Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I do not think that anyone in this House can think we have race relations in this country right. I do not think that anyone in this House believes or can think we have the treaty settlement process right. I do not think that anyone in this House can believe we are getting better race relations under current policy. I think we have a problem.

I think the bulk of New Zealanders are a fair people who believe that, yes, where there have been historical injustices, we need a process to address them, correct them, fix them, and put them right. I think that that is what New Zealanders believe. But I also think something else. I think that it is a fundamental tenet of New Zealanders that they have a belief in fairness and fair play. They believe that every New Zealander should be equal before the law, and that policy should be the same irrespective of a person’s sexual orientation, religious belief, or ethnic origin. That is one area where, in our Parliament and with our successive Governments, I think we have got New Zealand out of whack with New Zealanders’ basic belief in fair play.

I also think that we have a problem between two visions of the treaty settlement process. One vision is that we go through and look at historical injustices and, with goodwill on both sides, we attempt a reconciliation. We look at what has gone before, we establish the history, and we attempt, as best we can, to fix it. Having fixed it, we put it behind us and move on as one people under one law.

The alternative vision is that the Treaty of Waitangi process goes on forever and a day, and that the process itself is important, under a partnership model between the Māori people, the indigenous people of New Zealand, and everyone else—so that there can be no ultimate settlement and that the Waitangi Tribunal process itself is without end.

If I were a Government MP speaking to this bill, I would be very careful when I considered the gross injustice that has been done to Māori people by denying them the opportunity of their day in court on the foreshore and seabed issue. I never thought I would see a modern Government, for short-term political advantage, denying a race of people its day in court, and so I would be very careful, if I were a member of the Government, in suggesting that the ACT party has got it wrong on this issue or is somehow trying to foster bad race relations.

Let me now turn my attention to the bill. We believe that we do no one any favours by pretending we have a big bag of lollies, by throwing all the lollies up in the air, and by establishing a quasi-judicial process that suggests if people turn up, they might be able to grab some sweets. I think Governments have fanned high expectations that, somehow, at the end of that process there are riches to be had. I do not believe, whoever is in power, that there are riches to be had at the end of the claims process.

We do people a disservice when we do not hear claims quickly and fairly, and do not deal to them with some briskness. If we do not do that, we are not treating them seriously. When someone goes before a court, tribunal, or judicial authority, and we are serious about listening to that person’s concerns and settling them, we do not hear those concerns and then think about them for years and years because they are too hard. No, instead we apply discipline to ourselves. We know when we do that, particularly in areas like this, that no party will go away fully satisfied, but let us have the courtesy to put a briskness in the process, in order to show we are serious. On this side of the House, the ACT party rejects the model whereby the process goes on forever and a day.

Apart from the Labour Government's denial of Māori’s right to be heard in court, we think the breaches are historical and should be dealt with as historical. So what we say in this bill is that all claims should be in, this year. We can put in what Jill Pettis supports, which is property-taking from Māori people in the 21st century by a Labour Government that saw 15,000 people, unable to get justice in a New Zealand court, walk on this Parliament. They could not get justice in a New Zealand court under a Labour Government. We say that all claims should be in, this year.

We then say that we should apply the discipline to ourselves that all claims should be heard in 5 years. Then we should apply the second discipline that all claims should be settled in 10 years. Surely to goodness, with the goodwill of the Māori people and with the goodwill of the Government, we could do that in 10 years. World wars have been fought and won in less. Or will we say that, no, we see that process going on forever and a day, because we do not have the fortitude to settle?

Let us have a look at the process. In 2003 under the Labour Government, how many reports were delivered from the Waitangi Tribunal? Seven. How many claims as at June 2003 were registered? One thousand and forty-two. Here is a statistic: in the 12 years since 21 September 1992, how many claims have been settled? Seventeen.

Do members know the thing that bothers me about that? There is not a lot of money at stake. In those 12 years, the settlements total something like $700 million. That is not a lot, in the context of what the Government spends in a week. Yet we are sitting on the process for years and years and years. And can we seriously say that it is bringing our people together? No, it is not. It is dividing us.

I make a plea here to send this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee, so that we as a Parliament can think about how we can provide justice with some briskness. Or are we saying that it is not all that important or serious, so let us just keep kicking the claims to touch and leaving the claimants living in hope that one day their claim will be heard, a report will be written, and there will be a settlement? I think that, as a Parliament and as a people, we can do better than that.

Ā, tēnā koe. Te mea tuatahi māku ki te mihi atu ki te iwi Māori, te ao Māori e whakarongo mai ana ki ēnei kōrero. Kore rawa tēnei Kāwanatanga e tautoko i te pire a Rodney Hide.

