am pleased to support the third reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. As a Māori New Zealander of Tuwharetoa, Te Arawa, Tūhoe, and Ngāti Awa descent, I congratulate Ngāti Ruanui, in particular, and the Government on concluding this settlement of the historical grievances that give rise to the settlement bill now before us, and which is about to be passed into law by this Parliament. I do that to emphasise the significance of the near-universal parliamentary support for this settlement, but more so for the signal it sends of the maturing of our nation, Aotearoa New Zealand.

In that respect, the Crown can—through the Government of the day, and on behalf of all New Zealanders—admit to injustice and wrongdoing, and move to make reparation for that. In that respect, Māori claimants—in this case, Ngāti Ruanui—are acknowledged and relieved of a grievance long held and passed on through generations from the 1860s to today, grievances that have signified for them that the British justice that they signed up for in 1840 was illusory only. As events unfolded, it appeared that that justice was not to apply to them. For far too long, they have been at the receiving end of an inequality of citizenship, and that is a total injustice. For the circumstances that give rise to most, if not all, historic grievances are about the application of a different standard of citizenship.

In the case of Ngāti Ruanui, that included being imprisoned without trial and being subject to unlawful confiscations and alienations. That happened 160-odd years ago, but more recently, other injustices have occurred that in a sense have given iwi to think that British justice was never meant for them. These settlements provide the opportunity for the Crown and iwi to reconcile a past that has represented a blight on our democratic tradition, for the honour of the Crown to be restored, and for Māori New Zealanders to move forward with all others in the spirit of shared nationhood. Make no mistake; Māori understand what that means. For too long, and over the last 100 years, they have given more than their share in theatres of war around the world. In the week where we have just celebrated Anzac Day, Māori know only too well what the responsibilities of citizenship are.

I wish to make two further points. The settlement model developed by National and continued by Labour is not, and probably could never be, the perfect model. As we have learnt over the last 15 years, untangling 163 years of history is not always easy, and making amends is even more complicated than we could ever have imagined. But to their credit, a majority of New Zealanders who believe in the notion of a fair go have enabled us to move forward, and to the best of the Crown’s ability. On the basis of an enormous measure of good faith on the part of both iwi Māori and the Crown, we are working our way through those matters. There is certainly no intention to create further injustice, and while that statement may provide cold comfort for Pakakohi and Tangahoe, I hope that they will in time come to accept that their inclusion in this settlement has been done with the best of intentions and on the best advice available.

I ask that those responsible for the management of this settlement work hard to unite all of Ngāti Ruanui so that in time Pakakohi and Tangahoe will come to see that this settlement is theirs, as well.

Historic settlements are only a beginning. Essentially, they take us back to the more or less even playing field supposedly existing in 1840—two peoples of vastly different cultures giving certain undertakings to each other, in order to go forward together to build one nation. That was the finest of intentions, and I am proud of our antecedents. If the treaty’s purpose was only to put right things that would go wrong subsequently, then we are attributing to our British antecedents a deception of the most significant magnitude, and to our Māori antecedents a lack of either the wit or understanding to fathom what was happening to them. I reject that, for both the Crown and Māori.

The ongoing meaning of the treaty in contemporary New Zealand—because it is ongoing—is being worked through, and the last 15 years has seen us as a nation doing that. If we proceed on the basis that we are one nation, many peoples, but with shared values, then with visionary leadership, we will forge our future together—one based on mutual trust, mutual obligations, and, as I say, shared values. The treaty remains at the heart of our constitution, and it presents a challenge to all of us as we go forward to work our way through it.

I want to pay a special tribute to Sir Doug Graham. Under the leadership of the National Party in the 1990s, he worked very hard to start the negotiations with the Taranaki people. This is the first of those historic settlements to come to this House, and I think that is reason for Parliament to be very pleased that it has seen its passage into law. Sir Doug Graham brought to that process a generosity of spirit and compassion, which remains his greatest legacy—not just to this Parliament, but to this country.

I join with the Minister today and wish Ngāti Ruanui the best for the future. I urge all members to do as we all say we will do, and that when the historic grievances have been resolved and we have reconciled our past, we as Māori will move forward. There are a great many things happening among Māori today that we all have reason to be proud of. In many places, Māori are already demonstrating their enterprising and adventurous character—those things that were all so evident, along with a great many other things, in 1840, and that now have the chance to flourish and bloom.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge New Zealanders. We are a small country, but we have a great country. I, for one, would not want to live anywhere else. I am proud of New Zealanders, and I am proud of a country that moves to address these historic grievances. In a sense, we stand alone in the world in doing that. This is our chance to show that we can modify our democratic traditions to accommodate those things that indigenous peoples value, and to accommodate the increasing diversity of our nation. I think we should all take a bow. I am still waiting for those who might oppose the legislation to come up with a better model, but in time I am sure that we will all be proud of what we are doing here today. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ngāti Ruanui e noho nei ki te whakamana i te kaupapa o tēnei rā, tēnā koutou. Ka nui te tangi ki a koutou e whawhai tonu ana mō ēnei take, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings to you Ngāti Ruanui who remain here to empower the bill. We grieve for you, the ones who continue to fight on these matters.]

“The whole history of Government dealings with Māori of Taranaki has been the antithesis to that envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi.” That is a direct quote from the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Taranaki claims. The tribunal continued: “Since the whole of lands of most hapū were taken during the war, then by any standards of fairness and justice the post-war relief had properly to be swift and clement. In fact, for over a decade Māori did not know what lands, if any, would be theirs, while that beneath their feet was continually being allocated to settlers. Even Māori who had not fought, or had fought, with the Government, and whose lands should never have been touched in the first instance, lost everything. They were left not knowing what would be returned, and never recovered more than a fraction which was theirs.”

