Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that this bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, with an instruction that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and can meet during the evening on the day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Order 193 and Standing Order 196(1)(b) and (c), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 13 August 2003.

This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngāti Tama in Taranaki. Nā reira Ngāti Tama tēnā koutou. One of the eight iwi of the region, Ngāti Tama, is located in northern Taranaki and has about 900 members. The bill settles all of Ngāti Tama’s historical Taranaki claims. It is the second Taranaki claims bill introduced by this Government. The historical claims of Ngāti Tama relate mainly to the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki in the 1860s, and the associated confiscation of about 30,000 hectares of Ngāti Tama’s land. The claim also relates to the Crown’s unconscionable actions in its dealings with the Parihaka community and the inadequacy of the west coast reserves. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngāti Tama, to their ancestors and descendants, and to all the hapū of Ngāti Tama for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown.

The mainly 19th century historical claims of Ngāti Tama were heard by the Waitangi Tribunal between 1990 and 1995, together with other Taranaki claims. In 1996, the tribunal issued an interim report, giving its preliminary views on the Taranaki claims. The tribunal stated that “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Māori, to restore the honour of the Government, to ensure cultural survival, and to re-establish effective interaction between the treaty partners.”

In November 1996, the previous Government recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tama Iwi Development Trust to represent Ngāti Tama in negotiations. In September 1999, the Crown and the development trust reached a heads of agreement that recorded that in principle Ngāti Tama and the Crown were willing to settle the Ngāti Tama historical claims in Taranaki. In December 2001, the Crown and Ngāti Tama signed a deed of settlement. A representative, transparent, and accountable governance entity to receive the settlement assets was established in January this year. For the purposes of providing redress, a distinction was made in the heads of agreement between the Ngāti Tama area north of the confiscation line, and the area subject to an overlapping claim by Ngāti Maniapoto north of the confiscation line. Redress offered to Ngāti Tama was made subject to the resolution of Ngāti Maniapoto overlapping interests to the satisfaction of the Crown. However, Ngāti Maniapoto believed that the Ngāti Tama settlement would compromise their future treaty settlements, and lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. This opposition led to mediation that was unsuccessful.

The Crown commissioned independent research to clarify the customary associations of both iwi to the specific sites proposed for the transfer to Ngāti Tama. As a result of that research, the Crown revised its settlement offer to Ngāti Tama. The revised offer still contained exclusive redress to Ngāti Tama and the overlapping claim area, although less than originally proposed. Ngāti Maniapoto sought and was granted an urgent hearing before the Waitangi Tribunal. In its subsequent report the tribunal found that no breach of the treaty would occur if the revised settlement proceeded, and believed that the Crown had exercised sufficient caution in addressing the overlapping claim issues. The tribunal also endorsed the Crown’s approach to addressing overlapping claimant interests in the context of the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims.

Many people deserve acknowledgment in regard to this settlement. I acknowledge those who suffered the breaches with the treaty and those who carried the grievances and who are no longer with us. I thank the Ngāti Tama negotiators, who have been a constructive and conscientious group to work with. Our goal is to ensure that settlements resolve grievances of the past. The bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Tama into the future.

I acknowledge the work done by former Ministers of Treaty Negotiations and Māori Affairs who contributed to this settlement. I also thank the other Ministers and departments involved, and in particular, the Minister of Conservation, who has supported the process throughout. I thank the Office of Treaty Settlements for the work done in seeking a just and fair settlement. As New Zealanders we can be proud that real and significant grievances are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law.

The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by the bill and has negotiated with the interests of the taxpayer in mind. It is not possible to compensate Ngāti Tama fully for all of the prejudice and loss they have suffered. Settlements must be balanced with other commitments of the Government. I congratulate Ngāti Tama on negotiating on that basis and with reasonable regard to the interest of New Zealand society as a whole. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense for losses, there could be no settlements, and therefore no resolution, of the historical grievances affecting claimant communities. The negotiators for Ngāti Tama have agreed to a settlement package that includes a Crown apology for the Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, financial redress of $14.5 million, the vesting of five cultural redress properties, a statutory acknowledgement of the special association of Ngāti Tama with 11 statutory areas, an acknowledgment of the special association of Ngāti Tama with particular coastal areas, the right of first refusal over an amount of quota for certain shellfish species, and an acknowledgment of the special association of Ngāti Tama with certain indigenous species. As a consequence, the bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all of the Taranaki historical claims of Ngāti Tama.

Finally, I acknowledge the kaumātua, members, and negotiators of Ngāti Tama whose commitment on behalf of their people, ancestors, and descendants has led to this historic event and contributed to the restoration of the integrity of the Crown. Nā reira Ngāti Tama ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. I commend the bill to the House.

I am very pleased to rise to the first reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill, and I want to pay tribute to those who have come here tonight representing the maunga Taranaki. Ngā mihi ki a koutou, ki te maunga o Taranaki mai i Tongariro te whare o te Heuheu, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings to you from the mountain of Tongariro and the household of te Heuheu, Taranaki mountain.]

I always think it is a proud moment for this House when a settlement bill comes to finality after years of negotiation between the Government and the people involved, and which we, as parliamentarians, can commit to and ensure its passage through this Parliament.

The Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill is no different. I was pleased to rise to the third reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill, and it is pleasing to see the second of the Taranaki claims now before us in this House. I say that because, as Minister Turia just recounted, the claims of the Taranaki people were heard in the mid-1990s, and the report issued has been with us for some years now. Although we know that settlements are complicated matters and take time to conclude, none the less it is pleasing to see the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill come close upon the heels of the Ngati Ruanui claims settlement legislation.