[Thank you. First, I extend greetings to the Māori people, and the Māori world listening in to these deliveries. The Government will never support Rodney Hide’s bill.]

Today I rise to explain the Government’s reasons for not supporting Mr Hide’s bill. I want to tell Mr Hide very clearly that this Government Māori MP certainly is not going to enter into being very careful, as a member of Parliament, in not allowing Māori their day in court. I want to say to him that, quite clearly, he—an academic, an intellectual—has not read the provisions of that bill. The reality is that my whānau and hapū look forward to making an application in the Māori Land Court, and they have already prepared such an application. If there was no provision in the bill to make such an application, they would not be so dumb as to do that. There are a few people around here suggesting that there is no provision in the bill for an application to the Māori Land Court. But it is not only to the Māori Land Court; it is to the High Court, and it may very well go to the Court of Appeal. So the humbug and propaganda of misinformation being spread around by people like Rodney Hide are unfortunate. I think perhaps they should have looked at the bill more carefully, as Gerry Brownlee has done—hopefully—and understand that there are provisions in the bill for my whānau and hapū to go to the Māori Land Court.

I can say that we do not support the treaty claims going on forever and ever. Once again, that is misinformation, propaganda, and humbug. I think and I acknowledge that all responsible New Zealanders, including Māori, recognise that it is a process that is finite. It may very well be that ACT’s existence in this House is finite—until the end of next year or until the next election. But surely we cannot compare that to the process prescribed in terms of treaty claims.

This bill is Mr Hide’s third ill-considered attempt to pull the handbrake on the treaty settlement process—No. 3. Mr Hide’s bill seeks to bring it to a screeching halt before its time, with no thought to the resulting pile-up. This Government wants the mutual process of negotiation and reconciliation to carry on. Like its predecessors, this bill is misnamed as it will not result in the final settlement of claims. Rather, it obliges the Crown to act within 5 years with regard to any findings or recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal. In an ideal world, negotiated settlements would quickly follow tribunal reports, but we know, and he knows, that it is not as simple as that. We do live in a complex world. Claimants need to decide who speaks for them, and how they will work together. The Waitangi Tribunal cannot do that for them, and neither can the Crown.

This Government is in discussions with more claimant groups than ever before. We have achieved that by giving advice and assistance to claimants, where we can and where it is appropriate—not by interfering in internal iwi decisions or by setting artificial deadlines. Mr Hide’s bill does not even talk about negotiations, and I would have thought that when he talked about treaty settlements and time frames, he would actually give some recognition to the importance of treaty negotiations. But this bill does not do that. Instead, the bill obliges the Crown—

💬 Rodney Hide: Tell us about the foreshore and seabed.

—I will tell the member about that later, if he wants to listen—to act unilaterally. Governments tried that approach in the first half of the 20th century. I tell Mr Hide that we have already been down that track—passing legislation that granted some groups of Māori a few thousand pounds in full settlement as redress for the confiscation of their land, without those payments even being discussed with the same people. As history shows us, simply declaring something to be settled does not make it so. If this country is serious about resolving the claims of the past, we should do that in a way that ensures both parties consider them resolved—not swept under the carpet for another generation to deal with. Negotiations can take a long time or a short time, as the Crown and claimant communities work through the painful grievances of the past and the difficulties in exploring each other’s views, before deciding whether they can accept each other’s position. There is also a great deal of technical work to be done throughout the negotiations, to ensure that the rights of third parties are protected, and to ensure that a settlement is unambiguously final and comprehensive for the entire claimant group concerned. Putting artificial time pressure on that stage would put the finality, and ultimately the durability, of the settlements at serious risk. And I can say that Mr Hide knows that.

Once again, Mr Hide shows no understanding of the difference between historical and contemporary claims. The Waitangi Tribunal is a venue for Māori not just to address the grievances of the past but also to air current issues. The Government might not always agree—and in fact does not have to agree—with the tribunal’s recommendations, but it recognises the role that the tribunal has for Māori in balancing the different views of the treaty partners and proposing a way forward. In recent years the tribunal’s recommendations about the settlement process itself have been a very valuable tool. The tribunal’s recommendations have been endorsed by the Crown, which has taken cognisance of them. Mr Hide’s bill removes the tribunal’s capacity to serve in that function.

The Government is on record as stating that we believe that the vast majority of historical claims can be settled by negotiation within the next 15 years. I want to make that quite clear. The Government believes that the claims can be settled within the next 15 years, but not in the fast-forward, rapid way that is suggested by Rodney Hide. We are committed to that time frame, and we are always looking at ways to improve the process for both the Crown and the claimants, in order to help us achieve it. Mr Hide’s bill offers no ideas whatsoever as to how his artificial deadline of 5 years could be met. It gives absolutely no consideration to dealing with the inevitable mess of unsatisfied claimants and unfinished business that it will leave. This Government will happily consider any genuine proposal to increase the pace of settlements, but not at the expense of their durability.

