Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. Ngāti Tama is an iwi in Taranaki, and its historical treaty claims cover some of the northernmost part of that region. The claims relate mostly to the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki in the 1860s, the associated loss of life and property, and the confiscation of land. The claims also relate to the Crown’s unconscionable actions in its dealings with the Parihaka community and the inadequacy of the west coast reserves. I signed the deed of settlement with Ngāti Tama representatives on behalf of the Crown on 20 December 2001, which addressed the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by the iwi. The Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill gives effect to certain aspects of the deed of settlement.

The virtual landlessness of Ngāti Tama in Taranaki has hindered its development throughout the past 150 years. This settlement enables the Crown to apologise for its unconscionable and unjust behaviour towards Ngāti Tama. The Crown has acknowledged its actions had a prejudicial impact on the people of Ngāti Tama. In particular, the Crown’s actions impeded the ability of Ngāti Tama to exercise control over its taonga and its wāhi tapu, and to maintain and foster spiritual connections to its ancestral lands. The Crown apologises unreservedly for its actions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. As well as an apology, this settlement provides for the financial redress of $14.5 million and a variety of cultural redress, which aims to recognise and protect the interests of Ngāti Tama in sites that are of particular significance to them. This bill makes it clear this is a comprehensive and final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngāti Tama in Taranaki.

This settlement is an important milestone for Ngāti Tama and for the Crown. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew our relationship as treaty partners. I know members of Ngāti Tama would like this settlement to be finalised as soon as possible, to enable them to begin their development plans and look to their future. This settlement is also significant because it is the second treaty settlement to be finalised in the Taranaki region. In that regard I am pleased to advise the Crown will also shortly take a significant step towards the third Taranaki settlement, with the signing of the deed of settlement for Ngā Rauru. I hope the Ngāti Tama settlement will encourage other claimant groups in Taranaki and elsewhere to enter into and complete negotiations with the Crown.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered this bill and submitted its commentary on it to the House. The committee has recommended the bill be passed with the proposed minor and technical amendments. I thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the bill and the observations it made on three matters: the overlapping claims of Ngāti Maniapoto, the mandate of the negotiators, and the participation rate of Ngāti Tama in the ratification of the governance entity that is to receive the settlement assets.

The issue of overlapping interests between Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto was considered by the Waitangi Tribunal. The tribunal found the Crown’s approach to addressing Ngāti Maniapoto’s overlapping interest with Ngāti Tama was sound and the settlement should proceed. With regard to the mandate of Ngāti Tama Iwi Development Trust, I acknowledge that the trust’s mandate was a contentious one. It was challenged in 1996 and in 1997 by the groups Ngā Hapū o Mokau and Ngāti Tama Whānau Whānui. The Crown at the time continued to recognise the trust’s mandate, subject to conditions that it actively encouraged participation by those Ngāti Tama who opposed the mandate. However, a significant number of Ngāti Tama was unwilling to be associated with the trust throughout the negotiating process. I note that Ngāti Tama Iwi Development Trust no longer exists. The Crown has approved Te Runanga o Ngāti Tama as the governance entity to represent Ngāti Tama and receive and manage the settlement redress. My view is that Te Runanga o Ngāti Tama is accountable to Ngāti Tama, and that it has transparent processes and does represent all of Ngāti Tama.

The committee stated its concern at the low participation rate of Ngāti Tama voters in ratifying the governance entity. Let me assure the House that this Government is committed to addressing that issue, and to finding ways to increase participation rates in the ratification of treaty settlements and governance entities generally. I am therefore pleased to note that there have recently been positive moves by the members of Ngāti Tama Whānau Whānui to be involved in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Tama. I am glad that the committee was satisfied that efforts had been made to assist and encourage Ngāti Tama Whānau Whānui and other Ngāti Tama people to participate in the affairs of te rūnanga. I also wish te rūnanga well in its future, and encourage it to continue to provide ways for all Ngāti Tama whānau to feel part of and participate in its affairs. This bill ensures all members of Ngāti Tama are entitled to benefit from the settlement, wherever they may be now living.

The technical amendment should be noted in this context, so I note that the committee has recommended the bill proceed with minor and technical amendments. Those generally reflect the recently approved survey plans for the cultural redress properties that are to be transferred, and the changes necessary to reflect the Resource Management Amendment Act of 2003.

In conclusion, it was in November 1996 that the previous Government recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tama negotiators. A heads of agreement was reached in September 1999, and a deed of settlement was then finalised and signed in December 2001. The passage of this bill is the last step required in order for the settlement to become unconditional. It is important we now move to enable Ngāti Tama to receive its just redress. I would like to acknowledge the work done by the former Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who contributed to this settlement. I also want to thank the other Ministers involved—in particular, the Minister of Conservation—who have supported the process throughout. I wish to acknowledge the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements and other Government departments for their work in seeking a just and fair settlement. Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the kaumātua members and negotiators of Ngāti Tama, whose commitment on behalf of their people, their ancestors, and their descendants has led to this pathway to reconciliation.

I am pleased to rise in the second reading of this bill, and I am pleased we on the Māori Affairs Committee have seen fit to report the bill back. National supports the second reading and the report back of the bill, and we certainly join with the Minister in hoping to see the swift passage of this settlement through the House. We support the settlement on a number of fronts, not the least of which is that it was largely negotiated by Sir Douglas Graham. That is shown to be the case by the signing of the heads of agreement in 1999. While it is acknowledged that that was just the beginning of a process of negotiation, none the less the redress elements of the settlement package mirror those that were established in previous settlements in the early 1990s—in particular, the Ngāi Tahu settlement—and the settlement that is the subject of this bill today survives largely intact from the original heads of agreement signed in 1999.

Ngāti Tama from northern Taranaki is one of the eight Taranaki iwi whose claims were investigated and reported on by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996. The background to those claims is the Taranaki land wars of the 1860s and the loss of lives that resulted, and the destruction of property, the land confiscations, the sacking of Parihaka, and the imprisonment of Taranaki people in caves in Dunedin, some of whom never returned to their homeland. That is the sad background to this settlement. Fortunately, in our time we are moving to address the injustices that occurred, and I say—and have said so many times before in this House when we have had debates on settlement bills—that Parliament should always take some pride in the fact that it seeks to have these settlements concluded, so that the tribes concerned are able to remove the burden of injustice from their shoulders and move forward.