It is pleasing also, from my point of view, because the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham began negotiating this settlement—[Interruption] Madam Chair, there is some talk across the House, and it is a bit distracting.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is too much chatter, and would the member please be seated.

It is distracting; our people are in the gallery, and I would like to think they are able to hear what is said—not just what I am saying, but all of us who take part in this debate tonight.

Ngāti Tama from Taranaki are one of the eight iwi from that area whose claims were investigated and reported on by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996. The general background to these claims are the Taranaki land wars of the 1860s; the loss of lives and destruction of property; land confiscations and the sacking of Parihaka; and the imprisonment without just cause, or in some cases without trial, of the tūpuna of these people who are here in this Chamber tonight, and their imprisonment in caves in Dunedin where some of them were left to die. That is a blight on this country’s history, and it is a blight, which the sooner it is removed the sooner we can say that there is one standard of citizenship in this country and we can all go forward together as one nation, many peoples, with shared values. Because there is no doubt that the values that New Zealanders share are the same for Māori, Pākehā, Chinese, Indian, and all of us. We all share the same values. That is the wider background against which these claims are being settled. That is why it is so important that this Parliament works to ensure that the historic grievances that are part of our history—our shared history—are dealt with, addressed in the most just way that we can find, and are put behind us. Because we are one nation, and we all do want to make a worthwhile contribution. From the point of view of Ngāti Tama, this is their chance to get on with their future, which, after all, is the future of all of us.

Following the tribunal’s report the National Government and Ngāti Tama commenced negotiations in 1996 culminating in the signing of a heads of agreement in September 1999. I was privileged to be an Associate Minister to Doug Graham when that signing took place. The settlement offer has since been ratified by the majority of Ngāti Tama, and we were given the figure of 98 percent, which is pleasing. In December 2001 the parties entered into a deed of settlement. The key elements of this settlement package are those elements that were developed by the National Government under the leadership of Sir Douglas Graham, acknowledging what happened in the past, together with a formal apology.

That apology, of course—and I have said this before and I will say it again—will be a huge matter for the people of Ngāti Tama. It proved to be so in the settlements that have been concluded in the past, and it is the case here as well. There is financial and commercial redress, and a right of first refusal over certain Crown-owned properties; the vesting of cultural redress properties, deeds of recognition, and statutory acknowledgments; an acknowledgment of Ngāti Tama’s associations in the area; protocols for engagement with Crown agencies; and undertakings in relation to fish and coastal tendering. Those appear to be some of the main elements of this settlement.

The bill provides for the final settlement of all Ngāti Tama historical claims, releases and discharges the Crown from all obligations and liabilities in respect of them, and removes the jurisdiction of the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. Provision is also made for the removal of resumptive memorials on State-owned enterprise land and private land.

National is pleased to support this bill to the Māori Affairs Committee. Although we have a job to scrutinise this legislation, of course, the committee’s role is fairly limited. But I am certain that we will address that task in the way we have in previous settlements, and in time, hopefully sooner rather than later, we will see the passage of this settlement into law.

Settlements, of course, are only a beginning, and I think I said this last week in relation to the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement legislation; they put the parties back to where they were when certain undertakings were given, and they give both sides of this agreement—that is, Ngāti Tama and the Crown—the opportunity to reconcile their past and the opportunity for both to go forward together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual and shared obligations.

I am certain that is what Ngāti Tama want. I congratulate them on working hard, because it does take commitment and hard work, and it takes true leadership, in my view, to finally commit one’s people to these settlements. Sometimes I think some leaders tend to show an approach that says: well, maybe we will just hang on here. But as I say, I think it takes true leadership to finally come to an agreement and decide on behalf of one’s people to go forward together.

The other point that might be of some value is that the protection of land and other resources is a guarantee for the protection of something more. Those are the economic, social, and cultural underpinnings of a once proud people who sought protection for their identity, the right to live and go forward as people of Ngāti Tama, and for the opportunity to exercise their mana—their rangatiratanga—in respect of themselves and all those things that they hold dear.

I congratulate Ngāti Tama, and I also commend the Crown and the Minister on bringing this settlement to the House so closely upon the previous Taranaki settlement, and I commend all members in this Parliament to let us work together to ensure swift passage of this legislation into law. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

I begin by acknowledging the representatives from Ngāti Tama in the Chamber tonight. Kia ora tātou. United Future members and I welcome this bill, which I note is the third bill of treaty settlements that we have had in this House in the past 12 months, with the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill going through all three stages, and the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill also going through three stages. That is very welcome to see. It is a credit to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and, in particular, to the new procedures that have been implemented by the Government—especially the Gisborne claims inquiry process that has been experimented with—and the Office of Treaty Settlements claims development team.

The Government, I note, indicated that it was optimistic about getting two bills per year through, so I would like to think that the fact we are on our third bill already, owes some credit to United Future’s endeavouring to try to speed up the process. We certainly have been pushing very hard to try to speed up the process, and, as this House knows, it was through our party’s request that the second reading and Committee stage of Ngāti Ruanui’s bill went through urgency so that we succeeded in getting that bill through quickly.