We have already established a strong record of achieving settlements. This year we are aiming to have two bills that settle claims on the basis of fair, final, and negotiated settlements. They will be introduced into the House. We hope to sign two deeds of settlement in the coming months, which will bring the total number of settlements signed by this Government to six. We are in discussions with more claimant groups than ever before, and we look forward to the final settlement of their claims. Recently, the Crown has recognised deeds of mandate for the important central North Island iwi of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Arawa, Ngāti Manawa, and Ngāti Whare. Terms of negotiations have been signed with Ngāti Manawa and also with Ngāti Whare. Those claims, which will eventually settle over 150 individual treaty claims, will present their own complexities in terms of the size of those groups and the forestry involved. We will work through those issues as quickly as we can, but we will be respectful of the pace that claimants wish to proceed at. We will do that in good faith, and with high hopes of reaching a final and durable settlement.

That is what genuine progress in negotiation is all about, and that is the way to progress a settlement situation. It is durable—it will last—and sustainable. If we want to put the past behind us, we should do so on the basis of genuine reconciliation. I remind the House that, basically, we all want that—genuine reconciliation—so that there is no redress further down the track, no coming back for a second go. We do not want a rush job that will come back to bite us in the future.

I do not believe that Mr Hide’s assertion that a deadline for settlement is necessary to ensure that the pace of settlements is increased. I do not believe that by forcing settlements into an artificial time frame, we will have the outcome of reconciliation and better race relations. I do not believe that this bill will result in the final resolution of treaty grievances. Therefore, this Government will not be supporting Mr Hide’s bill, and it will not support it going to the select committee. Kia ora tātou. Tihei mauri ora!

Just before I call the member, I make the point that there should be nobody standing around talking in the Chamber. Two or three members have done that in the last half-hour, and it is disconcerting to the speaker. I remind members that the speeches are 5-minute speeches now.

I say right at the outset that National considers this bill to be very poorly drafted—to be of very, very poor quality in its draftsmanship, and, indeed, in the intent that goes with it. The reality is that the ACT party remains stalled at the beginning of the 1990s on this particular issue. There has been considerable history since that time as to how these things should be progressed. But I want to make it also clear that because of the intent and goodwill expressed in this bill, and because of the idea that New Zealand cannot progress until, as Dover Samuels just outlined for us—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Honourable.

—the Hon Dover Samuels—these matters have been dealt with, then, clearly, it is a bill that the National Party will have to support. I found it fascinating that the Hon Dover Samuels could sit there and say that more time was needed to consult with Māori in order to get enduring settlements of issues they might raise before the Waitangi Tribunal. In many ways, he is simply saying that the Labour Party has completely bought into the idea that the Treaty of Waitangi means that if people are Māori they are owed an obligation, and if they are not Māori they owe the obligation. That is quite wrong. I ask Mr Samuels and his cohorts over there—and I hope Mahara, Mita, and Georgina will take a call—

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the member is well aware of the rule that members are to be referred to by their full names, not just their first names.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct.

At least that member knows why he is in Parliament. He has done nothing for the Pacific Island people, but, by gosh, he has picked a lot of nits in this place.

Let me say very clearly that the Hon Dover Samuels just told this House that more time, perhaps up to 15 years, is needed to discuss these matters with Māori. Well, the Government is about to pass legislation that will take away the interests of every non-Māori in the coastline, the foreshore, and the seabed of this country, and it has not consulted at all. I know that when that legislation goes through the select committee process, those members opposite will go to Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, but they will not go anywhere where someone might have a view that seriously disagrees with the Government’s position.

Those members opposite are frightened, and they are guilty men. Although they will stand in this House and say that Māori need 15 years to be consulted over this issue, when it comes to something like the seabed and the foreshore Māori can get lost. They can go back to the wops. Māori can take what they are given.

I find it a complete inconsistency that those members will vote against this bill tonight, but will quite happily hold up their hands sometime in the middle of next year to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. They need to ask themselves whether this process is a genuine process. Are there two parties represented under the Treaty of Waitangi? Were rights conferred in that treaty on all New Zealanders, or are those members going to hold on to the mistaken view that the treaty is something that belongs only to Māori?