The passage of a bill such as this brings mixed emotions. There is sorrow at the tragic history, which is summarised in the provisions of this bill and engraved on the hearts and minds of the people who have suffered for so long. There is relief that we have reached a significant milestone in the long and arduous journey towards settlement of historical injustices. There is also excitement at the prospect that the settlement will open up new opportunities for the people of Ngāti Ruanui, and the nation will be able to share in their successes and achievements.

There is also trepidation and anxiety. The Crown and Ngāti Ruanui do not know what the future holds. It is the resolution of the injustices for Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi, and Tangahoe that will remind us, and continue to inform us, of a shameful chapter in our shared history—not the passing of this bill. The passing of this bill is but one step along the journey.

The treaty claims process allows tangata whenua and the Crown to restore their treaty relationships. It is not a mechanism to consign our history to dim and dusty archives, never to be seen again. We must acknowledge that this legislation will not settle all the issues that Ngāti Ruanui faces. What this bill can do is establish the basis for Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi, Tangahoe, and the Crown to work together from now on in trust and in good faith, with honour and respect, on matters of concern as they arise.

This bill, and the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, signal that the claims process has brought serious issues to the surface, which are not yet resolved. I refer to the inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe in the Ngāti Ruanui settlement. I remind the House that the Waitangi Tribunal recommended that discussions between the parties continue so as to ensure the distinctiveness of Tangahoe and Pakakohi within the settlement and the post-settlement Government entity. The select committee reported: “We understand that a small number of people identify exclusively as Tangahoe and Pakakohi and assert they were separate iwi, and that Ngāti Ruanui was ‘invented’ by the Crown in the 1860s. We also understand that some members of Pakakohi and Tangahoe feel that a further breach of the treaty will occur if they are included in the bill under the collective definition of Ngāti Ruanui.” The treaty settlement process and Crown policy encourage officials and Ministers to deal with tangata whenua organisations that claim to represent large groupings of peoples. The tragedy about the claims process is there will always be whānau who feel disenfranchised. The process should not create further injustice.

This bill represents the considered view of the Crown, reached in good faith and supported by the majority of Ngāti Ruanui. However, we must acknowledge there is still an issue of representation for the people themselves to address. In Judge Wainwright’s memorandum and directions on Ngāti Ruanui’s deed of settlement, she stated: “It will sometimes be incumbent on the Crown to confront the reality of the breakdown of relationships within tribal groups.” This bill has not settled it, and we should not try to sweep the matter under the carpet. Tribal representation and mandate are complex issues. In the end, they can only be resolved by the people themselves. It will take time for healing and restoration; time for us to focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us. We must place our confidence in the people’s indigenous processes of conflict resolution. The Crown also has a duty to reach settlements. Judge Wainwright noted that the Crown might support the people by providing skilled mediators or resources to assist them to work through their differences, and we should remember that.

Finally, some members of this House have suggested that the Treaty of Waitangi creates property rights for tangata whenua that other New Zealanders do not have. That is patently incorrect. As the Waitangi Tribunal has found, it was our people who have been deprived of their property rights, which were specifically identified in the treaty. They also lost any real opportunities for their development. No one knows that better than Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi and Tangahoe. Their lands are now in the hands of others, who have become extremely wealthy as a result.

The Minister has outlined the value of the settlement in monetary terms, but this is about much more than money. What price can we put on the communities demolished, the lives lost, the hopes dashed, and the culture destroyed? Even the assets returned to Ngāti Ruanui are but a tiny proportion of what they lost. If tangata whenua were to enjoy proper protection of their property rights, this settlement would be worth considerably more than $41 million. The reality is that the shortfall—the difference between what was taken and what can be returned to Ngāti Ruanui—represents a massive contribution by Ngāti Ruanui to the national economy, from which every member of this House and the nation have benefited. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, Ngāti Ruanui. Ngā mihi aroha, ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[We acknowledge you greatly, Ngāti Ruanui. Kind and warm regards to you. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]

Ā, ki a koutou Ngāti Ruanui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ko Hikurangi tēnei e mihi atu ki a koutou. Nō reira, nau mai, haere mai, haere mai. I say to Ngāti Ruanui: “Welcome, welcome, welcome. This is Hikurangi speaking to you.”

New Zealand First is satisfied that the issues raised in the submissions have been considered comprehensively by the Crown and the tribunal, and, in some cases, in the High Court. We note also that, when considered by the High Court, that tribunal found on the whole in favour of the settlement proceeding. Based on material received prior to and during the course of negotiations, the Crown understands that Ngāti Ruanui is one of eight iwi of Taranaki. It is generally recognised as such, and is located in South Taranaki. On these findings and on its deed of mandate recognition, which was open and transparent and had widespread support from the claimant community, New Zealand First supports Ngāti Ruanui in its claim to be settled.

I am thinking about the time not too many years ago when Government officials attended a hui in Ruatoria with Ngāti Porou, and the presiding official officially handed back Hikurangi Mountain to Ngāti Porou. One of our kaumātua got up and said: “I did not know it was taken away.” However, we have moved on since then, and I say to Ngāti Ruanui that I hope they will continue to do that very thing amongst their people in their own time.

I will not harp on about the disputes of the past, because there have been many of those throughout the country, but I hasten to recognise the work of those responsible for bringing this bill to the House today. Many people have been responsible for that, and I do not think it would be to the benefit of everyone who is here, nor especially to the whānau back in Taranaki, to name some. I say to Ngāti Ruanui that everybody has felt those feelings ever since their whenua was taken. When I think of some of my ancestors’ involvement, kāore au e whakamā ki te whakaputa i ēnei kōhimu i mua i a koutou: I am not ashamed to allow Ngāti Ruanui to hear some of the things relating to my people and to what they were involved in. I te taha o taku Pākehā taha, koia tēnei o ngā tangata i konā: Ngāti Ruanui will recognise the name on my Pākehā side. One of my ancestors was involved there. But I must also add that he had no choice in what he had to do; he disagreed with the people who gave him the orders. Kei a au ngā kōrero i roto i tōna pukapuka; nō reira ki a koutou, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

[I have the information in this book; so we acknowledge you greatly.]