The Waitangi Tribunal has indicated that it expects its members to finish their work, subject to resources, by 2011. It would be extremely pleasing to see that we could get all of the tribunal’s historical claims out of the way by then. I would like to try to encourage the Government to aim for a date of 2015 to have at least 90 percent of the settlements through, bearing in mind that there may be 10 percent of claims that it cannot get through because of matters outside its own control. But more can be done by the Government, and United Future continues to push for more to be done to speed up the process.

In particular, with the Office of Treaty Settlements, I have been delighted to see the work of the claims development team, and commend it on the assistance it has given in respect of this bill, to get the bill to this stage. It concerns me that that team appears to be reactive rather than proactive, and I believe that it—and claims development teams generally—could do a lot more to try to assist iwi to get to a point where their legislation can be brought into this House and passed. They should, in my view, be going out to all iwi, to inform them fully of the situation, to give them advice and assistance on a direct, consultative, individual basis, and to follow them up on progress—not in a pushy way but by way of helpfulness, including assisting iwi to meet mandating requirements.

But in order for that to happen to all iwi, more funding needs to be given to the Office of Treaty Settlements. United Future has been pushing this Government, and will continue to push it, to provide greater resources to the Office of Treaty Settlements to enable that to be expanded. We sincerely hope that, as we look towards the Budget, our pleas, effectively, will not have fallen on deaf ears. Based on the excellent relationship we have between United Future and the Labour Party, then I would hope it has heard us.

The Waitangi Tribunal, too, has played a major part in getting this bill resolved, but again, in assessing claims and in drawing conclusions on the evidence about the legitimacy of grievances and the extent of harm done, the tribunal has been poorly resourced. The very limited funding provided to the tribunal for research that it can pass on to people, means that it is now in a normal state of putting people off from applying for its funding. There is a shortage of report writers. The new approach inquiry process that has come out, has indicated that more resourcing, effectively, is necessary, and even for that pilot project to be in operation it required almost all of the research resources of the tribunal to be directed towards one series of claims: namely, the Gisborne ones. However, United Future continues to push, and has been pushing, the Government for greater resources to be made available for the Waitangi Tribunal to enable it to carry out more case management work, to enable more research to be done, and to obtain the extra staffing necessary to do that. Hopefully, I would like to see more bills like this one coming before the House, so that in the next year we are not talking about three bills, but about five or six bills, coming to pass through this House.

In the Department of Courts assessment of the new-approach inquiry process of the Waitangi Tribunal report, it talks about the dramatic time compression of the process that has been involved in cutting back the average inquiry time by something like 3 years, or more, through using the Gisborne pilot project process. The new approach, with its planned further refinements and a greater level of Government resourcing for all Crown-sector agencies involved, would allow that deadline the tribunal has set for itself of 2010 to 2011 for the completion of historical claims, to be achievable. But it does take more resourcing.

I note that the Department of Courts assessment of the new approach says in summary that the new approach provides a more efficient and effective inquiry forum for claimants, compresses the inquiry time frames by up to 4 years, and prepares a speedier passage for claimants to negotiate with the Crown. It states: “These nationally important benefits outweigh the challenge posed to the Government in meeting the higher financial and resourcing costs required to complete historical inquiries under the new approach. It should be a priority”, it says, “that the grievances of the past are addressed with integrity so that the nation can move on, and both Treaty of Waitangi partners can be allowed to reach their full potential.”

Except for the comment about partners, which I think needs further refinement, I totally agree with those comments. But the specific path of Ngāti Tama’s claims unfortunately demonstrates the tardiness on the part of both National and Labour, up to date, in terms of this process. I note that the Waitangi Tribunal investigated 21 claims in Taranaki in the 5-year process of 1990 to 1995. They started 13 years ago. An interim report was produced in 1996. The Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tama Iwi Development Trust in November 1996, and then came a process of 4½ years after that, before we got to the point when there was a deed of settlement signed. Negotiations began in April 1997, a heads of agreement was reached in September 1999—that took 2½ years—and it was a further 2 years before the deed of settlement was signed. I can only think that if there had been claims development teams operating from the earlier part of those negotiations, then we could have moved the settlement further forward at a lot greater pace.

I note that the ratification of the agreement happened in December 2002, and the governance entity was established in January 2003—only a month later. The bill has been introduced in April, and that 3-month time frame is commendable. It suggests, perhaps, that we are indeed at last moving a little bit faster between the time the deeds of settlement are signed, and the time legislation comes to this House.

I want to congratulate Ngāti Tama, and Greg White who led the Claim Progression Team, in the achievement they have reached. United Future, of course, supports the passage of this bill. We are committed, as we were with Ngāti Ruanui, to ensuring that this bill progresses speedily to its third reading, and I look forward to further opportunities to talk on, and debate, that issue as the bill progresses.

Te mea tuatahi māku me mihi atu ki ngā manuhiri, Ngāti Tama tēnā koutou i tae mai nei i tēnei pō ki te whakarongo i ngā kōrero, e whakawhitiwhiti ana i roto i tēnei Whare. Nō reira nau mai, haere mai, haere mai. I welcome the people of Ngāti Tama who have come to listen to this bill being discussed in the House tonight. We hope that they will go away with positive thoughts about what is being discussed this evening.

New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee. It settles the claim that Ngāti Tama made to the Waitangi Tribunal under section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. In November 1996 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tama Iwi Development Trust to represent Ngāti Tama in negotiations. In 1997 the mandated representatives and the Crown entered into terms of negotiation to specify the scope, objectives, and general procedure for the negotiations. New Zealand First is of the mind that this bill should move forward as quickly as possible to its next stage, taking into consideration the time factors and constraints.