We support Rodney Hide’s bill. I see that Mita Ririnui is yielding; I am still on my feet, so I will take the other 5 minutes. Mita Ririnui has disappeared back into the woodwork where he has spent the last 5 years of his political career. The simple intent of this bill, leaving aside some of the silly ideas in it about a race relations council, is to acknowledge that there are historical grievances out there, that wrong was done, that those issues can be dealt with, and that New Zealand can move on. Dover Samuels and his fellow Māori MPs Mahara Okeroa and Mita Ririnui—all of them Irishmen, I might say—want to make the issues last longer and longer, because they do not care about this country’s future.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Mita Ririnui.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. An interesting issue has arisen. Mita Ririnui yielded to the previous speaker, and in that circumstance the speaker who was speaking is entitled to continue.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was not a yield. As Chair, I never called. It was a good try, but Mita Ririnui has the call.

The term “yield” is not familiar to me. The previous speaker, the National Party spokesperson on Māori affairs, gives a new meaning to the word “inconsistency”. Here we have a party that is claiming and saying publicly that it will extinguish all Māori rights and put the foreshore and seabed in public ownership—the same party that is going to extinguish the Māori constituency seats in central government and do a whole lot of other things to nullify the Treaty of Waitangi. He is making a big case of the inadequacy of face-to-face consultation, which is something he will not do. His party will just do it. I notice that it is starting to backtrack on the issue of nuclear ships in New Zealand waters. How many more backtracks will we hear about?

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: Flip-flop!

That is a good term, and I suppose it will get rid of the treaty before breakfast. It is interesting how the sponsor of this bill stands up in this House and claims that the process is taking too long. In 2002 that member stood in this House and claimed he was Ngāi Tahu. Now he is telling us: “We’ve got our bit. The rest of you can get stuffed. You can get stuffed—we got our $170 million, and there is more to come. The rest of you can take a jump.” He has his bit. That is what they call justice.

As my parliamentary colleague the Hon Dover Samuels said in his speech, this bill is totally unnecessary. It is unnecessary, because the Government is already making considerable progress in negotiating timely, comprehensive, and final treaty settlements. We are in discussions with more claimant groups than ever before. It is not because we are forcing them to the table but because we are ready and willing to negotiate in good faith. The Crown and the claimants are focused on getting on with it.

Dover Samuels outlined the number of settlements we are currently negotiating, and we have signed up to a number of terms of negotiation agreements with central North Island iwi. In the time since we took over the Treasury benches, we have completed six or seven treaty settlements, and we are in negotiations with about 25 other claimant groups. That is really positive progress.

The Office of Treaty Settlements has advised the Māori Affairs Committee that at this rate of progress we could possibly, and should, have dealt with all historical claims by the year 2015. That precludes the need for any legislation of this kind. In the last year the Government’s intensive work with the central North Island claimant groups has paid off. We will shortly begin negotiations with Te Arawa for the settlement of over 100 separate Waitangi Tribunal claims, covering 40,000 people. Ngāti Tūwharetoa is at a similar stage. Their negotiations will cover more than 50 Waitangi Tribunal claims and benefit 30,000 people. I am talking about iwi in the central North Island only.

The Government is putting in the groundwork at this end of the process, bringing people together to negotiate comprehensive settlements that will result in the durable resolution of treaty claims, not imposing arbitrary deadlines. Most of the settlements negotiated by the previous National Government were piecemeal—a mountain here, a river there, and some land somewhere else that probably belongs to somebody else—rather than looking at all the historical claims of iwi, hapū, and whānau. It achieved only three comprehensive historical settlements, and one of those—the Tainui rivers and harbours claim—had big gaps in it. This Government has achieved six comprehensive settlements already, as I said earlier. Mr Hide’s bill seeks to achieve with a blunt instrument what good faith, patience, and flexibility are already well on the way to achieving. While it will fail, enforcing the time frame for settlement of claims will result in unfair, poorly thought-out attempts to redress grievances and will in no way at all lay to rest the grievances we are seeking to address.

One issue that is very important for this Government is that claimant groups do have the right to justice. They have to be able to explore all avenues of justice, and the claims we have dealt with since we have been in Government have achieved exactly that. Kia ora.

Ā, tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakawā, koutou hoki e whakarongo mai ki tēnei o ngā kōrero. Kei te tautoko ngā mihi, i mihi atu tēnā o tātou mema mai i Te Tai Tokerau.

[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and indeed to those of you who are listening in to this address as well as the others. I endorse the salutations that the member for Te Tai Tokerau extended to you.]

On behalf of New Zealand First I take this opportunity to speak in this debate. May I say from the start that it should not come as any surprise to any member in this House that New Zealand First supports the notion of this bill being referred to a select committee.