The Minister made reference to two issues that occupied the time of the select committee. They certainly were not anything to do with the settlement package itself, but I think it is proper for us to devote some thought to the issues of mandating and overlapping claims. I do so in the knowledge that the framework for mandating was also set by the previous National Government under the guidance of Sir Douglas Graham, and that the issue of overlapping claims has been an ongoing issue, as well.

The select committee found some difficulty in the fact that while the settlement itself had significant participation and sign-up by Ngāti Tama, the ratification and mandating processes did not. The concern of the select committee, as far as I could tell, was that if we want treaty settlements to be durable, then it behoves us as a House of Representatives to make sure that we get optimum buy-in for them. All of us on the select committee were united in our desire to see whether, through the Office of Treaty Settlements, there could be some further interaction with the Ngāti Tama leadership, to find out whether those who felt sidelined by what was happening could be brought into the process. I certainly acknowledge the fact that the personnel from the Office of Treaty Settlements took our concerns on board and very readily went back to the Ngāti Tama rūnunga representatives to see whether those who felt sidelined, namely whānau whānui from other parts of the tribe, could be brought into the governance structures.

I acknowledge the efforts that were made to get greater participation in the governance structures, but none the less the fact remains that the mandating processes that have been established for some years now may need to be revised. We still have a significant number of claims to go, and I think we would get better progress if the mandating and ratification processes were looked at. Perhaps that is something we could work on. The Opposition may be willing to work with the Government on that matter, because it is important. If there is buy-in for a settlement, then it is disappointing for the settlement to be held up because of prior processes that people are unhappy with. When we are approaching the passage of legislation in this House and there is still unhappiness, then I do think—and I am sure that all members of the select committee would say the same thing—we must develop some revision of the processes, to make the passage of settlements a lot faster.

We need to think about the fact that the Taranaki claims were heard by the Waitangi Tribunal back in the 1990s, that the Taranaki report was issued in 1996, and it is now 2003. Ngāti Tama is the second of the Taranaki iwi to have its settlement reach the stage of legislation, and we do need to see better progress. I know that there are two settlements per year on the Minister’s programme, but given that a lot of the negotiation with the Taranaki tribes has been done at an earlier stage, we need to see whether we can progress the time frame a bit better than we have been doing. There is no doubt, particularly when we look at a tribe like Ngāi Tahu and see the significant progress it is making in terms of itself as a collective, and also at family, whānau, and hapū levels, that the settlement process is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for Parliament to progress the historic claims as quickly as we can, so that iwi, whānau, and hapū can get on with their lives, creating a future on the basis of the reparation that has been made with the transfer of assets, and determining their own future. That is what we all want to see. The Government should continually be making sure it is doing everything it can to move that process along.

I want to raise one last issue. The Waitangi Tribunal remains severely under-resourced, and I urge the Minister to use her best influences and her authority to see whether the tribunal can be better resourced. It does need an injection of funding. We know that $6.5 million was put into a treaty education programme. In my view, that funding should have gone to the Waitangi Tribunal. There is no doubt that tribes want to have at least a tribunal casebook—a historical record—on the basis of which they can negotiate with the Crown. That gives them a better bargaining position. As I say, the tribunal can only inch its way along with the hearing of claims, and on that we are not doing the best we can to get the settlements through. I urge the Minister to use her very best endeavours to see whether the Waitangi Tribunal funding can be sufficiently boosted so that the tribunal can meet its own timetable and at least get the historical casebooks on the record, so that tribes are in a much better position to move into negotiations with the Crown.

I stand today to acknowledge the tragic history that has seen the Crown profoundly regret and unreservedly apologise to Ngāti Tama for its actions. In speaking of profound regret, the Crown recognises the intense impact felt by the people of Ngāti Tama of a history that has been described by the Waitangi Tribunal in the Taranaki report, and formally recognised in the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Tama in the deed of settlement. The historical claims of Ngāti Tama relate to the proclamation of martial law throughout Taranaki on 22 February 1860. Within 3 years Ngāti Tama had 74,000 acres of land confiscated. Every acre that could be taken was taken. A mere 3,458 acres of this land—one-twentieth of what was taken—was returned some 20 years later, but it was in individual title and perpetually leased to settlers. In 1882 a Native Land Court ruling cost Ngāti Tama two further large blocks that had not been confiscated.

One cannot help but wonder whether this was punishment for Ngāti Tama’s support for the passive resistance campaign based at Parihaka. The people of Ngāti Tama had witnessed and experienced suffering when Parihaka was sacked and looted by Crown troops in 1881, and the people imprisoned and dispersed. Ngāti Tama has borne the burden of this history for over 150 years now, and this bill acknowledges the wrongs that were done—the sufferings that Taranaki peoples encountered as a result of colonial contact and behaviour.

The campaign of alienation, assimilation, and deculturation launched against the people of Taranaki well over a century ago must not be forgotten or filed away in our collective memories as a historic grievance. The suffering caused by the confiscation of the tribal lands and the invasion of Parihaka and imprisonment of the men—some were held for up to 18 years without trial—remain a painful legacy for our nation. This bill recognises that the treatment of Ngāti Tama people was unconscionable and unjust, and that these actions constituted a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. We must not allow our knowledge of these actions to sink into collective amnesia.

I commend this bill to the House as a further step towards recognising the status and rights of Ngāti Tama. A settlement such as this marks a beginning, not the end. The recitals of history—the apology and the transfer of assets—are first and foremost an official acknowledgment of the status and rights of Ngāti Tama as tangata whenua. Within this bill there is a statutory acknowledgment of areas in which Ngāti Tama has particular cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association, including parts of the Pukearuhe site, the Tongaporutu conservation area, and the Pou Tehia historic reserve, and others. They also include the coastal marine area in Ngāti Tama’s area of interest, and marginal strips, swamps, and rivers. The schedules of the bill acknowledge Ngāti Tama’s links with these areas, which are part of the identity and the mana of the iwi. The purpose of this acknowledgment is to assist Ngāti Tama to participate in decision making on these areas by local bodies and resource management consent agencies.

The recovery of lost property is an important part of a treaty settlement. The return of land reverses previous losses through confiscation or the operations of the Native Land Court and the Native Trustee. Loss of land leads to social and cultural breakdown of whānau and hapū, and impoverishment of the people. The settlement of claims and return of property are intended to be part of a process of community rebuilding of whānau, hapū, and iwi development and empowerment. That is why I am pleased the Government has noted the concerns of the Māori Affairs Committee over the mandating process.