We support this bill having the attention that is necessary for its final conclusion to be expedited. That includes Ngāti Tama’s traditional historical and cultural associations with places and sites owned by the Crown within its area of interest. It would be difficult to assess the redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngāti Tama as a result of the events on which its historical claims are, or could be, based. Taking all matters into consideration, the settlement is fair in the circumstances.

New Zealand First supports this bill, and looks forward to it having an unhindered pathway to the select committee stage. We recognise that protocols with the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, and other departments will be, or are to be, established, and we hope that those who will hold that mantle will not only be considerate of iwi but will also encourage a memorandum of understanding with councils so as to further the progress of positive involvement.

I say to the people of Ngāti Tama that we understand their hardships and the historical hurts that have broken their hearts, but I think that with their intestinal fortitude they will change the negatives into positives, not forgetting those who stood up for them but honouring those people by fulfilling their dreams and making things happen. The Crown’s apology to Ngāti Tama covers the wars in Taranaki, land confiscation, reserve lands and perpetual leases, Parihaka, and the cumulative impact on Ngāti Tama of events that left iwi virtually landless.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, and encourages all in the House to support it. That leaves me with only one query: how long will it take before the recipients of the Ngāti Tama settlement see the day on which this legislation comes to fruition? New Zealand First is brief in its support for this bill, but we have emphasised the points that are important for all of us here tonight, and especially for the Ngāti Tama recipients of this settlement. Koutou ngā uri, ngā hekenga o ngā kāwaitanga o Ngāti Tama, e hari, e koa ana te ngākau nā te mea, kei muri i a mātau i tēnei pō, tēnei pire. Nō reira e tautoko ana mātou ki ngā kōrero kua puta atu i runga, i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei pō. New Zealand First supports this bill. We are happy that Ngāti Tama is here to hear the words that will be spoken for, and maybe against, the bill. We pray that those members who are here will support this bill going to the select committee, so that Ngāti Tama’s requests and the points it has negotiated will go further into making its day, and towards bringing the mana back to its people.

Nō reira ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou E hari koa ana te ngākau kua tae mai nei mātou katoa i roto i tēnei o tātou Whare. We greet Ngāti Tama. We are happy to be part and parcel of this bill, so that it can move ahead without Ngāti Tama having to wait, as other iwi have, for many, many years. I am happy that those of us in this House who support this bill are of the same thought, which is that our people should be settled, so that they can go ahead and do the things they need to do. I am thankful for this opportunity to express the thoughts of New Zealand First. We hope it will not be too long in the future before this legislation comes to fruition, for the betterment not only of Ngāti Tama but also of the country as a whole.

Tēnei ka tū au ki te tautoko ngā mihi ki ngā mōrehu o Ngāti Tama, tēnā koutou. Ka mihi atu rā ki tō koutou nei maunga a Taranaki, ki ngā kāwai kōrero e pā ana ki ō koutou nei mātua, tūpuna e pā ana ki te whenua. Ko ngā hononga kei waenganui i a mātou nei nō Waikato e pā ana ki ngā whenua i raupatutia, i riro whenua atu, me hoki whenua mai. Nō reira tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I just want to acknowledge the survivors of Ngāti Tama, and to acknowledge its ancestral maunga, Taranaki, and the things that have been handed down from the ancestors of Ngāti Tama to their descendants who are negotiating the return of their lands. There is a binding kōrero that joins both Taranaki and the Waikato, and it is a saying left by our ancestors when our lands were confiscated: as land was taken, so should it be returned. It is on that principle that I greet Ngāti Tama here tonight. Tēnā koutou.

Ka hoki ōku mahara ki ngā whakaaro o te taraipiunara i roto i tā rātau nei ripoata e pā ana ki tēnei take. E ai ki ō rātou nei whakaaro, ko te tūturutanga o tēnei take, e pā ana ki ngā whakaaetanga kei waenganui i te Karauna me ngā iwi katoa o Taranaki, me noho tūturu te Karauna i raro i ō rātou nei whakaaro. I want to return some of my contribution to the tenor of the report that was released by the Waitangi Tribunal regarding the Taranaki claims as a whole. It is really about the durability of the agreement between the Crown and all Taranaki iwi when they seek the return of their lands and all the agreements therein.

Nō reira, ko te tino pātai kei roto i tōku nei ngākau, ka whakatakoto mō ngā mema o te komiti whakahaere, mā koutou tēnei pātai, mēna e hiahia ana a Ngāti Tama ki te tutuki i ō rātou nei whakaaro e pā ana ki te whakahokinga ō rātou nei whenua, ka āhei rātou hei noho tūturu i raro i ngā kōrero i waihotia i mua i te aroaro o te Karauna? I guess that the challenge for all members of the Māori Affairs Committee is to question the durability of the settlement. It is a hard thing for any iwi—and Ngāti Tama is no exception—to make an agreement with the Crown, but the issue is around the durability and sustainability of the agreements that Ngāti Tama has reached with the Crown. No doubt that iwi has had a number of difficulties in trying to get to this point, and there are probably still more outstanding difficulties. This is a first reading debate, so we will send the bill to the select committee for members to ask some of those questions. I hope that the question of durability is one that pervades a lot of their thinking.