I can recall that in 2002 I alluded to the fact that the treaty had, sadly, become an instrument for divisiveness. That is particularly so within the political arena, all of which has been irrespective of, first, adherence to the due process by the Māori claimants, and, secondly, the justness and legal obligations as a consequence of that due process.

Many of the outcomes from the settlement process have influenced the current thinking. It is timely that due regard be given to putting in place a time frame for the conclusion in that regard. However, I offer a word of caution. The possible justness and endurance of any settlement must not be compromised for the sake of expediency. I believe that the time frame suggested in the bill in which claims should be completed suggests that we may compromise justness and fairness all for the sake of expediency. The bill suggests a time frame that, I believe, is not practical. Why? Because a high number of claims are yet to be considered; there are inadequate bureaucratic structures; insufficient resources; and there is a lack of, or limited, resources for claimant groups to progress their claims; plus there are political differences. It seems to me that I can add another issue, which is the lack of political will—that is, regarding the limitations on the value of the settlements.

The sponsor of the bill has said that, as a consequence of this bill, New Zealanders can look to the future instead of always looking back. I remind that member that it is important to look back from time to time to ensure that, particularly as a nation, we do not condemn ourselves to repeating the mistakes of the past. I cannot overemphasise that point. Settlement is not only about justification and agreement to a claim. It also includes the process of negotiation as to how a claim can be settled. I suggest that therein lies the crux of the difficulty that the sponsor of this bill has quite rightly described.

The bill also talks of a council of race relations. I am not sure about that proposal. There seems to be no reason why the proposed functions cannot be picked up by existing organisations and ministries if there were a case. A concluding thought is that for a large number of New Zealanders the Treaty of Waitangi is not merely a document to be condemned to the annals of history. This legislation will not prevent the treaty continuing to have life and meaning to many New Zealanders. The bill refers to: “equality between all races in New Zealand.” Clearly, that confirms for me what a large number of our population, not least Māori, are criticised for saying—that there is not equality.

On behalf of New Zealand First I support this bill going to a select committee. I suggest that that select committee be the Māori Affairs Committee, given the light workload that it currently has. It will also provide an opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their say on this very important issue.

I consider this bill to be misinformed. It is based on a view that sees the Treaty of Waitangi as something to be dealt with and dispensed with, and in its hurry to forget the past, it would perpetuate enormous injustice. Its time constraint removes the power to negotiate from tangata whenua and puts decision making about fair compensation in the hands of the offender—the Crown.

The legislation is deeply flawed, in my opinion, for psychological reasons, and I shall explain that. Unlike some Pākehā I cannot claim that my ancestors have been here for six generations. Nevertheless, for much of my life I have shared a common, almost unconscious Pākehā anxiety: “What right do we have to be in Aotearoa?”. In our nation, that anxiety has grown as Pākehā dominance of political and cultural affairs has lessened. The recent re-examination of history by scholars such as Belich, Walker, Salmon, and Binney have threatened our simplistic views of the past. Waitangi Tribunal hearings and reports have made public a number of tragic stories previously kept private.

Pākehā have long had a tenuous position in Aotearoa. We probably underestimate today the psychological effects of the fear of war in many early Pākehā communities. With the constabulary’s invasion of Rua Kenana and his peaceful community in 1916, those fears would have largely come to an end. The place of Pākehā in New Zealand seemed settled. Growing awareness of the injustices of the past, along with a growing Māori population, has again threatened the peace of Pākehā in this country. It was a peace built on a myth of exemplary race relations and “One New Zealand.” Most Pākehā seemed simply unaware of Māori continued agitation for their rights to political, economic, and cultural self-determination.

Today no Pākehā is unaware of those demands, and it creates in us a difficult cognitive tension. We know that the past has been characterised by gross injustice. We know that as a result Māori feature in the worst health, education, and imprisonment statistics. Many of us do feel guilty about that, and we resent that guilt. So one way of dealing with our difficult and painful past is to return to historical amnesia by saying that that was a long time ago, we should get on with it, or to try to put a time limit on the treaty and pretend that we can deal with it, get over it, and put it in the past. Those are desperate measures. In fact, I believe that until Pākehā are able to feel certain about our place here, we will continue to show signs of anxiety, defensiveness, and intolerance, always underlined by the question: “When do I as a Pākehā become tangata whenua?”.

I believe that Pākehā do have a right to be in Aotearoa. The Treaty of Waitangi confers that right upon us. Māori have a right to be here as tangata whenua. Pākehā have a right, because we signed a treaty giving us that right. But that right carries an obligation. It means that we do not get to be here 100 percent on our own terms. That means that we do not need to feel guilty for the past or for the actions of others, but we do need to take responsibility for the future. I believe that we dishonour ourselves as Pākehā New Zealanders if we allow injustice to continue, or if we perpetuate injustice, as I believe that this bill does.

