Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill

I intend to take only this call in the Committee stage, but I would like to make some comments, none the less, that will probably range over a number of issues. I am pleased that the bill has now reached Committee stage. National supports the settlement and the swift passage of this bill. But I do express disappointment that it has taken 4 years to get to this point, given that the heads of agreement was signed in September 1999. None the less, it is good to see the bill here today and no doubt we will see its passage into law tomorrow.

During the select committee stage National had a comment in the report back about those provisions that provide for preferential rights for the claimants to coastal space. I flag again the concern of the National caucus about the measures providing for preferential rights on coastal space proceeding at a time when major public policy decisions relating to aquaculture and the ownership of foreshore and seabed have yet to be made.

As we said in our comment, a specific settlement of a historic grievance should not, of itself, be seen as setting a general precedent. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and address that matter, even by way of giving some reassurance that we are not creating for ourselves something difficult in the absence of any final decisions on the foreshore and seabed issues. Other than that, as this Committee knows, when settlement bills come before a select committee they are the subject of a deed of settlement between claimants and the Government. The select committee’s ability to make alterations is limited in the regard that if some major amendment were proposed, then it would have to go back to the parties involved—both the Crown and claimants. On balance, by the time it gets there it is always thought that after as long as this in negotiation the hope is that the best has been done by any particular group of claimants—in this case Ngāti Tama—so, in a sense, the select committee’s job is to ensure that the provisions in the actual deed of settlement are properly accommodated in this legislation.

In any event, I take this opportunity to make one or two comments about why it is important that we all support a swift passage. I am repeating myself here, but I think it is worth repeating that these settlements are about historic injustices. It behoves the leaders of this nation, which we are when we come into this place, to use the very best efforts we can to try to make the best reparation we can for those who have suffered this injustice. In the case of the Taranaki iwi—the eight iwi of Taranaki, which obviously includes Ngāti Tama—the background to their claims, and the injustices that have occurred in their case, have represented a blight on our past history.

This always gives us the opportunity not only to make proper redress to those people, but in a sense to restore the honour of the Crown, because these injustices, for as long as they exist, call into question the honour of the Crown. As I say, we parliamentarians are given the opportunity to restore the honour of the Crown in making sure that due reparation is made and that settlements are concluded.

I am not certain, but I think that the ACT party is opposing this bill. [Interruption] It is opposing it. I express disappointment at that, because I have heard members of that party say it is important that injustices be addressed. It is a most difficult thing that this Parliament does when it tries to repair the damage that has been done through the injustices that have occurred. We can only do the best we can. We can never make full reparation to claimants, but we can do the best we possibly can.

It is easy to pick a settlement to bits, and flag all sorts of reasons why certain provisions may not be the best in the end. I think it is a lot harder, first of all, for a tribe to make a decision to settle and then for the Government, whichever party is in power, to try to piece together a settlement package that, hopefully, gives the particular tribe a basis on which to go forward.

ACT, I think, agrees with the principle of setting right past injustices. If ACT does not agree, then that says something about ACT. It shows that it is willing to let injustice lie. I ask ACT to give some further thought to this matter, and, maybe not in this stage, but at a future stage, to see fit to support these settlements. They are difficult and complex. New Zealanders are keen to see this all put behind us. Māori especially deserve proper recompense for injustices they have suffered. The settlement package represented in this bill is the best we can find. Perhaps ACT might reconsider its view and, for once, support a settlement package.

I would like to bring to the notice of this House New Zealand First’s wholehearted support for the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill. This inquiry has come about only because of the enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. Issues going back to the 1800s had to come to the fore whereby there were complaints mainly about land that was confiscated during that period. In the Crown’s response to the Taranaki claims it acknowledged to the Waitangi Tribunal that the confiscation of land in Taranaki was an injustice and was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, that the confiscation had a severe impact on the economy and development of Taranaki iwi, and that the delays contributed to the adverse effect of the confiscation.

I am reminded that at that time the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863 was enacted and provided for the confiscation by the Crown of Māori land belonging to those it judged to be guilty of an act of rebellion. I suppose if I had been living at that time I would have been asking myself, as an owner of that land, what was meant by an act of rebellion. No land was sold, they walked over their land, they nurtured their land, and then next minute the New Zealand Settlements Act was put into place. Of course, the people of Parihaka at the time did not raise an arm, yet still the land was confiscated.

💬 Hon Mahara Okeroa: Who?

The people of Parihaka. A compensation court was set up in 1863 to compensate some of those whose land was confiscated by the Crown. Those people considered to be rebels were not compensated, and of the 74,000 acres confiscated, only 3,450 acres were awarded to individuals. It has been a long, long time for this legislation to come about, and I am reminded of kinsfolk of my own, Mokena Kohere, translated as the “gatherer of lands”, and Sir Apirana Ngata’s grandfather, when the Hauhau movement was moving around the East Coast, and they had to deal with it in their own way. What happened is that the Crown tried to use that as an excuse to confiscate the land. Mokena Kohere and Ropata Wahawaha, in unmeasured terms told the Crown to keep its nose out of it—it was an internal settlement that had to be settled. Otherwise what would have happened? They probably would have been in the same situation as Ngāti Tama have been in the past few years.

So New Zealand First accepts, without any doubt, the research that has taken place. Unfortunately, there will never be compensation for everything that was taken, but at least the Government and the Crown have endeavoured to please and satisfy the people of this nation.

When I look at the title “Ngāti Tama” I ask myself why that has come about. “Ngāti” means “people” of Tama or “descendants” of Tama. It has been a long road for them, and different committees have been set up to be heard. Today the majority of this House has accepted the claim, and supports Ngāti Tama. But one challenge I have, and I mentioned it yesterday, concerns the mandating process. Too many discrepancies have arisen, because of this and that, and different people making claims to this and that. It has caused confusion and even contention amongst the people of Ngāti Tama.