Why is that? It is because the nature of the agreements that are set out by Ngāti Tama is about a long-term relationship. Ngāti Tama it is not a short-term player in the whole picture when it seeks the return of its lands. It wants to see a relationship that extends beyond central government to local government. It wants a relationship that ensures that this settlement is an opportunity for it—albeit that this is a difficult choice for it to make. So when Ngāti Tama talks about the issues regarding coastal tendering, and the issues around relationships with central and local government, the question should be how those agreements are to be made durable.

I hope that members from the Opposition parties who have been pervasive in the debate in this House about ancestral and cultural landscapes and wāhi tapu will take note of some of the agreements that Ngāti Tama is seeking to ensure protection under from here into the future. It is the nature of how Ngāti Tama wants to define those types of issues that we should hold in the forefront of our considerations. That is for Ngāti Tama to determine, and I have no problem with that. There will be a whole plethora of other Acts that impact on the nature of how Ngāti Tama determines the effect of its relationship with regard to those issues. The Local Government Act, the Resource Management Act, and other Acts overlay some of the rights and interests that Ngāti Tama has. I certainly commend all efforts that Ngāti Tama has made to date to try to ensure that it is getting the best opportunity that it can—it is no easy business. One is never ever liked for going down the road of settlement, but that is a way to ensure a forward-looking opportunity.

I do not want to make too long a contribution on this bill; I am not on the select committee. However, in terms of the electorate that I now represent, Tainui, there has been some toing and froing between Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Tama over the overlapping issues, and those are ongoing issues. I would hope that in the course of time things can be resolved, although we do know the dynamics of iwi politics. But that is not to say that either Ngāti Tama or Ngāti Manaipoto should be penalised in any way for having some kind of dispute around their boundary issues. That is a natural, dynamic debate that happens amongst iwi. I would stand here to defend the right of Ngāti Tama to come back to this House and ensure that the durability of its agreement with the Crown will stand the test of time, and will withstand any change in Government policies and politicians in this House.

Nō reira, ko ōku nei kōrero whakamutunga ki ngā mōrehu o Ngāti Tama, ka mihi atu rā ki a koutou i tēnei wā ahakoa ko tēnei te wā tuatahi mo ngā mema katoa o tēnei Whare hei kite i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki ō koutou nei take. Ka mihi atu rā ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so my concluding remarks to the survivors of Ngāti Tama: I acknowledge you at this time, even though it is the first time that members of this House have had to view the circumstances relating to this matter of yours. I really acknowledge you. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

I am pleased to rise for the ACT party to confirm that we will support the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill going to the select committee. We are well aware that in 1860 the Governor essentially dishonoured the Crown and broke faith. By the framework for confiscations it created an environment in which, for many Māori, it became a natural response to rebel and take up arms.

On the other hand, in referring the bill to the select committee we do not accept the self-denying role that select committees give themselves in looking at these treaty settlements. We are not represented on that committee, and we will be looking, when the bill comes back to the House, to see whether the committee has in fact looked at this bill with the sense of responsibility that committees should always have in examining how the House uses its legislative power.

We are concerned about a number of features that are not self-explanatory, and I will run through them quickly. We would want to see a select committee report that did not simply recite that it had not gone into a number of matters because it had only a yes/no recommendation to make. It is the view of the ACT New Zealand party that when a bill is intended to influence the Crown and the Government, and, in effect, to pin or attach the honour and good faith of Parliament to some relationship that may go on for 50 or more years, it is not proper for a select committee to come back and say that it is uncomfortable without expressing why or considering what would have made it comfortable. This is not the same position as when a select committee approves a treaty entered into under the prerogative powers of the Crown with an external party. This is not the situation of the Crown in dealing on behalf of all New Zealanders with a foreign power, where one can assume that the Crown would have no conflict of interest. This is a political settlement. It is a settlement by the agency, on behalf of all New Zealanders, with some New Zealanders. The select committee should look at it on that basis. It is inappropriate for select committee members to constrain themselves.

I refer in particular to the apparent ignoring, in this pattern of settlement, of some ancient wisdoms, including wisdoms that Māori signed up to when they signed up to the law of England in 1840. One of those is a rule against perpetuities. I see nothing in this bill that reflects the old wisdom that finally settled out as the rule against perpetuities. I see nothing in this bill that reflects an acknowledgment or a recognition that pointing parties to a settlement towards perpetual future conflict is not doing either side a service. There are provisions in this legislation that I cannot understand now, and that I am quite certain will not be able to be understood in 25 years. There are requirements for long-term relationships between consent authorities and Ngāti Tama that will, undoubtedly, lead to a complete mismatch of expectations.

Phrases like “have regard to”, without any indication of whether that is intended by the Crown to create a difference in outcome, or the extent to which it must “have regard to”, or the various concerns that it has to take into account, are just calculated to postpone the hard issue. If Parliament is settling this matter, we should settle it. I am concerned that we have seen 2 years, in effect, pass since this treaty agreement was made; a number of these arrangements could have already been settled.

For example, the explanatory note states that the Crown will undertake that the Ministry of Fisheries “will consult with the advisory committee concerning proposals for the commercial taking of those species, and that, in considering any such proposals, the Minister of Fisheries will ensure that the customary non-commercial interests of Ngati Tama are recognised and provided for:”. Why is that still something to occur in the future? It is quite plain that there will be a disagreement about the effect of that. It is quite plain that that will need attention. It will result in Ngāti Tama necessarily looking to the past instead of to the future. It will result in some Pākehā looking at Ngāti Tama as, potentially, undeserving recipients. Some of these matters—a whole list of them—should have been dealt with in the time we have had, so that this bill could have been a record and a sealing of a deal that any one of us could understand.