It is time for Pākehā to secure our place in this land and our relationship with its indigenous people. However, if we fail to honour the agreement that confers on us the right to be here, if we continue to locate our emotional, intellectual, and institutional homeland on the other side of the planet, I sometimes wonder whether we really do belong here after all.

The sponsor of this bill wants to transform himself from a perk-buster into a statesman. That is as difficult, in my view, as a caterpillar metamorphosing itself into a beautiful butterfly.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Crayfish.

Whatever. It is totally unobtainable. The sponsor of the bill is trying to get a conveyor belt conception of Māori claims. We line up the tins of spaghetti, brand them, put a label on them—and the conveyor belt keeps going. That aspiring statesman absolutely refuses to acknowledge that there are two partners to any treaty settlement. One is the Crown, and one is the claimant. One of the key issues is durability. Durability means that there must be a relationship between the Crown and the claimants. The claimants come from a context of absolute mistrust with regard to the Crown’s actions. Anyone who wants to support this bill, along with the shadow Minister of Māori Affairs for the National Party—a big shadow—fails to realise that other very important factors contribute to a treaty claim. If claims are to be durable, and if they are to be accepted not only by the Crown, but also by the claimants, then there is a process. The process is built on a tradition of mutual trust.

The claimants already have to accept that their claim is about 0.5 percent of the original value of the claim, yet the claimants, who are Māori, are prepared to go through that process. They are prepared to lay aside a whole range of betrayal, historically, to reach an end point. The end point is that they, too, want to get on with the business. They, too, want to participate as equal citizens in New Zealand society. They, too, want to realise their own potential. If we are to accept the bill as sponsored, then may I add that the whole issue will be breached on the essential principles of being able to trust each other. Under this Government, treaty claims are geared towards not only having that trust, but also an outcome that is based on collective agreement and negotiation.

The member opposite is prepared to sponsor a bill that takes no credence of the claimants’ role in the whole negotiation process. I know that the sponsor of the bill claims Ngāi Tahu ancestry. I do not know whether Ngāi Tahu will be overjoyed about that. In fact, I doubt it very much. Anyone can claim an ancestry, but tikanga Māori says that if people are prepared to claim an ancestry, then they are prepared to commit to the best process—the best process with regard to what this Labour coalition Government is prepared to do.

On that basis, there is no time line with regard to settling the settlements with expediency. It is about the outcome being the best relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown. If we are to achieve that, then there is absolutely no way that this side of the House will support a hastily scripted, poorly drafted bill as sponsored by that member, who wants to transfer himself from being a perk-buster to a statesman. Sometimes the gap is too large.

United Future can support the intent of this bill, which, if we understand it, is to bring full and final settlement of outstanding claims. Although when we talk about full settlement, I think most people in New Zealand would understand that there is no way in the world that this Parliament, or the taxpayer, could afford the full settlement. We are grateful to Māoridom, as it accepts settlements that are much less than what the full settlement should be, but accepts them as a full settlement.

We as a party would certainly welcome the full and final settlement of outstanding claims. My colleague Murray Smith, as our Māori spokesperson, has constantly urged the Office of Treaty Settlements to speed up the process, to a large extent by providing more resources for those involved in the treaty settlement process. However, we do not urge the speeding up of the process by shortcutting the process, as the speaker before me, Mahara Okeroa, said so well. The process must be dealt with properly if it is to be full and final.

As someone who has sat through parts of that process in Tauranga Moana, where some of the hapū have gone through their treaty claims inquiries, I have been amazed at how much history we learn as we go through this process. It will be a great asset to the nation in the future, as we will be compiling throughout this process the true and accurate record of what has occurred in this country over the last 150 years.

We understand, and many of us within United Future also understand, how many non-Māori can empathise with those who grow impatient with a process that began initially in 1975, and in real earnest in the 1980s. This process began over 20 years ago, and for many of us it seems such a long time. There is an impatience in New Zealand to see it completed, but it would do all of us who are non-Māori good to consider how long many Māori have been waiting for the correction of these breaches of the treaty. They are the ones who have been victims of those breaches, and in most cases they have been waiting for as long as 150 years. That is a very long time, and when we see how many times Māori have had to come to the courts and to this Parliament seeking redress, I think another 15 years will not be too long if we are able to fully and finally settle these issues once and for all.

I believe the attitude we need to take in this House, and across New Zealand, is to look out to 2040, when we will celebrate 200 years as a nation, and see that by that time we have fully and finally settled those treaty claims and are moving on as a very multicultural and harmonious society. The answer to our problems in New Zealand is not a law change but an attitude change, and that is definitely needed throughout our society if we are to have a future together as a people.