The ACT party has signalled that it feels obliged to vote against this bill, not because it has any particular opposition to the way in which the claim has been negotiated, or any particular concern that Ngāti Tama’s claim is in any way less meritorious than any other, or that Ngāti Tama did not suffer grievous injustice in the last century. But we believe that this House should not be a rubber stamp, that there is no point in going through this legislative process if we do not address ourselves to what the Crown has done. The Parliament is not the Crown. Parliament is supposed to look after the interests—if we go right back into the mists of time, Parliament was the assembly of taxpayers looking to make sure that when the Crown spent their money it did so in accordance with sound law and sound objectives.

The title of this bill says that it is a settlement, but when we look at this bill, which is in a form that the Government has brought to the House before, and, undoubtedly, expects to bring to the House again, there are elements that do not settle the claims. There are elements of these bills that deliberately leave open scope for future grievance. There are statements in them that we believe it is wrong for the Crown to be making.

For example, there is a long recital in the preamble to the record that is part of the deed of settlement. If the House does not take the opportunity when it is discussing the detail, as we are now, to say: “Please don’t bring back future deeds of settlement in that form to us, because we’re very uncomfortable about them.”, then it never will. I believe that the ACT party, as so often, is actually raising concerns that all or many New Zealanders feel about the treaty claim process, but most parties have been too politically correct to touch. Indeed, I think that until the last 18 months this House has not been performing its duty. It has treated most of these issues as if they were beyond debate. There has been a tacit consensus between—it may even have been explicit, for all I know—the two dominant parties, National and Labour, that these matters would go through as if they were not contentious; they were to go through in a hush without anyone questioning them.

We believe that New Zealand First, and the other parties that have found their tongue recently, should be very concerned about a bill whose preamble recites, I think seven times, the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The right honourable leader of New Zealand First has made a great play in the House of the non-answers he has had from the Minister—the Hon Margaret Wilson—and from the Prime Minister, and from all other Ministers when he has asked what the principles are. I have asked what those principles are. I have asked the Parliamentary Library what those principles are and have been given 13 different versions of documents produced at various times and for various purposes. They are largely consistent but they are largely also statements of pious aspiration. They are not suitable for putting in as legal obligations.

This Committee should not be recording a deed of settlement without reflecting, when it becomes legislation, that pious aspiration can be very dangerous. Because this bill, which claims to be a settlement bill, may well in future be the evidence that the next generation uses to enable it to come along and say, as this generation is saying, “The last crowd didn’t do it right.”

The Sim Commission went through these processes. Peter Fraser supported that 60 years ago to try to do justice for Māori in what everyone has acknowledged was grave injustice. But that settlement turned out to be not as worthwhile as everyone thought. Properties went up, and money value went down. The wrong beneficiaries were found. These are all elements we can see in this current settlement.

New Zealanders believe that these settlements are intended to be permanent. Indeed, we were told this morning in an open session in the Māori Affairs Committee, that the Office of Treaty Settlements does intend to sign up to only durable settlements. Unfortunately the Ngāti Tama claim settlement, as with others of this pattern, is highly unlikely to be durable when it has elements in it that we cannot understand, and neither side knows what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are.

I wish to address two or three points raised by previous speakers. I want to assure the previous speaker that, yes, the settlements are intended to be full, final, and durable. But it is also true that the only thing in life that is full, final, and durable is death. So we do the best that we can with goodwill from all parties, and that is the way in which we have approached this legislation, as have the claimants.

I also address the point made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, who sought assurances in reference to the National Party’s view in the report back. I want to assure her that the provision she was referring to, relating to the provision for coastal space and preferential rights thereto to Ngāti Tama, are similar to those provided in previous settlements of Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Ruanui. So there is a consistency there, and there is nothing new about that.

Finally, on the comment that was made by my colleague from New Zealand First relating to the mandating process: we would agree with that, and I think we have improved the processes enormously since that was undertaken. I do not want to be party political about it, but it was undertaken under a previous Government that was also gaining experience at the time. We have learnt from that experience, and I think at the moment, certainly the mandating processes do take a lot longer. They are more rigorous, and I would expect in future we would not have similar problems, but I would be very surprised if there were ever a settlement that someone was not slightly unhappy with. We addressed that, as I have said before, by ensuring that everyone has a place at the table and will benefit.

I am pleased to rise to support this part of the bill. I was a member of the ACT board of trustees in 1996 when we signed off on a treaty policy that said we would support any settlement that was fair, full, and final. By anyone’s reading of this bill, this is as fair, as full, and as final as I believe any Parliament can achieve in these difficult times of trying to negotiate with competing interests, trying to get mandate, and trying to be as fair to everyone as possible.

I believe that it is in full accordance with ACT policy that every settlement be as fair as possible. It is a very modest settlement, given the recital that I read of the events that these people have endured over the years. It is very modest. It is as full as one can expect, given that of course future generations will want to relitigate these matters in the light of the sheer modesty of the settlement. It is really a koha—an acknowledgment—that wrongs have been done, but it is certainly not a full financial repayment. So, of course, one could expect that in future other generations will want to relitigate it. But it is as full and final as I believe any Parliament can achieve.

I was part of the ACT list that went into the 1999 election, and into the 2002 election, arguing again that any settlement be fair, full, and final. So I am happy to support a part in a bill that is, in my view, fully in accordance with the policies of the ACT party. As ACT is a party that prides itself on supporting the sanctity of property rights I believe that, too, compels me to support this bill, so I will be voting in favour of it.