Whānau and hapū support for the governance entity is a critical element of of whānau, hapū, and iwi reconstruction. The fact that about 60 percent of Ngāti Tama supported the settlement, while only 30 percent supported the Government’s arrangements for the settlement, is evidence there are concerns about the claims settlement process, and these may need reviewing. The Ngāti Tama Iwi Development Trust was initially approved by the Office of Treaty Settlements without enough collaboration with the people of Ngāti Tama. The trust’s mandate regarding the governance arrangement was opposed by 435 iwi members who signed form letters—around 40 percent of Ngāti Tama. The allegations that members of one family dominated the trust are very serious. Ngāti Tama has taken steps to address these concerns by forming Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Tama and winding up the trust. Elections for trustees of the rūnanga are due to be held this coming January.

I urge all the members of the iwi to use the elections as an opportunity to build an inclusive and representative organisation that has a clear and strong mandate to carry forward its development plans. This is a time for all the members of the iwi to look to the long-term interests of the iwi as a whole. The importance of inclusive organisations and constructive relationships also arises in the matter of overlapping claims by Ngāti Maniapoto. There is history here too in that Ngāti Tama claimed interests in two large blocks north of the confiscation line at Mokau. The Native Land Court awarded the exclusive title to Ngāti Maniapoto. This bill offers exclusive redress to Ngāti Tama in an area that Ngāti Maniapoto claims interest. The Government believes that Ngāti Maniapoto’s claims have not been sustained by independent research, and the Waitangi Tribunal has endorsed the Crown’s policy. Just as the settlement is a serious attempt by Ngāti Tama and the Crown to resolve long-outstanding issues, there is also work to be done by Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto to come to terms with their history and to look for a way to move forward together. The vast legacy of Ngāti Tama must not be allowed to sink, as I said before, into our collective amnesia. As Te Whiti said: “Those who are bent by the wind shall rise again when the wind softens.” Let us hope and believe that with this bill the wind has softened to ensure that we all face the future with the insights of history informing our every move.

New Zealand First confirms its support for this bill. The Māori Affairs Committee received 10 submissions, and, of those, six raised concerns as to the settlements. The historical claims of Ngāti Tama were heard by the tribunal between 1990 and 1995. It behoves me, at this stage, to add that, from here on in, the question of who held the mandate began its course of rumblings amongst the hapū rank and file. Why is this a factor in treaty claims? Common sense tells me that it is imperative that proper research and clearer understanding of iwi and hapū protocol be in place and that the decisions made today will have an effect on generations to come.

The Office of Treaty Settlements must be made aware that most Māori, if not all, have a genealogical link to more than one iwi, and that entitles individuals, because of whakapapa, to the right to register as claimants. In the eyes of Māoridom the word “primary” is foreign, because that negates the individual’s right to identify his or her claim to other iwi affiliations, and this is not the accepted practice of tikanga unless the individual chooses to do so. The select committee was concerned, and still is, about the mandating processes and the level of dissension that has occurred within Ngāti Tama over these issues, and its thinking is that the mandating process has to improve greatly to ensure that settlements are fair.

I put these thoughts to Ngāti Tama, and, for that matter, all future claimants. There is a need to address the areas that I have touched on—that is, mandating, etc. The Office of Treaty Settlements needs to facilitate more positive detail that will ensure a smoother pathway that is not time-wasting but, in effect, will give the claimants a fair result as to their claim, and that history will not repeat itself. The word “primary”, again, does not lend itself to the vocabulary of Māoridom, because blood ties cannot be separated as in other cultures. When business is conducted in the spirit of integrity and honour, the result will be to strengthen our nation.

New Zealand First will work towards doing all it can to promote claims amicably, and as it travels down the pathway it will always be its intention to support claims that identify our history, and how these matters can be organised in such a way that mana has the respect it deserves.

If one goes back in history and looks at the Treaty of Waitangi, the articles in that treaty were important in the eyes of Māoridom as well as its partners. It created a partnership, and that partnership is the reason we are where we are today.

If we look back to 1835—the Declaration of Independence—how did that start? It was the beginning so that a treaty could be made between two nations. That treaty signified that all hapū, regardless of where they came from and who they were, were sovereign nations, because the treaty was signed between the leaders of those hapū and the Crown. Our history is the reason we are sitting here today to try to amicably settle these claims.

I acknowledge the work of those who have worked here previously, and also members of the select committee. The select committee was burdened with how to sort out this mandate problem. Our people came to us and tapped us on the shoulders and said: “You know what is right. Do it. How come we are not heard?”, and all that, and the pressure was placed upon us. So I accept the work that the select committee was involved in, but we need to look ahead and work in the future. Hopefully Ngāti Tama, with what it receives from these claims, will do the right thing. If it says that it has its people at heart, we need to see those results.

The strength of the result of these claims will lie in the hands of those who have been endowed with leadership and accountability. How is it that Māori may be struggling today? I am not saying “are”, but “may be”. In looking towards the future, there is a bright future outside the square, not only of Māori, but of this world.

Ngāti Tama has had a sad history. It even tried to settle the matter peacefully. But I will not dwell on that any more, because we need to look to the future. I go back to my previous words about the Office of Treaty Settlements and the word “primary”. We cannot separate our blood ties. We are affiliated to other tribes because of intermarriage, and that gives us the mandate to make a claim, regardless of who we are. But if we do not register, that will never happen. So I tell the Office of Treaty Settlements to ensure that its views are heard, and that the people out there understand what it is all about. Otherwise we will get these mandate claims coming before the select committee, time and time again. We really need to work on these issues, ensure that the programme is in place, and that the people understand so that there is no come-back to the office or the select committee. We will endorse and tackle those things that are amicably settled. I encourage those people of Ngāti Tama who may be listening to do the things that its people will benefit by.

The Greens will abstain on this reading of the bill, and during the Committee stage tomorrow will put up a number of amendments that outline our concerns. I first want to say: tēna koutou katoa, he mihi nui ki a Ngāti Tama. The Greens want to acknowledge Ngāti Tama in their successful negotiation of this settlement within the very restricted confines of the Government’s treaty settlement framework. We also want to acknowledge the comparatively high level of support for the deed of settlement at just over 50 percent support from eligible members.