We see the same thing in a proposal that the Crown will “include in the consultation process for the next regular review of the fisheries regulatory measures any proposal from the governance entity to prohibit commercial fishing using trawl or set nets in a specified area:”. Why have those matters not been dealt with in the time that has already been spent on this? The same applies to the taking of undersized tuna, and to a non-commercial interest in a paua fishery. This House should not be asked to vote on matters like that, which could be settled; we are leaving it to future generations to have fresh grounds for grievance.

What are these acknowledgments? I read in the schedules that the Crown acknowledges things. I do not know what those acknowledgments are meant to mean. I have the horrible feeling that they are intended to hold out to Ngāti Tama an inducement to sign, on the basis that an acknowledgment means something more than its strict legal meaning, which is simply that we know that the Government has said it. The bill mentions acknowledging statements, not acknowledging the facts underlying those statements. Are those weasel words? If we are really settling treaty grievances, it should be a time for ending weasel words.

I am also deeply concerned that each time the treaty is mentioned, and the breaches of the treaty that this legislation is to settle, we also have reference to breaches of the principles of the treaty. Ngāti Tama should know that no one in this House has been able to extract from this Government—from the representatives of the Crown—an authoritative statement of what the principles of the treaty are. I see in this bill what I think is a straightforward and common-sense acknowledgment that this is being done—the reference to breaches of the treaty. For example, clause 6(2)(e) states: “the confiscations were wrongful and in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi”. But it does not stop there. It goes on to state: “and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”, yet no one knows what those are. Why are we legislating in a fashion that is so calculated to perpetuate uncertainty and potential grievance? It can only mean that the Crown is saying that there is something more than the treaty, yet the Crown will not say what that something more is. That is not the right basis for a settlement.

ACT knows that it will be castigated. We are concerned about integrity in legislation. We are concerned that the same standards expected of legislation relating to Pākehā be applied to that relating to Māori. We should not be setting the scene for future grievance. What, for example, is being acknowledged in “failure to acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngati Tama”? There is dispute among scholars, distinctions are made even in the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, and there is considerable uncertainty about, the use of the term “mana” historically and in the present. Why are we using terms unless we are prepared to define them?

I am also concerned that, in a number of places, this bill seems to treat the Crown and Parliament as if they were the same. Constitutionally, that is not the case. Māori signed a treaty with the Crown, yet here we have Parliament apologising for “the Crown’s actions with respect to the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act 1881,” or other acts of Parliament—which is not the Crown. Unless there is some subtle distinction there, that is an inappropriate use of language. I believe that the select committee should be looking at each of these matters.

Finally, I do not want to be here at the second reading only to find oblique references to tension with Ngāti Maniapoto and no explanation of what the implications might be. It may be that there are people in this House who have a good idea of just what those implications may be, but when I hear members from the Government side, including my colleague Nanaia Mahuta, suggest that Ngāti Tama may have to come back to this House because of the implications of the Ngāti Maniapoto claim, I am very concerned indeed, and I want to know that the select committee will properly elaborate on the issue in its report.

Ā, te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki te whānau o Ngāti Tama e whakaruruhau nei i raro o te maunga tapu o Taranaki, me ngā uri katoa, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou. Kei te maumahara ki ngā tūpuna, ki ngā mātua kua wehe atu ki te pō. Nā rātau nei tēnei kaupapa mai rā anō i tautoko, i poipoi tae noa ki tēnei rā. Nō reira, kia maumahara atu ki a rātau, kore rātau e warewaretia i roto i ā rātau moemoeā, ā, wawata. I am acknowledging the whānau of Ngāti Tama, and also the aspirations of those people who have passed on, in terms of their vision and their hopes that justice would come to their people.

I congratulate Bill Gudgeon on his presentation here tonight with regard to certain aspects of the bill that is before the House. It is up to this House to determine how fast this bill progresses into law. If it is indeed the desire of the members of this House to have this matter expedited in a way such that we do not seem to drag the chain, in terms of what the Ngāti Tama people feel, we certainly can short-circuit the deliberations in the select committee process. I pose this as a challenge to those who have said they will not delay the bill, especially those from the National Party who have said they support the bill. I understand, and I hear clearly, Georgina te Heuheu. She supports the bill. So can we get some sort of guarantee that there will be no shenanigans and no humbug when this bill goes before the select committee? I will be looking very carefully to see whether those matters are resolved, and whether the aspirations of the members of this House are real, and not some sort of charade.

I come back to the matters that were raised by our colleague from ACT. I was very interested to hear his interpretation and his views on the process. When he says that there should be due diligence over and above what has been done, he should recognise that this is a settlement between an iwi and the Crown, and that the settlement, in terms of the specific details and negotiations, has been going on for years. It would be incumbent on this Parliament and its processes to acknowledge the efforts that have gone into bringing this settlement here in the form of a deed of settlement that can go to the select committee. It would be counterproductive for us to think we can revisit all those negotiations, and, in some bizarre way, come to some of the conclusions that have been mentioned here by Stephen Franks.

💬 Stephen Franks: I don’t trust Margaret Wilson.

Perhaps we do not trust him, either, and Ngāti Tama does not trust him. But I do not want to get into that deliberation. This has been done in good faith.