Ki a koutou, Ngāti Ruanui, i heke mai e ngā kawaitanga o ngā rangatira: to those of Ngāti Ruanui who are descended from the chiefly lines of that people, I say tēnā koutou, tēna koutou, greetings to you all. Kua whiti te ra, i runga i a koutou i tēnei ra: the sun has risen on Ngāti Ruanui today, ahakoa he aha te roa e tatari ana mai koutou kia whakamana tēnei rā: even though it has been a long time and a long wait for the mana to be returned to Ngāti Ruanui today. But I encourage Ngāti Ruanui to look to its future and to put in place the leadership that will enhance it again as a people, kia puāwai anō koutou: so that it will bloom once more. I runga i ngā kōrero o rātou mā, ngā kōrero nō mai rā anō, kia noho tahi tātou, kia noho tahi tātou i runga i te humārie: the teachings of our people ever since, have been that we stay together, and remain humble; ā, tēnā, ka manaakitia mai tātou e te Atua: if we do that, the Lord will bless us.

My challenge to Ngāti Ruanui today is this. We have a world out there that is our oyster. How Ngāti Ruanui handles its future will depend on what it does with it. And I tell Ngāti Ruanui not to forget other people—its next-door neighbours, te iwi Pākehā; nā, me noho tahi tātou i roto i tēnei o tātou whenua: it does not matter how we think or what we are; we need to realise that we are still one people, even though our cultures and languages may differ. Kia noho pēnei tātou—when we do live like that—ka rongo koe i te reka: then we will taste the sweetness of what this land is all about.

Nō reira, e hoa ma ngā iwi Pākehā kei waenganui i a tātou i tēnei rā ko koutou ngā whanaunga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Therefore friends, the Pākehā people in our midst today, you are our relatives: greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]

I will begin by recognising and welcoming the people of Ngāti Ruanui who are here today, as well as the people of Tangahoe and Pakakohi. Kia ora tātou. I am very aware that, apart from the Minister, I am the first member of Ngāti Pākehā to speak to this bill today, and that my te reo ability is very modest, paling into insignificance in comparison with those who have spoken before me.

Nevertheless, I trace my ancestry back to the Ngāti Ruanui whenua in South Taranaki, because my great-great-grandparents, the Luty family, farmed in that area. My grandparents and my mother grew up in Wanganui, and I therefore have an identity with the land there. However, as Pākehā settlers they were perhaps on the other side of the conflict. I do not know what role they played in the Crown’s actions and misdeeds in that area, but I do know that they settled on the land at Maxwell, and I know that Maxwell was very infamously named after the leader of a colonial militia who, on 27 November 1868, led a party against Ngā Rauru and Taranaki iwi children at Handley’s woolshed, near Waitotara. There, in an unprovoked attack, that militia fired on, chased, and attacked with sabres children, the eldest of whom was 10 years old, wounding and killing them. I think, given that it was a totally unprovoked attack, and given the things that happened there, the naming of the town of Maxwell after such a person was reprehensible. I would strongly support the moves that I know there are among some people to rename that town. I want to apologise on behalf of my tūpuna and whānau for any actions they took that contributed to the problems caused by the Crown in respect of Ngāti Ruanui’s land, and for the demise of the land and the mana of Ngāti Ruanui.

United Future New Zealand is delighted to see the third reading of this bill today. I want to bring to the House’s attention that we pushed the Government hard to bring the second reading and the Committee stage into urgency, so that we could reach the position we are now in of getting this bill resolved and passed as soon as possible. I am very, very pleased to see that finally we have reached that stage. I note that the first reading of the bill was in October 2002. Despite what the Minister said, I think that it has taken too long for this legislation to pass through the House, that grievance settlements are too slow, and that the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal are under-resourced.

For Ngāti Ruanui, this is a time of celebration. However, it is hard to celebrate when one is obtaining something one has always been entitled to, and when the compensation has been extremely conservative. Given that Māori at one stage owned 90 percent of the land in New Zealand, settlements of restitution for iwi and hapū that are far, far short of that indicate the generosity of spirit that there is among Māori people.

The history of this settlement bears the hallmarks that many, many claims bear. We know that Ngāti Ruanui was a prosperous and economically successful iwi in the 1840s and 1850s, and we are told that it traded extensively with European settlements and overseas traders. Following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Ngāti Ruanui consistently opposed the sale of Māori land in Taranaki, and by the mid-1860s Ngāti Ruanui and other iwi of Taranaki and elsewhere had entered into a contract to oppose further land sales. But, as so often seems to have happened to the Māori people, the Crown proclaimed martial law throughout Taranaki on 22 February 1860, in response to Māori opposition to the Crown’s attempts to acquire the Pekapeka block at Waitara. The Taranaki wars of 1860-61 and 1863-69 followed, and we are told that Ngāti Ruanui suffered much loss of life and property, let alone mana, during those wars. So there was tremendous suffering. The people were oppressed and the land was confiscated. We are also aware of the commendable involvement of Ngāti Ruanui people at Parihaka; those events are well recorded.

I note that a compensation court was set up under the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863, but in order to qualify, Māori had to prove that, firstly, they had an interest in the land, and, secondly, they had been loyal to the Crown, without which they would not get compensation. Almost all of Ngāti Ruanui were rejected. Only 40 out of 997 of them were awarded a full share of entitlement. But, in fact, even then none of the awards were properly implemented.

