Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill

I move, That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a first time. E tika ake anō i roto i te tū nei ki te mihi ake anō i a koutou o Ngāti Awa mō tō rātou kaha i te tae kaha ake anō i tēnei wā, e whakatū hoki ake anō te āhua nei o te kaupapa.

I send my best wishes to the people of Ngāti Awa for the effort they have put into the bill, and for the sterling effort they have made in getting here today to present this bill to the House. At the appropriate time I will move that the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report by 1 December 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill establishes a new governance entity for the iwi of Ngāti Awa, for the purposes of receiving and administering the Ngāti Awa claims settlement assets and other redress for the benefit of iwi members. The legislation will give effect to agreements between the Crown and Ngāti Awa concerning the reconstitution of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa. Importantly, it will also be responsible for representing Ngāti Awa’s interests in the future.

I am privileged to have been asked by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to sponsor this bill. It is cause for celebration that they have reached this important milestone. I wish to congratulate Dr Hirini Mead, chief negotiator, and the negotiating team on their leadership—all those people who were involved. I would like to mention the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations who, along with her team, has tried very hard in working towards this point. The efforts of Te Rūnanga should also be acknowledged in developing the new governance entity that will take Ngāti Awa into the future. Whilst Ngāti Awa have asked me to sponsor this bill, I must acknowledge the efforts and time that Mita Ririnui has put into settling this claim, both as local MP for Waiariki and as Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Again, along with Margaret Wilson, it has been a great effort.

On 27 March 2003, Ngāti Awa signed a deed of settlement with the Crown to settle its historical treaty claims. As I have mentioned, this bill is closely linked to the settlement. It is crucial that it proceed through the House in a coordinated manner with the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which implements the agreements that have been reached. This will ensure that the new entity will be established to receive the settlement redress upon enactment of the settlement legislation. I understand that a 3-month report-back time will be sought for the settlement bill. Thus, in order for these bills to remain coordinated, I am also seeking a 3-month report-back date.

The proverb of te Rūnanga is: “He manu hōu ahau, he pī karere.”—“I am a new bird that has just taken its first flight.” This proverb seems very apt when we consider that this bill marks a new era both for te Rūnanga and for Ngāti Awa. This entity has been developed in close consultation with Ngāti Awa members. Te Rūnanga are to be commended for this. I believe that successful governance arrangements and robust processes need to take into account the cultural requirements of the people it represents. This has certainly been the case in this instance.

Te Rūnanga is currently a Māori Trust Board, established by the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988, and is subject to the provisions of the Māori Trust Boards Act of 1955. The Crown considers that post-settlement governance entities should be directly accountable to their beneficiaries, and for that I applaud it. Therefore, while the new governance entity will still be called Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, it will manage assets on behalf of all descendants of Ngāti Awa hapū, ngā uri o ngā hapū o Ngāti Awa. As the present Te Rūnanga is set up under legislation, Ngāti Awa representatives consider it vital that its new governance entity also be established by statute, and be known as Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa. This has been provided for under this bill. The new entity will be representative of its members, have transparent decision-making and dispute resolution procedures, and will be fully accountable to its members. As such, it is consistent with the Crown’s principles of post-settlement governance entities. It will be established as a stand-alone body corporate, to be administered under the provisions of this bill and the charter that is also provided for in the bill.

In operational terms, the key provisions of the new legislation are those provisions that establish the new governance entity and specify its functions, rights, and powers, and those that relate to the charter of the new entity. The bill requires that the charter must require Te Rūnanga to hold its assets on trust for the benefit of the current and future members of Ngāti Awa, specify the duties and obligations of Te Rūnanga in administering the assets, specify the manner in which the representatives of Te Rūnanga are elected, and require Te Rūnanga to maintain a register of members. The charter has been approved by members of Ngāti Awa, through a postal ballot, and adopted by the current rūnanga.

The development of the governance entity under this private bill has been subject to lengthy and rigorous discussion, both internally with iwi members and with the Crown. This ongoing consultation culminated in the Ngāti Awa negotiators presenting the proposed governance entity to the iwi members for final approval in January 2004. This was accepted by them, and consequently this bill is before the House to give effect to their aspirations.