Let us think about the events that happened at Parihaka, and the cruel way that some of the leaders and some of the people of Ngāti Tama were taken and put into caves, to degenerate, in Te Waipounamu. That type of treatment, in terms of human degradation, had never been heard of in this country, and a group of politicians here say we have to do some sort of extra tirotiro, to have a look at whether this bill is being accorded the same processes of this Parliament as any other legislation. My advice to the member is to grow up. If he understood the pain that these people and their ancestors went through, he would be ashamed at the things he is saying here tonight. I asked to take a 2-minute call, but I have just extended my time by 2½ minutes, simply to tell that member to try to understand the pain our people have gone through.

This settlement does not cover equitable compensation for these people. It nowhere near covers it. Some of our colleagues here need to look very carefully at the injustices that have been imposed upon Ngāti Tama. They have come here tonight seeking justice, and I am saying that this House is not able to give them full justice. The ACT party talks of law and order; I ask that party to apply those principles here. This country would not be able to pay true compensation to the people of Ngāti Tama, if we did it according to Pākehā law.

💬 Stephen Franks: Why give them weasel words?

The member should keep his mouth shut and he might learn something. The people here have extended rangimārie, not just to our nation but also to the people of this Parliament. Members have heard that tonight. We are committed to progressing this matter in a way that shows justice and delivers justice to our people.

Nō reira, kei te huri ana ki te mihi ki a koutou ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Tama, te maunga o Taranaki. Tērā, ka whakarongo mai i ngā kōrero tērā o tātou whanaunga i tērā taha o Hikurangi, kei te tautoko atu. Huri ana i tō tātou Whare, mā te Runga Rawa tātou katoa e manaaki. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, kia ora mai anō tātou katoa. Kia ora tātou.

[And so I turn to extend a greeting to you the descendants of Ngāti Tama and to the mountain of Taranaki. There, you listened to what that relative of ours on that side of mount Hikurangi said, and I support it. And so to us all throughout our House, may the Almighty above look after us. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all. Good health to all.]

Ki a koutou katoa, he mihi nui ki a Ngāti Tama, e kui mā, e koro mā me ngā rangatahi katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To you the elderly women and menfolk and the young people of Ngāti Tama, greetings to you and greetings to you all.]

The Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the select committee, while acknowledging our concerns about the settlement process. Essentially, our concern is that these settlements could constitute a further injustice that we leave to our tamariki to sort out, unless there is a true and honest commitment on the part of the Crown to an ongoing relationship with hapū that is premised on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which recognises the sovereignty of hapū. That is a serious concern for us, which we will continue to address when settlement bills come to this House.

This settlement encompasses a financial quantum of about $14 million, which is a very, very small acknowledgment of the pain and loss, the property rights, the opportunity costs, and all the issues in terms of the ongoing protection and development of the hapū that arise out of the theft of their lands and the murder of their people. There is some significant cultural redress in this settlement that we applaud, and that we congratulate Ngāti Tama on achieving. There are various protocols for the committees and for relationships with different Ministers on a variety of issues. It is certainly true that no amount of financial redress will compensate for the damage and the loss—the loss of ancestral land and the loss of life—and for the undermining of iwi and hapū sovereignty. But we do acknowledge that Ngāti Tama have successfully managed to jump through all the hoops provided by the Crown, and have successfully negotiated this settlement within the strict confines of the treaty settlement process. The restoration to iwi of land, particularly wāhi tapu, and the ability to enhance and advance Ngāti Tama and their concerns through the settlement, are, for them, significant gains, so we acknowledge their achievements.

We are concerned about a number of matters presented by this bill, one of which is the shortened period in which the bill will progress through the legislative processes. Essentially, this bill will have something less than 3 months at a select committee. Although it is true that the select committee inquiries on these bills are limited, it is nonetheless important that all the issues and concerns about the settlement process, and particularly this one, are aired and heard properly. It is the only way by which this Parliament is able to provide any kind of assessment of the process of direct negotiation that the Government undergoes, and is able to highlight any of the impediments to what should be a just and durable settlement between the Crown and iwi. There are other issues, too, that we want to give further consideration to in the select committee process.

Ngāti Tama have waited a very long time for this settlement bill to come through, and now it is finally receiving its first reading. But, as I have said, the period of time that the bill spends in this process, before its final date in December, is very, very short. So what led to the delay in bringing this legislation to the House, and what kinds of impediments in the settlement process are there that have led to this bill having to be sped through the House, with the result that the issues will not necessarily have the full airing that they deserve?

There has been mention tonight of the ratification rates. At first glance they appear very impressive—the best to date in settlement history. But our main concern is the level of participation in that ratification process for the deed of settlement and for the governance entity. There are issues there to do with the process by which that mandate is sought, and the requirements of the Office of Treaty Settlements in accepting the mandate. Those are the things that need to be aired. It does not necessarily mean that the iwi in this circumstance have done anything wrong. These are issues that arise out of the process by which the iwi are forced to engage in direct negotiation, and they need to be aired, understood, and clearly articulated so that changes can be made to that process that better reflect the needs of the iwi and hapū involved.

There are issues to do with the redress. As I have said, the amount of financial redress is very low, particularly if we also take into account that some of that redress will have to be redirected back to the Crown because of the cost of proceeding through the negotiation process. That is another issue that does not get sufficient airing through the process, in the select committee or in this House. The cost of proceeding to settlement is taken out of the settlement proceeds. There are serious issues as to the justice of that.