I note that the Green Party is opposed to settlements such as this one with Ngāti Ruanui, on the basis that they are full and final settlements. However, the Crown’s limitation on the ability to provide complete compensation is obviously a factor that has to be taken into account. I have some sympathy with the situation that the Greens are talking about, and I also have some sympathy with Tangahoe and Pakakohi, who are aggrieved at the way they have been included in the settlement process. However, from my perspective as Ngāti Pākehā, that is an issue between Māori and Māori, and I have great reservations about the Crown interfering in sorting out problems between Māori and Māori. I note that the Waitangi Tribunal, which is the closest to a Māori-controlled court that we have, decided after an extensive look at the issue that this settlement process was correct, and also that the Māori Affairs Committee, comprised predominantly of Māori also, despite strong opposition to their inclusion by Pakakohi and Tangahoe decided that this settlement should continue. I think we have to rely on that. I have sympathy for their position, but it is a balancing factor.

I think we have to recognise that the ability to provide any more compensation will diminish in the future. The land continues to be developed, other parties’ interests are affected, and we need to look at the interests of New Zealand as a whole. If the Greens had their way, there would be no end to the treaty reconciliation process. That is an extreme view. On the other hand, the ACT party does not believe there should be a treaty reconciliation process at all. That is the opposite extreme view. Extremist views typically reflect neither the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders nor the best interests of New Zealand as a whole. We need to look at Māori and non-Māori working together and advancing together into the future, with the treaty grievances resolved, so that we can face the future as a nation that works well together in the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi, in the spirit of the commonality that we have, and with the much that we have in common as citizens of this land.

United Future congratulates Ngāti Ruanui on reaching the stage of the passing of this bill, the first, I note, of the Taranaki claims to reach this point. And I look forward to attending the hui at Pariroa Pa on 3 June to hear the Crown’s acknowledgments and apologies read, and to note the transfer of the settlement redress on that day. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa .

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. As a result of the settlement process we are going through slowly in New Zealand, we now have a growing understanding of our nation’s history. I hope that an increasing number of New Zealanders will continue to open their hearts and their minds to learning more about our own history. The history of the Taranaki and Wanganui area is particularly interesting, and the more we learn about it the better we will be. We need to understand the hurt and the pain that Ngāti Ruanui has been carrying for so long. An understanding of that can come about from people taking responsibility for learning more about what happened in the area in which we live.

This settlement package provides Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi with the resources to help them to develop economic, social, and cultural well-being. I acknowledge here today the people who have worked so hard for so long, and who have contributed so much to this settlement process. I acknowledge those who worked to heal the pain. I acknowledge those who, through their own good and open hearts and minds, stretched out a hand to calm the anger and the hurt. I also acknowledge those who have shown incredible patience, integrity, and humility, which has led us to this moment in time. I pay respect to you all.

This settlement will assist the people of Ngāti Ruanui to re-empower themselves and will help towards the self-development of Ngāti Ruanui. But I must say that the people of Ngāti Ruanui have not sat around on their hands waiting for this day. We are already very aware of the excellent services being provided by Ngāti Ruanui to the people of South Taranaki—services such as health provision, social services, services responding to the needs of young people, and perhaps most important, education services to equip our young people for the bright and encouraging world they face as they go out into the future.

In closing, I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Ruanui, their ancestors, their elders, their descendants, and their negotiating team. I wish everyone well as they move forward to a more secure and positive future. Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawanui.

Tēnā koutou katoa. He mihi nui ki a koe, e te rangatira Pat Heremaia. He mihi aroha nui ki a Tangahoe, Pakakohe, me Ngāti Ruanui.

[Greetings to you all, and to you especially, Pat Heremaia, the chief. Loving greetings to you the people of Tangahoe, Pakakohe, and Ngāti Ruanui.]

The Greens have weighed very carefully our support for the restitution of claims—and we do support the restitution of claims—and our deep concerns about the justice in the treaty settlement process. We have decided in these circumstances that we support, and will support, this bill. The restoration of land and, in particular, wāhi tapu to the iwi of Ngāti Ruanui through this settlement is a significant gain. We acknowledge Ngāti Ruanui’s efforts to achieve some form of justice and restitution for the grave losses suffered by the mana whenua.

However, we are deeply aware of the strong opposition to this bill felt by members of Tangahoe and Pakakohi, by some members of some hapū, and by others in Ngāti Ruanui. So I want to acknowledge those people, kaumātua and kuia and others, who are here today from the hapū involved in this settlement, who do not support the bill, and who come to bear witness to what they consider is an injustice and another breach of the treaty. Their concerns are serious, and they raise important issues about the Government policy on treaty settlements and the processes by which these settlements are reached. The Greens share some of those concerns.

The Greens recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the legitimacy of the Māori text that was signed by hapū signatories. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement between hapū and the Crown. It is a solemn pact, and the treaty settlement process is designed to provide some redress for the historical grievances that arose out of the Crown’s failure to adhere to it. The Greens acknowledge that delegated representatives of the Crown have breached, and continue to breach, te tiriti rights of Māori. We support the resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and current breaches.

We too look to the settlement process for justice, but we too find it wanting. There are steps that we believe could be taken to improve the process, and that are necessary for a robust resolution of historical claims, and for the continuation of a healthy treaty relationship into the future.

The first is that the process should undergo a comprehensive review. It is not sufficient to claim that the process is acceptable to Māori because Māori engage with it. That is wilful blindness, and demonstrates a failure to understand the complexity of the social and economic milieu within which Māori operate. Such a review needs to engage specifically with the mechanics of the process, the mandate requirements, and, primarily, the “large natural groupings” policies.

Questions about the relationship between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal also need to be asked. There are two processes relating to the resolution of historical claims. Claimants are increasingly encouraged to go to direct negotiation, as that process is slightly speedier than that of going through the Waitangi Tribunal.

But the tribunal is an inquisitorial body that is, ostensibly, independent of the Crown, and is able to give a balanced perspective of the justice issues between the two parties. The tribunal must be a well-resourced, primary part of the claims process; otherwise the Crown, which funds the tribunal, holds all the political power, and committed the historical wrongs, becomes the sole arbiter of the questions of justice and the level of reparation. That is, simply, not a genuine, robust, and just compensation process.