We believe that the restoration to the iwi of land, particularly of wāhi tapu, and the ability to enhance and advance Ngāti Tama hapū through this settlement are significant gains and we acknowledge Ngāti Tama’s efforts to achieve some form of justice and restitution for the grave losses suffered by the mana whenua. However, we also recognise that no amount of financial redress will truly compensate for the loss of life, the loss of ancestral land, and the vicious attempt to entirely undermine the sovereignty of this iwi. The history of Taranaki iwi and their continual struggle to retain their lands and sovereignty is a terrible and brutal history and one that every person in this country should know about.

It seems that with each new settlement comes a new example of how the treaty settlement policy of this and previous Governments is failing Māori. This settlement raises serious issues about the process by which the Office of Treaty Settlements supports a mandated negotiating group, its failure to deal effectively with strong, legitimate, consistent, and persistent objections from Ngāti Tama Whānau Whānui, and its subsequent acceptance of a very low ratification rate for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Tama. The whānau whānui includes a number of highly respected kaumātua, and represented over 400 members of the iwi—that is well over one-third of the eligible members of Ngāti Tama. Their concern about and challenge to the mandate of the rūnanga began back in 1996. This group has struggled to have its challenge recognised as legitimate by the Office of Treaty Settlements and its mandating processes.

While the Office of Treaty Settlements was dealing with this challenge it was also funding the rūnanga, then known as the trust, to defend itself against that very challenge. This is a very serious problem for the Office of Treaty Settlements, and reflects very poorly on its ability to effectively manage legitimate mandate issues. It suggests that the political timetable for settlements takes precedence over empowering iwi to engage effectively in this process.

We accept that the Office of Treaty Settlements later tried to include a requirement that the rūnanga engage in a constructive process with the whānau whānui, but this did not, and could not, resolve the difficulties, because the structural inequities in the process remain firmly in place. We hold the office responsible for its failure to manage these issues effectively, to review and to reconsider its own processes in a timely and responsive fashion, and to ensure that both groups were treated with equal and serious consideration.

We also recognise that the rūnanga are responsible for their part in accepting such an appallingly low ratification of themselves as the governance entity, and not considering that the future stability of the settlement would be ensured if they entered into a good-faith process to resolve the outstanding concerns. In my view that is a demonstrable failure of leadership at a time when leadership is most crucial.

During the submission process the select committee heard serious issues about the exclusion of eligible members and obstructive practices to undermine their ability to register and to participate with the rūnanga. For example, the select committee heard that some eligible members were told that they could not register unless they were shareholders in land, or could register only if their tipuna was a landowner in a particular block. The select committee was profoundly concerned about these issues. We were later advised that the rūnanga is to hold elections for the trustees of the rūnanga, the governance entity, in January of next year. This is the first time that an election has been held for the rūnanga or the trust. The select committee recognised this opportunity to resolve some issues and endeavoured, through the Office of Treaty Settlements, to facilitate the participation of the whānau whānui in registration and the nomination for trustees. However, that process has not been particularly successful, due to a failure of goodwill on the part of the rūnanga to take extra steps to be inclusive of the people it purports to represent.

The settlement has highlighted the severe limitation of the settlement process to ensure that the process is inclusive and protects all the members of the hapū and iwi. We believe that it is a perpetuation of the grievance to require Māori who are excluded by the process to be left without effective restitution. We remain deeply dissatisfied with the fundamental policy behind the current treaty settlement process, as well as critical of its effectiveness and durability. The focus of the treaty settlement process on the restoration of land and economic well-being is an important step, but will not by itself resolve the fundamental constitutional and structural problems that result in Māori being effectively excluded from decision-making processes that involve them. This settlement process is a prime example of that exclusion and that failure.

It is imperative that the treaty settlement process is reviewed where previous claimants, current and future claimants, and all those Māori who are genuinely affected by this process, are able to contribute. As with any restorative justice process, Māori as the victim in this process must be able to have some control over how the restoration and restitution is brought about. We must remember that the fact that Māori engage in the treaty settlement process does not mean that they endorse it. It is, after all, the only game in town.

The Green Party supports the resolution of, and the restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches. We will, however, continue to raise our concerns over the injustices of the Crown-designed framework, and work towards promoting and supporting an ongoing forum for dialogue on current treaty issues.

Finally, the Greens recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the legitimacy of the Māori test that was signed by the hapū signatories. Te tiriti 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. We look to the settlement process for justice, and, as with all those excluded and disenfranchised, we find it wanting.

When this bill was introduced I spoke for the ACT party to welcome it, and to acknowledge that foul deeds were done in the name of the Crown by the Governor in 1860 and in the years thereafter. What was done dishonoured the Crown, and the energy and the demand for redress should be fully understood by every New Zealander who has a sense of fairness. I also said that ACT, not being represented on the Māori Affairs Committee, would be looking to the select committee to deal with a number of concerns we had about the bill in the form that it appeared.

In particular, we wanted the committee to reassure us that it did not take the self-denying restrictions that are commonly applied to a review of a treaty as excusing it from looking properly at the substance of this agreement and whether Parliament should approve the Crown entering into it. I am sorry to say that the select committee’s report repeats what has been a pattern for other bills. Indeed, it states that the rules relating to legislation to confirm agreements “mean that we cannot substantively amend this bill in a manner that is not acceptable to the parties to the deed being implemented.” What the committee does not tell us, and what the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has made no attempt to explain, is whether the committee thought that things should have been changed, whether it had considered that that was appropriate. Did the committee take account of the possibility that it could go back to the parties? I imagine that the Crown was represented before the select committee by the officials, as it usually is. It perhaps was possible for Ngāti Tama to be persuaded that some clarification might be desirable.

I mention that because when I was speaking in this House, just before the Hon Dover Samuels, who followed me, representatives of Ngāti Tama were in the gallery. I believe that I heard murmurs of agreement or approbation about some of the concerns I raised at the time the bill was referred to the select committee. I was concerned that the bill sets Ngāti Tama, Māori, the Crown—in other words, all of us, as represented by the Crown—on a collision course yet again. It may not be in the near future. It may be that the value of the settlement and the internal strife that it appears likely to extend will more than distract the claimants for a generation or so.