Ngāti Tama have been successful in securing a significant cultural redress package by way of land, and we congratulate them on that. But we do have concerns about the obligation on them for the management and administration of that land. The bill sets out a joint management process. None the less, Ngāti Tama bear the majority of the cost of that administration and management, and we question whether that is fair in the circumstances, given the small amount of financial redress that has been provided. It must be remembered that these lands are returned to this iwi because they were taken under the incredibly unjust 1863 New Zealand Settlements Act. We agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that those confiscations were unlawful, and we are dismayed to see that that statement, the unlawfulness of those confiscations, is not set out in this bill.

In addition, the Green Party welcomes the select committee process to enable the different views of various claimant groups to be heard, if they so choose. It gives all involved another opportunity to tell the stories, to say what needs to be said about the process and about the history of this country, and to have that made publicly available so that everyone is able to be aware of it. These people must have the opportunity to voice their concerns and have them taken seriously by this House of Representatives.

Finally, the Green Party supports the just resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary claims, but we will continue to raise our concerns over the injustices of the Crown-designed treaty settlement framework. We will continue to work towards promoting and supporting an ongoing forum for a dialogue on treaty issues that, from a property point of view, not only goes beyond redress but also looks into and takes into account the fact that there are political issues here, as well—that there are issues of decision making and hapū sovereignty that need to be recognised and developed. These settlements, if they are to be durable, if they are to be truly ongoing and relationship based, are not just about property rights but about the rights of, in this case, Ngāti Tama to be self-determining and to exercise their tino rangatiratanga as they see fit. Kia ora koutou katoa.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak tonight in the first reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill, and I certainly endorse support for it to go the Māori Affairs Committee. We have here tonight a group of Taranaki people who have gone through a huge amount of anxiety and a long, long journey to get to this position. I say to those who are listening nearby—and I know I cannot refer to exactly where they are, because it is against the parliamentary Standing Orders—that I welcome them to Parliament, and I welcome this process. I hope those people can go away from this process with some satisfaction that at last an injustice that was perpetrated on them by our early colonial occupation of this land will, at least partially, be settled and taken care of.

No amount of money, apologies, or otherwise at this point in time will redress that problem. There is not enough money in the world to redress some of the atrocities that were committed on a particularly proud people, the Ngāti Tama, a very successful, proud people in north Taranaki—despite the actions of successive Governments over the years. They are a successful and proud people, and I acknowledge that tonight. I have enjoyed their hospitality on a few occasions. I have represented a Government that, from time to time, was not entirely kind to them on various issues to do with marine reserves. Despite the fact that those fears were very, very proper at the time, that process did not go ahead, and I am pleased to say that I was able to influence my colleagues to some extent to back away from it.

I need to acknowledge also that what happened in Taranaki in our early colonial times, with regard to Parihaka and various other land wars that affected most of the eight iwi in the area, was something that until recent times was not recorded in this country’s history books in an accurate form. Previous speakers talked of the way that a passive group of New Zealanders were imprisoned, loaded into boats, separated from their families, sent to the South Island, and imprisoned in caves. Some died on the way. Those who were hardy and survived the caves were sent to the West Coast to work on roads and perish there. I need to acknowledge that, despite this, these are a people who are very forgiving. They have moved on and are still a proud people.

At this stage, I thank the Minister for finally making progress on this legislation. It has been around for a long time, as other speakers have said. I also acknowledge the work that Doug Graham and the National Government did during the 1990s to get this whole Treaty of Waitangi settlement process to a point where successive Governments will be able to continue it until it is completed.

We need to acknowledge the reason we do that. We cannot have 14 percent of our society, Māori, making up 50 percent or thereabouts of our jail inmates, about 30 percent of our unemployed, and 30 percent of our chronic health cases, and as a nation—if we want to move forward as a single people—not do something about redressing some of these things. This settlement will give the various iwi the power and financial independence to move forward.

The $14.5 million that is part of this settlement, and some of the land that is involved, will, I think, give Ngāti Tama an opportunity like none other that they have had in their history. I am sure and I know that, under the management they have in place, they will manage it well and move forward. In that regard, I need to acknowledge Greg White, members of the management team within Ngāti Tama, and the kaumātua, but particularly the members of the White family whom I have got to know over a period of time. Greg and his father are formidable opposition. If any people choose to take them on, they will find out that they are up against a force to be reckoned with, and I acknowledge that and thank them for it.

There are others within the iwi group whom I have met who are equally as determined, and I acknowledge them, as well. Over a number of generations they have steadfastly held to what was right. The fact that they have arrived here after this very long journey is testament to their efforts. I accept that they have put in hours and hours of mindless committee work, and for them to come to the House tonight and listen to hours and hours of mindless debate probably does not do much for the parliamentary process, and, in response to that, I will not prolong my speech for the length of time that some members have done. The fact they are here and this settlement is going forward are testimony to the fact that they have done the work. It is also testimony to the fact that the Government, after two Parliaments, has finally accepted that it should move forward.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Does this member not agree with the National Party’s new policy?

Given that the senior Government whip seems to be intent on making a speech without standing up, I appeal to him to get on with the rest of the Taranaki settlements. This makes it two out of eight. There are a few more to go. The Government should get on with the job and get the rest of the settlements into Parliament. By and large the negotiations are done and there has been acceptance of where they should go. The Government should get the mandate, organise the leaders, and get on with the process. I acknowledge the Ngāti Tama here tonight and wish them luck with their future deliberations.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.