Issues of funding for claimants also need to be addressed in any review. Claimants may be more likely to proceed to direct negotiation because it is a shorter, and therefore less costly, process than going through the tribunal. It is not sufficient for a robust and durable settlement to be negotiated, when the aggrieved party must appear and present its case at a severe financial disadvantage to the offending party.

But when the time comes—and it will come—that the historical claims have been dealt with, that reparation, in whatever form, has been made, and that that part of the process is over, there will remain the need for the Crown to have developed an ongoing relationship under te tiriti that is not property based, but that takes into account the constitutional aspects of te tiriti. I read Michael Cullen’s speech on the treaty very carefully for some indication from the Government that that issue is being seriously considered, but I was very disappointed. I am aware there is some money in the Budget for treaty education, but until we hear a clear statement about that programme we should remain highly sceptical.

I agree with Mr Cullen on some things. Non-Māori have nothing to fear from the treaty. Much of the rhetoric from various areas is little more than bigoted rants of absolutely no consequence that cause considerable distaste among the public. I also agree that the treaty right in article 2 is not in any way modified by article 3. But I certainly disagree when Mr Cullen characterises article 2 as, broadly, some form of property right—no matter how much he might extend that to issues such as language. There are constitutional implications in article 2 that have not been properly considered by the Crown, nor by the courts. There is a multitude of different views about what those consitutional implications are, but no Government so far has had the will to enable that dialogue to happen in any kind of coherent way.

Mr Cullen went on to say that sovereignty has been exercised unbroken and largely unchallenged ever since. But, of course, that is completely untrue, and, in the context of this bill, an absolute insult. The tangata whenua have been challenging that sovereignty ever since the wars, when the Crown, through the settler Government, abrogated its obligations under the treaty and forcibly stole Māori land, using armed forces and legislation. The preamble on page 5 of the bill outlines how the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 was enacted specifically to confiscate Māori land from those who had challenged the sovereignty of the Crown. That challenge has continued, and still continues, but there remains absolutely no will on the part of senior Ministers even to engage in a discussion about it; rather, the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech that flies in the face of documented, historical record.

The Green Party is committed to an ongoing national dialogue grounded in te tiriti. We believe that this will both give effect to the relationship that it enshrines, and build a high level of awareness among all citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand of the unique role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the evolution of our nation. Rangatiratanga is guaranteed under te tiriti to hapū and iwi, not to “large natural groupings”. Until the Crown accepts this and resources the settlement process in a way that recognises this reality, there is a real risk that settlements will simply perpetuate grievance and injustice among some hapū. We need to work now, as a nation, on the institutions that give effect to the relationship that is enshrined in te tiriti. The Crown needs to assist Pākehā to understand their own identity, so that they feel less threatened by Māori identity. Above all, we need to restore the mana of te tiriti as a living document that helps to shape Aotearoa New Zealand as a role model for indigenous relations in the world. The treaty is nation building, and not a weapon.

Finally, the Greens extend to Tangahoe and Pakakohi, and to Ngāti Ruanui me o whānau, our very best wishes for the future. Kia ora koutou katoa.

I waited to hear the contributions of the Green Party and other parties, partly because so few of the questions that the ACT speakers have raised in the course of the progress of this bill have been answered or been taken as questions that are deserving of proper inquiry. I waited because ACT would like to be able to share in the spirit with which members approach these matters—in other words, to see them as a ritual or symbolic act at the end of a long process whereby the issues have been settled.

When I spoke on this bill in the second reading it was very clear from the select committee report that there were a number of, I will not say outstanding but, certainly, unsettled, disputes or matters of potential further unhappiness. I had hoped that the Committee stage would inquire into some of those issues. As it turned out, most of the addresses of people in this House were in the nature of ritual protestations. There is nothing wrong with expressing the sorts of sentiments that I heard from Mr Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First, which I respected. I found his speech a moving thing to hear. There is nothing wrong with expressing the sorts of wishes for the future that the Hon Tariana Turia expressed. But we are stewards of our votes on these matters, and we should realise that we are making law. We should be trying to craft settlements that, so far as possible, end dispute, and do not become a platform for further trouble.

My primary concern is the reservation of positions that mean people will be set against each other. I think this particular claims settlement legislation is not as serious, in that regard, as many others. I found the schedules that record the statutory acknowledgments and the recognitions moving and helpful in understanding the limits of what is attempted by this bill. But, on the other hand, this bill states very clearly that these matters can affect, and are expected to affect, the properties of parties other than the Crown and Ngāti Ruanui. In other words, this bill acknowledges on its face that there are reservations here, or, at least, the possibility of the exercise of rights that are intended to affect people who are owners of property that is not the property of the Crown and not the property, under this bill or otherwise, of Ngāti Ruanui.

So I look at this and say that, as stewards of our vote, however much we would like to have a unanimous view of the House, we should be seeing this as a precedent, as undoubtedly it will be. The settlements to be reached should, in the view of ACT, be what in family law we used to call “clean-break settlements”. In other words, we should be trying to make sure that the foul deeds that were undoubtedly committed, and the compensation that is being paid for them, put an end to the causes of potential further irritation. I believe that when we have these somewhat fuzzy, well meant, but very ill-defined stewardship arrangements, kaitiaki-ships, or arrangements for recognition by the statutory authorities of ill-defined interests of Ngāti Ruanui in land, we are certain to end up with a mismatch of expectations. We are certain to draw some of the finest minds amongst Ngāti Ruanui into exploring just what those rights might mean.

They are not made properly tradable. They are not made as rights that are capable of being turned into concrete benefits. They are, really, rights to interfere, rights to complain, and rights to try to influence what one’s neighbours are doing. They are negative. Unless the very best of goodwill is present on both sides amongst all people, the rights create a relationship that then gets recast and labelled as “holding to ransom”, as “corruption”, or as “misuse of powers”, because it is not exactly clear what those powers were conferred for. On one side, they will be used to try to exercise an influence that the other side will resent. To the extent that those powers, on the face of this bill, influence private property, it will mean that neighbour resents neighbour, and that is not a recipe for true, long-term settlement.