But what I am concerned about is what I raised in my first reading speech—that throughout this bill there are weasel words. There are words that appear to me to be deliberately intended to mean more to each party than they are intended to mean to the opposite side. There are acknowledgments, recognitions, references to principles, and references to consideration or taking account by official bodies that appear intended to mean that Ngāti Tama have a privileged status in relation to land that is not their own, or that they have a privileged status in relation to the democratically appointed bodies that will exercise powers under the Resource Management Act and other local government powers, but, in fact, the Crown has no intention of really delivering on them. The bill is full of the sorts of weasel words that have already got New Zealand into a great deal of trouble over the last two decades, and have got this Government into more political trouble than it will be able to handle.

For example, in my opinion the bill quite gratuitously recites the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in a whole range of places, most of them completely unnecessarily. The bill has a sort of mantra phrase, “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Everyone in this House, including New Zealand First, whose members have spoken in favour of, and will vote for, this bill, has acknowledged that no one knows what those principles are. Why are they there? Why did the committee not decide to clarify or remove those words, when they add nothing? The breaches that affected Ngāti Tama were so egregious and so obvious, the property rights that had been assured under article 2 of the treaty were so plainly ignored and overridden, that there was no need to put in the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—words the meaning of which no one knows. The committee sat on the bill, and we found when it reported back that it had not addressed that issue, or any of the other obscurities and uncertainties that we still find in the bill.

For example, are Ngāti Tama supposed to feel that their preferential right in terms of coastal tendering means more than their having the first chance to tender? If it is a tendering process, how do they match the price? If it is a tendering process and they cannot afford it, what is their preference worth? Is it being held out to parties that fully understand it?

I am also concerned that with this bill the Crown may well face a claim in 25 years’ time. When a new generation is looking at this issue, the same sense of grievance may be felt as is felt by the people who look back on what the Sim Commission did. From the select committee report, on the face of it, it appears that 40 percent of the potential or intended beneficiaries of this settlement did not confirm the mandate. Worse, it appears that that reflects a dynastic division, or a family division, within the entity that is to hold the rights and the assets. So what does this House do and what does the Crown do when a settlement is made that could mean that 40 percent of the intended beneficiaries, representatives of a family that, I assume, is in the minority, can come back in 20 or 30 years’ time, or maybe in 5 years’ time, and say to this House and to the Crown that, when the resources were put into a box at Rugby League Park, they did not agree, no attention was paid to them, and the Crown knew that no mechanism was in place to ensure that attention was paid to all the intended beneficiaries?

Settlements should be negotiated. Settlements should be dealt with by this House as being the best that can be achieved by people dealing in good faith, but I fear we are looking at a deal that is not being done in good faith on at least one side. I fear we are seeing a Crown that is desperate to put a nominal close to an issue and to look as if it is making progress. It should not say things to a temporarily befuddled generation that it knows the next generation will have to ask what those words could possibly have meant. What was intended by “consultation”? Obviously, there is a likely mismatch of desires, and, even with the best goodwill and honesty in the world, people who have competing desires soon generate the doctrine, the words, and the justification to make their desires a mismatch of expectation.

It is nearly 3 years since the treaty agreement was first reached, and a whole lot of things could have been settled and dealt with. For example, the explanatory note of the bill as introduced stated that the Crown will “consult with the advisory committee concerning proposals for the commercial taking of [certain fish] 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:”. What has happened in the time since? Has any more light been cast on that? No. This Government has now put us deeper into confusion, and far deeper into conflicting expectations, irreconcilable conflicting expectations, with many Māori people solemnly believing that they own the seabed, the foreshore, and all within it, and that anything less than outright ownership is expropriation. Of course, in that time this House could have said that it did not want to confirm future consultation, that it wanted to know the effect of the law it was passing, and that therefore it would wait until that consultation had occurred, so that when a law was passed it would know that the settlement was permanent.

The New Zealanders who have supported the treaty settlement process have been decent and well meaning. They have believed that it would actually settle treaty grievances. A bill like this does not settle anything, and, on the face of it, shows that it expects uncertainty to continue.

United Future is very pleased for Ngāti Tama that it has reached the point of the second reading of its bill and the finalisation of its grievances. I begin by paying respect to the history of Ngāti Tama, as outlined by the Hon Tariana Turia. It was very appropriate that, as a member of the executive as well as tangata whenua, she should outline the Crown apology, and the history that has led to the necessity for recompense on behalf of the Crown, and for the apology that has been given.

Many times United Future has expressed concern at the slowness in resolving treaty issues and the importance of resolving those issues with some speed. It is with great concern that we note that it is now 6 months since the first reading of the bill, and that in that 6-month period no other bills have been tabled by the Government in furtherance of the treaty settlement process. Of course, that 6-month delay really comes down to the slowness of the Māori Affairs Committee process in bringing this bill back to the House. I have a lot of respect for the select committee, and its members welcome me there when I turn up, but I think 6 months was far too long. I would recommend that the select committee push matters through a great deal faster than it has been doing, in order to have these processes go through. I note that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu commented that there was a need for speed. She is on the select committee and should push these matters along, as well.

The bill was referred to the select committee on 15 April. Submissions closed on 30 June. Now, 4½ months further on, the bill has come back to the House. There were 10 submissions, and the committee spent some 6½ hours on consideration—that is, approximately 2 days. In my view, 4½ months was far too long, even given that the committee was questioning the issue of mandating. But if the select committee, which is primarily comprised of Māori members, really wants the grievance process to be dealt with and resolved urgently, it needs to demonstrate that it is committed to that by getting through its part of the process as quickly as it can, and getting bills reported back quickly so that they can be progressed quickly.

It is not as though the committee is overworked. I have respect for the chairman, Mahara Okeroa, and I have a good friendship with him. I know that he may consider these criticisms as being criticisms of him, but I think the committee itself has to bear responsibility. I could also say that I think there is room for the Māori Affairs Committee to be more proactive, because of the time it has available. For example, I note that there is a hold-up in the Rangitāne o Manawatu claim. There is meant to be a formal review going on. There is no reason why the select committee should not be looking at that proactively, or even initiating an inquiry if appropriate, and trying to move some of these procedures along. There are things it could do, things it could initiate, in order to help the settlement process.

But we have not seen new legislation, either. The Office of Treaty Settlements had a funding increase, at United Future’s push, in order to get a second claims development team. The office had an extra $895,000 provided to it. The Government, at United Future’s push, has now made a commitment to have 90 percent of claims go through by 2015. When that came through I indicated that, rather than our dealing with one bill every 6 months—which even today the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said was the target—we should really be looking at having five to six bills go through in a year. I note that we have had three bills over the 2002-03 period; why can we not increase that?