United Future cannot support this bill, because the approach it recommends to resolve the issue of slow resolution to claims is not, in our opinion, the appropriate one. We believe the Office of Treaty Settlements should set targets and dates for settlements and goals, because that is an important part of achieving those goals. The office should then receive adequate funding and resourcing to realistically enable it to meet those goals and time frames, but to set those time frames in statutes as proposed by this bill would be wrong and would achieve very little.

Clauses 6 and 7 are about establishing a Council of Race Relations to carry out specific functions. Many of those things would be commendable accomplishments for our society, but they are the kinds of inquiry and discussion that would be undertaken during the constitutional inquiry proposed by United Future in response to the foreshore and seabed debate that has arisen this year. Our proposals for a constitutional inquiry include a discussion of the role of the treaty in New Zealand in the 21st century after all outstanding claims have been settled. That would be a more productive approach than having a legislatively mandated council as set up in this bill, because it would ultimately result in us resolving the question of a constitution for our nation. We believe that is the way forward as a country, and one we will continue to lobby and press for. Therefore, United Future will not support the first reading of this bill.

I have listened with interest to the debate on this bill. One of the most interesting speeches, of course, was from the person who is almost my benchmate, Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party. He said that this bill was prompted by a kind of psychological complex. He seemed to be saying that people who do not want to recite and relive trauma have something wrong with them. Mr Tanczos may have come from an era that believed fervently that if one let it all hang out, somehow it all came together, but in fact much more modern and very recent wisdom is that the net effect of wallowing in misery, and of examining one’s navel, whining, and refusing to take things seriously is not cleansing and healing. It simply means what common sense would tell us: that we become more depressed.

There are five good reasons why this bill is needed, and there is also a good reason why part of it is not needed. I have authority from my leader to say that we do not need a council of race relations—and we certainly do not. I turn now to the first good reason that this bill is needed. The tribunal is discredited. It is not good for New Zealand to carry further on down a path whereby a semi-judicial body embarrasses our entire judiciary. The bill that was before the House late last year allowed the tribunal’s chairman essentially to take judges off a case when he did not like the conclusions they were coming to. Which tribunal of integrity allows that? Since the tribunal talked about the Holocaust, there has been no serious public respect for it. Victoria University’s latest book on this topic, The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History by Giselle Byrnes, essentially states the tribunal is making up history to suit its agenda. It is a serious problem when one of our judicial bodies is accused of making up history to suit its politics.

The second reason that this bill is needed is that the treaty claims process is corrupting Māori. Some of the best young brains in Māoridom are now very skilfully employed in working out how to take wealth from others, instead of making wealth. The culture of making, instead of taking, is what really distinguishes the wealthy from the poor. Those people are not stupid; they are not unnaturally grasping. They are simply responding to the incentives that calculating politicians on the left have been giving them. In that I include former National Party members who got into that—the Doug Grahams of this world. If someone was sitting there as a young Māori, or even as an elderly Māori, and was offered money for nothing except making a complaint, what else would that person do?

The third good reason for this bill is that the process is deferring the date of Māori self-reliance. I remember a Westpac survey from a few years ago, and there was one finding that was never published. When Westpac surveyed savings intentions, it found that almost no Māori intended to save. One of the reasons was that Māori thought they did not need to save, because somewhere down the line Father Christmas would turn up with a treaty settlement. That is not healthy for any people.

The fourth good reason for the bill is that these claims cannot do justice. It is fatuous to say, as the State of the Nation television programme told us, that the settlements are only 1 percent of the value of the claims. That is like saying that my dad, who missed out on the family farm, was ripped off by millions, simply because he had to go and do something else.

The fifth reason for the bill is that the settlement process is simply a reason for new grievances. Limitation periods appear in the law of every sensible culture. I think the longest period I have ever seen is in the Turkish situation, which can go back 40 years. No one anywhere in the world can build a stable foundation on a pattern of exploring grievances that go back past living memory.

The sixth reason why this bill should be grasped by both sides of the House and why Māori, in particular, should vote for it may be described as “grab it while you can”. The tide has turned. There will not be the stupid encouragements to further grievance. Māori should get settlements while they are still being offered, because ultimately most New Zealanders, Māori and Pākehā, are sick of the process. They see no future in it; it is time for it to finish. Let us end it before it goes septic.