I was also concerned by the context. In terms of this settlement, the Māori Affairs Committee urged that we should not reopen the matter. The select committee said that it had concerns that it could not address, because these settlements are treated as if they are subject to the convention of foreign treaties—in other words, all that Parliament can do is give a yes/no answer. We would much prefer to have been in the position where we had been consulted in some way, and had had our concerns addressed, because we think we speak as the true representatives of the majority of New Zealanders. Most parties in this House have, for a long time, been part of a conspiracy of silence in this area. We know, from the opinion polls, of growing unease, and we believe that when the Ministers and the Attorney-General speak, and when Crown Law negotiates, there is a widely held fear that they do so with one hand tied behind their back, that they do not challenge as they should, that they are not true negotiators, and that, in effect, for the reasons that Metiria Turei just gave, negotiation takes the place of investigation. Negotiation is taking the place of full fact finding.

What that may be leading to, rightly or wrong, is a view that these are political settlements to achieve political outcomes for a Government that is determined to maintain the votes of its Māori members. It was not reassuring for us to hear, before this debate, applause for the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, when it appeared to this House that he was not taking full responsibility for what may be financial misfeasance or lack of financial probity in his own portfolio. We would have hoped that the people who were coming here to welcome this bill would be concerned about that, and would not take what appeared to be a partisan approach. We think that is confirmation of the concern about this being a political settlement.

Finally, I simply want to balance—not because I disagree with the optimism that has been expressed by many—the view that has been expressed numerous times in this House in relation to these settlements: that in some way the settling of assets is a path to wealth and happiness. The assets that matter are sometimes harder to acquire and hold when one is rich than when one is poor. The assets that matter are attitudes to education, attitudes to work, and attitudes to self-reliance and family responsibility. For many of us, the old saying of rags to rags in three generations says it all. The generation that ends up with wealth that it did not earn is the generation that sows the seeds for it being lost. Because of that wealth, it loses the ability to maintain the drive, and the respect for work and education, of its children. We were mischaracterised by the United Future party as being opposed to reconciliation; we are not, at all. We believe that reconciliation is imperative, but we do not wish it to be on a false basis. The assets may be more of a hindrance to growth than a benefit.

Nā, ka tū ki te mihi anō ki a koutou Aotea waka, Ngāti Ruanui me ngā hapu. Tēnā koutou e haramai nei kei roto i te Whare, ki te rongo atu i ngā kōrero maroke māi i taua tangata, e whaka hōhā mai ki a tātou katoa.

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

[I rise once more to greet you, the waka of Aotea, the people of Ngāti Ruanui, and the subtribes. Greetings to you who came here into this House to listen to the dry remarks from that member: remarks that are a nuisance to us.]

On that basis, I welcome my people to this House. Fate places people in strange places, and with regard to that, what do I say as an uri of Taranaki? What do I say as a descendant from Parihaka, as they all are, as well? What do I say about the mamaetanga, te hohonutanga o taua haehae mai? [the hurt and enormity of that laceration inflicted?] What do I say about the notion of assets, when we have never had any assets? We drive through Taranaki and gaze upon the pastures verdant and green. We are not just talking about this claim; we are also talking about other levels of confiscation that have happened to Taranaki people, mai i te raki ki te tonga. [from the north to the south.] We engaged in long debate about the Māori reserved lands. In a sense, that was also a form of confiscation, and the debate was long and hard, but the point is that that was part of a parliamentary commission in 1928. It took as long as that to realise some justice and some equity about what we are engaged in.

What do I also say? I have had the same experiences as we all have had, about where we were, and are, as people. It is not just about the whenua. That is only one key facet of what we are about as Taranaki people. I dispute the claim made by the previous speaker when he talked about assets not necessarily being in terms of how we commonly define them, but, rather, being in terms of health, education, and other things. I am proud to stand here as an uri of Taranaki and Parihaka and to say that, in spite of all the things we have experienced, we do not have goals that are less, in terms of our striving for education and good health, and to live in this community of Aotearoa as equal citizens. That has been part of the ongoing raruraru [problem] for our people. We do not participate fully. There have been impediments of a historical nature that have, in a way, diminished our chances to participate where we want to participate. Someone—I think it was the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu—talked about some of these things, and so did the honourable member Tariana Turia.

The effects have somehow been categorised as only a loss of land. Why do we wear the raukura [feather]? From my point of view, the raukura symbolises something that is hugely spiritual, and talks about the determination and the dynamism of our people. It talks about the courage of our people. It talks about the indomitable spirit of our people and the unquenchable drive for justice. That is what it talks about.

I am honoured to be standing here and to look at the range of generations from Ngāti Ruanui who have come. They have brought their tamariki, so that they can witness the historical nature of what we are about here in the House today. I invite members to look at the intergenerational presence of our people. It was people like our tamariki who sat on ngā marae o Parihaka at the time of the pāua [conflict] and the invasion. We exercised huge discipline—and we still do, as a people. When I talk about their courage and determination I am also talking about a particular way of doing things o roto, o runga i te ngāwari o te tangata. [based upon the accommodating nature within a person.] It has never been about whakahihi. [snobbishness] It is about raukura. I acknowledge the people’s presence as a whanaunga. [relative] What I am trying to say is ka puta ē tō hē, ngā kōrero papa ngākau. [is that what you said about speaking from the heart came out wrong.] I talk about Titokowaru, e tohe, [challenge it] Wiremu Kingi, Te Whiti raua ko Tohu, and all those other people who are not here to see this. I am reminded, therefore, of a whakatakitanga kōrero, mai i a Te Whiti ki tana iwi. [a proverbial saying from Te Whiti to his people.] When he talked to the colonisers, he said: “Nōu te pāua tuatahi, mā mātau te pāua whakamutunga.” [“Yours is the first conflict, but ours will be the one to finish it off.”] Are we seeing that? Because that is what the future challenge is about. If we do not look on that sum as a disposable asset, the challenge will be, and it is on the people, that it should grow like a tree, kia puāwai, kia puāwai, kia noho pai ai ā-uri. [that it flourishes, it blooms, and as relatives we are better off because of it.] Our time has come—at the age of 40 for me, and a lot of the people here are much older than me!