There is plenty of scope for doing so. For example, the Ngāti Awa deed of settlement was signed on 27 March, and we are waiting for the legislation, and for the mandating of the governance entity. Where is that legislation? We are dealing with the Ngāti Tama one now, but where is the Ngāti Tuwharetoa one? That deed of settlement was signed on 6 June, and we are waiting for that legislation. There are other matters. I think it is quite tenable to have four to five pieces of legislation go through this House in the next 12 months. I note that the deed of settlement for Ngā Rauru was signed on 4 October 2003, so it seems to me that there is no reason why we should not be able to have that legislation go through next year. The Ngāti Mutunga heads of agreement was signed on 24 September 1999. Just what is stalling that? I notice that a deed of settlement is meant to be signed in December 2003, so maybe we can progress that one. The Te Rarawa terms of negotiation should be able to come into the House next year. The Ngāti Kahu terms of negotiation were signed in May 2003, the Te Arawa lakes terms of negotiation were signed in July 2001, and the Whanganui River terms of negotiation were signed in March 2003. Those are all matters that I would expect the Office of Treaty Settlements to be progressing so that we can get the legislation into the House and passed. The Office of Treaty Settlements does need to be more proactive than reactive. I notice that it significantly underspent its budget last year, even without the increased funding it now has. On that basis, there seems to be a lot of scope for it to do more work.

Turning to this bill in particular, I note that two particular matters were of concern to the select committee, and are fetters on this bill going through. One is the Ngāti Tama Whānau Whānui claim. I note that they have whakapapa links to both Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto, and are concerned about the lack of democracy and transparency in the trust structure that has developed. The select committee, with some concern, notes: “We respect the concerns and arguments that Whanau Whanui raise. At the hearing we had clear evidence from Whanau Whanui and other Ngati Tama iwi living outside the tribal area that the mandating process by the Ngati Tama Trust was inadequate. We are concerned about the level of dissention that has occurred within Ngati Tama over these issues. We consider it essential that the mandating process be improved to ensure that Treaty settlements are fair and durable.” That gives some concern in terms of the way that the process has gone ahead. However, I am very pleased to have read, and to have heard today, that, effectively, there have been positive moves to be more inclusive of the whānau whānui people—in particular, the restructuring and the elections that are due to take place in January. The fact that 40 percent failed to respond seems to suggest there is quite a strong element within whānau whānui who can use the democratic process to their advantage, and I would really encourage them to do so.

In terms of Ngāti Maniapoto, I note the overlap of claims, but independent research and the Waitangi Tribunal do not support their position. I would like to strongly encourage Ngāti Maniapoto to reach their own settlement with the Crown as soon as possible. It concerns me that they are not yet even on the Office of Treaty Settlements radar screen. I understand that they are wanting to pursue matters through the Waitangi Tribunal. However, Māori are the third party to these negotiations, and the third party needs to take responsibility, for its own sake if not for the sake of New Zealand as a whole, for having these treaty grievances resolved. So I would strongly encourage Ngāti Maniapoto to go into direct negotiations. They seem to me to be a prime candidate for that. There could be a speedy resolution, and they could have considerable money in their own hands, to benefit their own people, a lot more quickly than if they go through the much more arduous and under-resourced Waitangi Tribunal process.

As I said, United Future is very pleased to see the second reading go through. We look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading going through with speed, so that at least we can tick off this grievance, and can get on to having legislation go through on other grievances, as well.

Tū tautoko ana i tēnei pire ahakoa ngā pōrarurarutanga kei waenganui i a Ngāti Tama. Kei a rātau anō te huarahi ki mua. I stand to support the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill, and I say so knowing that a number of issues have arisen during the settlement process. I want to say that the resolution of those issues lies with Ngāti Tama. This is its bill.

Ngāti Tama is a North Taranaki iwi. Its historical claims relate mostly to the loss of life and destruction of property during the Taranaki wars, and the loss of land later on. The Crown recognises that the confiscation of lands and other resources that have made a significant contribution to the wealth and development of this country left Ngāti Tama virtually landless. The bill makes it clear that this is a comprehensive and full and final settlement of all historical claims relating to Ngāti Tama in Taranaki.

I know that Ngāti Tama has been waiting a long time for the Crown to apologise. It is right and just that the Crown apologises for the breaches of the treaty. I also say that before 1860 Ngāti Tama was prosperous and economically successful. However, the widespread loss of Ngāti Tama land as a result of the Crown’s waging of war and subsequent confiscations hindered the economic, social, and cultural development of Ngāti Tama throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The Crown has acknowledged that it breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The Crown regrets, and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Tama for, its actions that resulted in loss of life during the Taranaki wars, and the virtual landlessness of Ngāti Tama in Taranaki. Those actions have caused suffering and hardship for Ngāti Tama over the generations, to the present day.

This settlement is a milestone for Ngāti Tama and the Crown. It will allow Ngāti Tama to begin its development plans and look ahead to a brighter future full of opportunities. The settlement will also help restore the honour of the Crown, and will help both parties to move forward together as treaty partners. The settlement is very significant. It is the second Taranaki treaty settlement to be finalised. It will be followed shortly by a third, with the signing of the Ngā Rauru deed of settlement. We hope this settlement will encourage other iwi from Taranaki, and, indeed, from around the motu, to enter into negotiations with the Crown.

I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, which considered the bill, and that committee went through a thorough process that involved a day of hearing oral submissions from a range of interested parties. We listened to the kōrero of the people on the contents of the bill and on the settlement generally.

As is the case with most settlements, there were some people who raised significant concerns about the mandate of the negotiators. We, the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, feel that the answers to their concerns can be found in their participation in Te Rūnunga o Ngāti Tama. We encourage them to involve themselves in the future of Ngāti Tama by actively participating in the rūnunga’s elections and other post-settlement asset management processes.

I will comment briefly on the criticisms of the Office of Treaty Settlements. We, the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, did ask the Office of Treaty Settlements officials to approach Ngāti Tama negotiators in order to talk through a number of issues. They did the best they could, as instructed by our committee. As it was, they were unable to resolve those issues adequately, and we felt that it was important to move on.

I also want to respond to Mr Stephen Frank’s comments about the contents of the bill. He described its words as weasel words. If one looks at a bill in isolation from the discussions with the people involved in that particular settlement, then one has no idea about the issues it is attempting to address. Ngāti Tama wants to move on, and we want to help it to do that. It may be that Ngāti Tama will come back to the Crown in the future to relitigate the issues, but so might Ngāi Tahu, Tainui, or many others. This Government is doing the best it can to help them move forward.