I am very disappointed in some of the comments that have been made by members on the Opposition side of the House. I think the intention of this bill is quite clear: it is to try to short-circuit the treaty negotiations process. Although Mr Hide makes every effort to be a statesman, he continues to expose himself as someone who really is quite cynical about a legitimate process that New Zealanders need to go through if we are to deliver justice to tangata whenua. This bill is poorly drafted, and it is flawed. I want to compliment our United Future colleagues on the speeches they made, because I think they identified an important aspect of the treaty process: the generous spirit of Māoridom in accepting some of the compensation, which falls well short of what true compensation should be for tangata whenua in terms of the loss of land and resources. I think it is an indication of good faith by tangata whenua, the Māori people of this country, that they are prepared to negotiate something that is truly short of the real compensation that should be considered.

I think that if there is good faith on both sides, on the sides of those who negotiate on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of Māori, the timetable of 10 to 15 years that this Government has identified is a realistic goal for achieving settlement of the historical claims. I believe that the intention of the bill is to play upon some of the frustration that exists out there in the community. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied. There is a feeling within the community that the process has been too long, but we are also talking about a period of nearly 160 years since the treaty was signed. Over that period of time, significant injustice has been experienced by Māori. I think that most fair-minded New Zealanders would understand that to resolve those sorts of injustices up and down this country, over 160 years, will take time, and that for the sake of future generations due process should be allowed in order to achieve fairness and sustainable resolution of grievances.

I believe that the Government is doing a good job in terms of resolving the issues, in negotiating with tangata whenua in relation to reasonable settlements, and in acknowledging that the compensation falls well short of a realistic assessment of the loss of resources and land. I support the Government’s programme. The indication, in relation to treaty settlements, of the process lasting up to 15 years is a more realistic timetable than what has been proposed in this poorly drafted bill by someone who has just taken the leadership of the ACT party and is trying very hard to transform himself from a perk-buster, a caterpillar, into a butterfly, as my colleague previously mentioned. The transformation is not succeeding, and I am afraid that Rodney Hide’s true colours continue to show. I oppose this bill.

It is very clear that the Labour Party has a view of Māori as a people beholden to the Labour Party, no matter what; as a people whose vote it can take for granted, no matter what; and as a people who the Labour Party believes will vote for it as long as it dangles a carrot out, no matter what. I have to say that the Labour Party is in for a wake-up call both ways, because it has trampled Māori rights by denying a group of New Zealanders the opportunity for their day in court. I do not know how members of this Government can stand up and say that they have to go through due process, when halfway through judicial proceedings the Government rushed through legislation to deny Māori their day in court. They talk about the proper process of the tribunal and claimants and what happened with the oil and gas finding—

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: Canned!

Canned, and they killed it dead, and where were the Māori warriors from the Labour Party then? If those Labour Party members were honest with themselves, if they were honest towards the people of New Zealand, and if they were honest with Māori, they would be saying: “Yes, we can’t go on forever and a day; let’s settle on a time frame.”

I am happy with New Zealand First’s suggestion to move this bill to the Māori Affairs Committee. I think that is a good idea. I am happy with Taito Phillip Field’s suggestion that it be made 15 years. I think we should send it off to a select committee, consider whether we can do it in 15 years, and think about what resources would be needed to do it so we can pick up Taito Phillip Field’s proposal of 15 years. I agree with United Future, which said: “Yes, we need a time line.” But the members said that they needed to think about it. Well, that is what the select committee process is for—having a think about it.

I say this: I did not agree with anything that Nandor Tanczos said. No, I could not agree with him that we are sort of psychologically unbalanced, and that I am somehow a Pākehā with a tenuous grip hanging on to New Zealand. No, I could not agree with the Greens. But I do agree with Taito Phillip Field; let us have a look at 15 years. I do agree with New Zealand First and with the Māori Affairs Committee.

I tell the United Future members that I know they had their instructions from Helen Clark this morning not to vote for this bill. I heard the speech, and United Future members were in favour of it. This is what they said: “We agree with the intent of this bill. We agree with time lines, but Helen Clark has said in her own godly way that we can’t vote for it.” So United Future members come down here, like lambs to the slaughter, put their heads on the voting chopping-block—chop, chop, chop, Helen Clark has spoken! But I say this. Who are we doing the favour to by dragging this process out forever and a day?

💬 Hon David Carter: No one.

Absolutely no one. Larry Baldock said he looked forward to the year 2040.

💬 Jim Peters: What year?

2040.

💬 Hon David Carter: He won’t be in Parliament.

Oh, he will not be in Parliament next year. United Future will be long forgotten. He said he looked forward to 2040 when this would be all settled and behind us. Well I tell him this. For what possible reason could he think, given his Labour Government’s woeful performance, that these claims will be settled by 2040? None. He is making it up. But I tell Larry Baldock that it is not too late. Vote for it and we will look at a time line of 2040 if he wants the public to have a say.