As for the parties that are here present, I greatly appreciate the support of three members of the National Party, and that of the other parties that have contributed to this discourse. I look forward to meeting them all at the conclusion of the third reading, nō reira, mā ngā tau heke e noho pai mai i runga i te pokohiwi o te katoa, pai mārire.

[so that it sits well on everyone's shoulders in years to come.]

I do want to take the opportunity to reflect on some matters on the occasion of the third reading of this bill, but I will start by commending those who have been responsible for bringing this complex process to the conclusion it reaches today. I do want to commend, in particular, my esteemed colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for the wise words of counsel she offered to members of the House in her address in relation to this bill. I do not pretend to bring to this matter anything like the understanding that others have of the complex history behind the bill. Nor do I claim to have a detailed understanding of the complexities of the legislation itself. But I do believe that there are some issues that relate to it that members of the House and those who are interested in these matters will wish to reflect upon on this occasion.

Since this is a third reading debate and we should do these things, I want to refer to the preamble to the bill. To those who have read it in detail I apologise, but I do want to refer to some parts of it that I think we should reflect on today. The preamble notes that it was in the first half of the decade of the 1990s that the Waitangi Tribunal commenced the investigation of 21 claims concerning Taranaki Māori, including the Ngāti Ruanui claim. The preamble goes on to remind us that on 11 June 1996 we saw an interim report from the Waitangi Tribunal. It then notes that in April 1998 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Ruanui working party. Then, on 31 August 1998, we saw the terms of negotiation containing the scope, objectives, and general procedures of the negotiations recognised. On 7 September 1999, over 3 years ago, we saw the heads of agreement in relation to this settlement. The final step, of course, apart from the legislation itself, was on 12 May 2001, when we saw the deed of settlement signed by the parties.

Those who have read that sequence of dates and have reflected upon them will, I believe, ask themselves, as I have asked myself, this question: does it have to take as long as that? Is there a better and faster way? I do not raise that question today in any sense of partisan criticism. It is a matter of history and chronology that much of this process took place under a Government of which I was a part. I raise the question today because I think that this is a day when we should reflect on these matters. I do so not to deflect in any way from the sense of achievement that some will feel at the final passage of this bill but because today is a day when we should properly reflect, in a balanced way, upon those sorts of questions.

Since 1990 the Waitangi Tribunal, various armies of officials, and various Ministers have been working on this claim to bring it to the conclusion that it reaches today, 1 May, 13 years later. I say that that is just too long. We have to find a better and a more effective way. I have referred to that issue in the House before, but I do so again today because I have, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, taken the occasion to ask officials testing questions on these matters when they have appeared before us at various times.

In particular, I remember an occasion when I joined with the Hon Dover Samuels and other Government members in asking the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, in particular, and from the Ministry of Justice this question: if we gave them some more money—if we went back as a select committee to Parliament with a unanimous recommendation that they should get some more money to try to get this process moved ahead more quickly—what would they do with it? There was much shuffling and uncomfortable movement on the officials’ bench. So Mr Samuels and, I think, Mr Tamihere, myself, and others pursued the matter further, and, being dissatisfied with the verbal comments we received, asked for some papers to be written. It was only after some weeks and many reminders that we got the papers we had sought. I am bound to say that none of us were any wiser or any better informed as a consequence of them.

That process demonstrated to me—and this has been reinforced to me on subsequent occasions—that there is not within the officialdom that services this important area in this country either an understanding of how we might do a better, faster job or a commitment to doing a better, faster job. I believe that there are members on all sides of this House—certainly I believe there are members on the Labour side—who share the sense of frustration I feel that we cannot do better than that. Today is a day when we should say to those officials, and to others who contribute to the process, that while there might be a sense of achievement in reaching this particular milestone, there are many, many other milestones to be reached and they are taking too long.

I asked those same officials how long it would be before the historic claims on the table were dealt with, if we proceed at the current rate of progress. The answer was a daunting one—20 to 25 years. I say to those officials, to the Minister, and to my parliamentary colleagues that that is just too long and we have to find a better, more effective way.

I know that there may be some people who will regard this as heretical, but I believe that the way forward is for us to try to move some of the officials out of the process, and to see a more direct embracing of the negotiation process by appointed negotiators working for Ministers. The Ministers themselves should take a greater sense of involvement and ownership, because I cannot see any way forward that does not include a greater role in terms of political leadership and a more direct form of negotiation.

Finally, I am one—and the Minister of Māori Affairs, I am sure, will be delighted to confirm this—who has been a staunch critic of so-called capacity building programmes that lack benchmarks and any sense of evaluation. I am sorry to say that in most cases those programmes lack any sense of a tangible result that can be demonstrated to benefit those who are supposed to benefit from them. But I accept that those of us who are critics of those programmes that breed dependency and destroy opportunity have an equal obligation to come to the party and support those—I know there are many in Māoridom with this view—who strongly believe in Māori economic development, and who have a great sense of pride and a great desire for independence. I have a slightly more positive view than Mr Franks about the opportunities that will result as the assets that are part of this settlement package pass across to Ngāti Ruanui.

I close by saying that I will continue to hound the Minister of Māori Affairs—in fact, I am only just getting started—in relation to those programmes that are sheer handouts and that do not build the capacity he would assert they are there to build. I will continue to hound that Minister, but I also say I hope that the settlement contained here today will signal an opportunity for success for those who are builders in Māoridom, and for those who strive for independence in Māori economic development. I wish them well in that regard.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that in the interests of time I do my own translation?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, you may.