I have gained the impression throughout this debate that many of the previous speakers have no appreciation of what 160 years of grievance can do to a people. It is time to move on. [Interruption] Mr Franks obviously does. As I said in the beginning, the Ngāti Tama iwi has been waiting a very long time to see its historical treaty claims acknowledged and resolved by the Crown. I wish the people of Ngāti Tama all the best for moving forward, and rapid development and full expression of their tino rangatiratanga, or self-development. Kia ora.

First, I want to pick up a point that was raised by the previous speaker—a member of the Labour administration, no less—Mr Mita Ririnui. The importance of what he said is that Ngati Tama may come back to the Crown seeking further redress. One of the principles of the treaty settlement process has always been that settlements are full and final, yet we now hear a member of the Government saying that perhaps they are not. Perhaps the country will fully relitigate not just settlements where there are specific escalation clauses, which apply to Tainui and Ngāi Tahu, but the totality of all settlements.

I ask the next speaker for the Government to reflect on that issue. I do that because part of the compact that the Crown, through successive Governments, has with the people of New Zealand is to address historical grievances in a just and fair way, so that people are able to move on. That is apparently no longer the case, if one listens to the previous speaker. We could be in an endless cycle of redress, further compensation, and further negotiation—not just of an ongoing relationship but of all historic grievances. That is a very serious matter, and I believe the Government owes it to the people of New Zealand to be honest and upfront. Are those settlements full and final, or are they just some form of interim redress, so that the country goes on an endless loop of claim, counter-claim, redress, payment, and further negotiation that locks it into a spiral of discontent? Because that is what that would do. I draw that issue to the attention of the Government because I think it has set a serious and potentially dangerous precedent.

Mr Mita Ririnui might say it was just an off-the-cuff comment, but I do not believe that. I believe that in his heart he actually believes that that is precisely what will happen.

💬 Stephen Franks: Tariana Turia said the same in the first reading.

There we are. As has been pointed out, she said the same thing. We now are in a cycle in which settlements are not full and final, in which people are being trapped and not able to move on. That can hardly be good for the unity of the country.

I was also a bit surprised to hear the Minister effectively ask herself a question during question time so that she could boast about the enormous progress the Government was making. Unfortunately, the other questioning that the Minister was subject to revealed precisely the opposite. Far from progressing those things expeditiously, the Government is dragging them out. Even the United Future party, which is supporting the Government by way of a confidence motion, seemed to be conscious of that fact.

I turn now to this particular settlement. The negotiations started back in 1996 and the heads of agreement were signed by Sir Douglas Graham in 1999. Some 4 years later, we are now at the second reading stage, with the bill presumably to be passed into law by the end of this week. The settlement process in respect of all historic claims is a long and slow one. The Government itself has admitted that it will take until 2013 at least. Based on its progress, that is what it says now, but it simply will not be the case. Realistically, taking the Government’s progress into account, we are probably talking 2020. That is simply too long. Effectively, that would be a 35-year process for the settling of historic grievances. I believe this country is capable of doing that sort of thing, in a proper way, more quickly than that.

I just want to go back to some of the precedent issues of the settlement process. Tainui was settled for $170 million. They were the first settlement; they set the benchmark; they have an escalation clause in case total future settlements go above $170 million. Three years later, Ngai Tahu also received $170 million. The aggregate of the Taranaki iwi is also supposed to be $170 million. This particular settlement, which is one of eight iwi settlements, is $14.5 million, but the aggregate of all the Taranaki settlements should be $170 million. All of that is supposed to be a symmetrical framework. But we all know that that symmetrical framework has been long since abandoned, partly because of lack of knowledge, and partly because this Government has failed to get a real sense of the dimensions of the process. It is now raising expectations, through the speeches of its own members, that that is just the first bite of the cherry. I am very concerned about that.

I would also like to raise another issue that shows the dimensions of the problem. The Māori Affairs Committee is currently investigating an issue around the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, and there will be a report on it shortly. I obviously cannot speak too much about that, but I can say that according to the public record, that trust has so far funded 600 research reports. Not one settlement has come from those 600 research reports. One has to ask oneself who is doing well out of that. Is it the people of the central North Island iwi? The answer is no. Is it the lawyers? Some people would say yes. Is it the historians and, indeed, that whole industry of people who see an opportunity to partake of that beneficence in doing huge amounts of research?

I would have to say that the practice of the Government so far is very disquieting, as are the statements of Government representatives in the House. Some very serious concerns are being raised. The mandating issues are there and are real, but I am much more concerned about the wider implications of the issues. For instance, within the settlement there is the prospect that 10 percent of all aquaculture permits in the area will be granted to the iwi.

National has specifically put a rider on that point, saying we note that it is part of it, but that it should not be part of a general precedent. I know, and members of this House will know full well, that a global settlement of aquaculture and other tenders of that nature in the sea space will not settle the matter but create further division. We have only to look at the trauma over what was the Sealord’s settlement, which has had over 14 years of litigation. There was a promise yesterday to introduce a bill, which has been stalled already because the Government is unable, apparently, to reach the appropriate levels of resolution.

So whilst National supports this settlement, we raise these very serious issues about, firstly, the ability of the Government to progress matters in a timely fashion, and, secondly, its commitment to finality. We question the Government’s commitment to this nation—to Māori, Pākehā, and new immigrant alike—to close this chapter of our history and move on as a united nation; a nation with a unity of purpose, whilst respecting diversity. Everything I have heard from the Government today tells me that that important goal is now in jeopardy.

I would like to rise briefly to support the comments made by my colleagues and a large number of other members of the House, and to congratulate those who have been involved in the development and passage of this settlement.

I make one other small contribution in relation to a comment made by one of the earlier speakers, Georgina te Heuheu. In terms of setting the historical record straight, the comment was made that during the aftermath of the Parihaka incidents, prisoners were kept in caves. I know the history of this matter, because it is on my patch. I want to put on the written record that while I am in no way undervaluing or understating the injustices done to those people—who were, in fact, kept in Dunedin Prison—the caves were used for shelter and cooking while the causeway was being constructed at Andersons Bay. I am sure that even Dr Mapp would be interested in an accurate historical record being developed around this matter.