Kia ora! Otirā, tēnā koutou, Aotea waka, Taranaki tangata, te maunga tītōhea, ngā kārangaranga hapū kei waenganui i a koutou, tēnā koutou nau mai, hara mai. Nā koutou tonu tēnei rā. Ahakoa te iti, te rahi o ngā kōrero, kua hurihuri haere i roto i tēnei Whare, nā koutou tonu te kaupapa. E tautoko ana i ngā mihi o tēnei a tā koutou mokopuna. Nāna e kī, nāna i whakamārama i ngā taimahatanga, i whāwhāhia ai e koutou, mai i ngā rā ki muri, ā, tae noa ki tēnei wā. Otirā, o ngā kōrero maroke o ngā tangata kāre e matatau ana ki a koutou hōhonutanga, tō koutou mamae, me kī rā, he kōrero whakaparanga noa iho tērā. He whakaparanga noa iho nā te mea, ko koutou tonu ngā mea e mārama ana ki a koutou mamae, ā, taimahatanga katoa, e ngā maemaetanga i ūhiatia ai e te Karauna i runga i a koutou mātua, tūpuna i te wā i te pakanga ki roto i a Taranaki. Nō reira, me kī pēnei rā te kōrero, rirerire pai mārire.

Nā, ehara tēnei i te whakarōroa i te wā e noho ana koutou i roto i tēnei Whare. Kāhore! Kua tutuki ai i ngā kōrero i tā koutou tangata, te maunga i tītōhea kei tōku taha nei, a Mahara. Nāna i kōrero ā-papa ngākau ki a koutou, āna mōhiotanga, i ngā ritenga katoa e pā ana ki a koutou. Kua tū tēnei ki te whakatau atu, ki te whakaoti atu i tēnei wāhanga a tō koutou hīkoi i runga i tēnei huarahi tino roa rawa atu. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you. Greetings indeed to you Aotea canoe, the people of Taranaki, the mountain made barren by frequent cultivation, and the various subtribes in your midst; greetings to you, and welcome, welcome, welcome. This is very much your day. No matter how much or how little has been said in this House, the matter is still yours. I endorse the tributes made by this grand child of yours. He was the one who talked about it, who explained the weighty issues that you had to fight, way back at the beginning and to the present time. Indeed, having listened to the dry talk by those who did not really have any idea about how deeply it affected you, and the anguish it caused you, let us say that that sort of talk is just pure rubbish, pure loose talk, because you are the only ones who know how much pain it caused you, what the all the burdens were about, and the hurt that the Crown inflicted upon your ancestors and forebears during the conflict in Taranaki. Therefore, let us say it this way, rirerire pai mārire.

So, I am not standing up to prolong your stay in this House. No indeed! This man beside me, this man of your barren mountain, Mahara, has said it all in his closing address. He gave it to you from the heart. He gave all that he knew from within him, every shred of custom that relates to you people. I have got up to acknowledge you and to finish off this part of your walk on this road, which has been a really very lengthy one. So, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]

I thank Mr Speaker for his indulgence. I am wondering what I can possibly say in this discussion that would add to the importance of this occasion. Although I have heard many drawn-out speeches about the history of Taranaki, I wonder how much understanding there is of it. The people who experienced the history and the events in Taranaki are sitting in the Chamber tonight listening to the kōrero, and I wonder what their views are. But I was moved by the contribution of the person I call Taranaki’s maunga, the member Mahara Okeroa, who talked to the people of Taranaki. When we say “kōrero a whaka ngākau”, we say he talked from his heart.

I have only one thing to say to the people of Taranaki. This has been a very, very long road and a very, very drawn-out process, and for them a very, very painful one, and no one knows that better than they do themselves. As this process draws to a close, I know that there is not much I can add to it. However, I would like to say to them that whilst the road has been long and the challenges have been great, there are greater challenges to come. When the people of Taranaki leave here, the hope is that they never have to come back. We hope that they will take on the challenges of the days to come. The Taranaki I heard about when I was a child—the greatness of its prophets and people, and of the passive resistance movement—will open new roads. I have to say that the people of Taranaki have a legacy that many of us envy. But as I have said, they are the people who really know about that. I say bless them all.

The people of Taranaki should confront the challenges as they come and have no fear, because they have a great legacy. I remember the words of Titokowaru; nāna i kī ai: “Ahakoa he maunga tītōhea, ka rere ngā manu ki reira unu ai, e kore, e kore, e mimiti.”

[it was he who said: “Even though it is a mountain made barren by frequent cultivation, and birds fly there to drink, it never dries up.”]

What a great legacy the people of Taranaki have, in terms of the passive resistance movement. Many of our tribal leaders around the country have been to Taranaki in the past to experience its spirituality and to look for a way ahead. Many of them returned home to their tribes and to their people much more prepared for their role and much more patient with the processes of that time.

Ki a koutou katoa, koi nei, kua oti katoa rā ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tēnei wāhanga o tō koutou pire. Hoki tonu atu ki ō koutou kāinga, ki ngā tini āhuatanga kei waenganui i ngā karanga hapū o Taranaki, ki te mahi i ngā mahi kai mua kai a koutou. Nō reira, me kī anō rā, ngā manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou. E tau ana.

[To all of you, it is done. Everything relating to this part of your bill has been completed. Return to your homes, to the many things within the subtribes of Taranaki and to tend to those matters that are ahead of you. So, I say once more, may the Almighty protect you. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and good health to us all. I end here.]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is one more speaking slot that normally would be taken by National. However, the Minister of Māori Affairs has been here all afternoon, and given that he is present in the House, it might be appropriate for him to make a contribution of 3 or 4 minutes. I am happy to relinquish my speaking slot, if he so wishes to do so.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Does the Minister want to do that?

No.