I want to take a short call on this bill. New Zealand First supports this treaty settlement, namely, the Ngāti Tama Claims Settlement Bill, and, when we look at the documentation available and at the preamble to the bill, we see nobody should be against the bill’s passing. I want to cover some aspects of the information in the preamble to the bill, which is a written document that points out a lot of the disharmony in terms of what happened to Ngāti Tama as a people. There are some disturbing aspects set out in the preamble. Obviously, the bill records an acknowledgement of, and an apology given by the Crown to, Ngāti Tama, and when we read the preamble document we see that the apology is deserved. I wish Ngāti Tama all the best in the processing of this bill. What a great day this is for Ngāti Tama—for its representatives to be able to come into the House and then go back to their people and discuss the settlement due to them, after all the difficulties they have had.

I want to read out part of the “Background to negotiation process” from the commentary on the bill. It states: “The historical claims of Ngati Tama were heard by the Waitangi Tribunal between 1990 and 1995. In 1996, as part of the process for achieving a mandate from Ngati Tama to negotiate their Treaty claims in Taranaki, the proposal for the mandate to be held by the Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust … was publicised.” Obviously, there were some concerns with regard to the mandate. That has happened not only in Taranaki but also in the Wairarapa, where currently a claim is being put together. But I believe that the mandating issue there has come to a conclusion now, with the two factions having decided to make sure the claim goes through without any hold-ups. I wish them the best, as well. In one part of the “Background to negotiation process”, the commentary on the bill states: “The Crown received submissions from the Nga Hapu o Mokau Claims Committee, objecting to the proposed mandating of the Trust. The vice-chairman and the treasurer of this committee are also members of Ngati Tama Whanau Whanui ... , the major group opposing the Trust’s mandate.”

I want to talk, quickly, about the “Mandate to represent Ngati Tama” in the commentary on the bill. It states: “We were told by the Office of Treaty Settlements that in early June 1997 it received a challenge to the mandate of the Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust from Ngati Tama Whanau Whanui. … The challenge consisted of over 435 form letters, which represents about 40 percent of Ngati Tama. The letters were written by individuals who affirm Ngati Tama affiliation, revoke any other mandate, and nominate one person to establish a mandate to represent their interests in the negotiations of Ngati Tama’s Treaty claim.” I want to read one further part under that heading: “We hope that Whanau Whanui and others who feel disenfranchised will make the most of the opportunity to fully participate in the first election of Runanga trustees on 31 January 2004.” I think that that is an important part of settling the mandating issue.

There is another part of the commentary headed “Overlapping claim of Ngati Maniapoto”, and I note that issue has been addressed. As well, I would like to thank Mahara Okeroa for allowing me, as the associate spokesperson in New Zealand First on Māori affairs, to participate in the Māori Affairs Committee’s process of considering the bill.

I want now to move on to the preamble to the bill. There are some important issues in there that disturb me, and there is no doubt that if the public are listening today and hear me read these written words they will be disturbed by them: “(1) The Treaty of Waitangi, as set out in English and in Maori in the First Schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, was signed in 1840:”. Under the heading “Taranaki Wars”, the preamble states: “(3) The Crown proclaimed martial law throughout Taranaki on 22 February 1860. The Taranaki wars of 1860-61 and 1863-69 followed. During the course of the wars, the Crown built redoubts at Pukearuhe and Waiiti to secure military occupation of the land. These also provided security for military settlements that were established on confiscated land. Both redoubts were built on wahi tapu”, which I find quite offensive. Under the heading “Confiscation”, the preamble reads: “(4) In 1863, the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 was enacted. This Act provided for the confiscation, by the Crown, of lands of Maori whom the Crown assessed to have been in ‘rebellion’ against the authority of the Queen. On 30 January 1865, the Governor declared ‘Middle Taranaki’ to be a confiscation district, and set aside blocks at Oakura and Waitara South as ‘eligible Sites for settlements for colonisation’. On 2 September 1865, the Governor declared 2 further confiscation districts, ‘Ngatiawa’ and ‘Ngatiruanui’. The Governor also designated ‘Ngatiawa Coast’ and ‘Ngatiruanui Coast’ as eligible sites for settlement.”

The preamble then turns to the issue of compensation. It states: “(5) A Compensation Court was set up under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 to compensate some of those whose land was confiscated by the Crown. … All of the Compensation Court awards within the rohe of Ngati Tama were based on out-of-court settlements. By the time these were made, most of the readily usable land in the north had already been disposed of by the Crown.” Today Ngāti Tama will get their settlement on those issues, and I applaud that being part of the bill that is being enacted. The preamble goes on to state: “Out of some 74 000 acres confiscated from Ngati Tama, 3 458 acres were awarded to Ngati Tama individuals. By 1888, title had not been issued to that land. Some claimants were informally aware of the location of their awards and believed they had a right to occupy the land, only to find that it was classified as Crown land. In 1867, the Crown promised awards of land to the absentee owners from each iwi. By 1880, these awards were still undefined on the ground:”, and this is what this claim is all about.

Let us talk about Parihaka. I can remember as a child at primary school, Parihaka was one of the subjects that we studied—it was not very often that that happened, but it did happen in my case. Paragraph 6 of the preamble to the bill states: “The prophets Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi introduced a policy of passive resistance to the surveyors and European settlers who followed. Prior to the Crown’s attack on Parihaka, this policy was supported by the people of Ngati Tama and other iwi. Such resistance in 1879-80 led to more than 420 ‘ploughmen’ and 216 ‘fencers’ being arrested. Most were denied a trial and many prisoners were held in the South Island.” Obviously, my fellow member from National said they were held in caves, but we have been told that that was not the case. Paragraph 6 goes on to state: “Prison conditions were harsh and included hard labour”.

To finish off my reading of the preamble, paragraph 7 states: “On 5 November 1881, more than 1 500 Crown troops invaded and occupied the settlement of Parihaka. Over the following days, some 1 600 Maori were forcibly expelled from Parihaka and made to return to their own settlements. Houses and crops were systematically destroyed,”—shameful—“and stock was driven away or killed. Taranaki Maori report that women were raped and otherwise molested by soldiers:”—shame on the Crown! Paragraph 8 of the preamble then states: “The leaders of Parihaka, Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi, were arrested, and special legislation provided for their imprisonment”.

New Zealand First supports this bill, and I wish Ngāti Tama all the best with regard to the future of this settlement.