In summary, this bill will establish Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa—Te Rūnanga will remain the same body as established by the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988, but will cease to be a Māori Trust Board; specify that Te Rūnanga will represent Ngāti Awa and hold its assets in accordance with the charter; make Te Rūnanga a body corporate and give it full rights and powers to carry out its functions; and provide for what the charter must and may contain, and for its amendment and availability.

I wish to acknowledge the tremendous efforts of Ngāti Awa in advancing their claims and negotiations to these final stages. Since its establishment in 1988, Te Rūnanga has facilitated the continued negotiation by Ngāti Awa in its treaty claims. They have been tireless in their efforts, and this legislation now before the House signals that the final stage of that long, long journey is near. I wish Te Rūnanga every success in providing a new opportunity in a new era, for all their people. Kia ora.

Tēnā tātou katoa. Tēnā kōutou tōku whānau kua tae mai. He mihi aroha, mai i te whare o te Heuheu i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to us all, and to my family who have arrived. Loving regards from the house of te Heuheu on this wonderful day. So greetings to you all. ]

I wish to add my greetings to Ngāti Awa and my congratulations to them on reaching this point in a long saga of seeking restitution from the Crown for the confiscations and other acts that were done to their people in previous times. I want to say how proud I am to be here still in the Parliament to witness this day, which basically starts a process to enable Ngāti Awa to put behind them, although never to forget, those things that have happened to their families, whānau, and iwi, and to look forward to a future that they will determine in accordance with their own preferences. My humble greetings to them and to us.

As the Minister has said, the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill puts into place the entity by which Ngāti Awa will receive and manage the assets that will come to them upon the passing of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which has been tabled in Parliament but is yet to have its first reading. I have no notice of when that might be, but I am hopeful that it will be in the near future and I am hopeful that the Minister will use his good administrations to ensure that, essentially, these two bills might be progressed as one.

I have spoken to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee today, Nanaia Mahuta, and as deputy chair I would be very supportive of the select committee process being managed in a timely way so that the saga that has preceded this bill might quickly be brought to its conclusion, and that the passage into law of the settlement of Ngāti Awa might also proceed in a timely fashion.

As the Minister has basically set out the provisions of this bill, and particularly of the new rūnanga that will be created, I want to make some comments about the process. I am pleased we are here today for the first reading because, with regard to the Ngāti Awa negotiations and settlement process, I do not think either the previous Government or this Government can feel at all happy with the length of time it has taken to get to this point. Ngāti Awa started negotiating their claims as far back as 14 years ago, I think, and no doubt have some very potent things to tell us about the way the Crown negotiates with claimants as to whether those negotiations are always in good faith between parties, which after all is the only way that these settlements will be concluded.

As I say, their claims process and settlement process would probably make reading for those of us who say—and all New Zealanders say this—that we would like these historic claims put behind us. It probably behoves us all to come to grips with what this tribe has had to go through to get to this point today. Of course, the negotiations started under Sir Douglas Graham when National was in Government. They were not quite completed by the time we went out of Government, and the deed of settlement was finally signed off in the term of the current Government. As if that had not taken long enough, Ngāti Awa had to face the hardship of starting to engage with the Crown on the entity that they might have to manage their assets.

I understand that when the Labour Government first came to power, notwithstanding the fact that the previous Ngāi Tahu and Tainui settlements had resulted in the setting up of special legislation to establish their governance entities, this Government seemed to me to be reluctant to allow that course of action to follow with subsequent settlements. I understand that Ngāti Awa has, for the best part of the last 2 years, had to deal with officials and Ministers of the Crown to get this special legislation here today. As I say, I think it is a bit of an indictment on this House that, having acknowledged wrongdoing on the part of the Crown vis-à-vis the iwi, the process is further dragged out by discussions over whether Ngāti Awa should have their governance entity in the form of legislation already available—such as a charitable trust—or whether they would be entitled to have an entity of their own choosing.

It is a proud moment to be here today, but it is also with some regret that I voice the fact that it has taken so long for this to occur. When the Minister congratulates Ngāti Awa, they certainly deserve to be congratulated. The untiring patience of iwi—in this case, Ngāti Awa—to keep plodding along and pursuing these things when there has long been an acknowledgment that the Crown has done them wrong in the past I think is an example to people other than those of us in this House.

I heard the Minister congratulating Mita Ririnui as the electorate MP. Whether those congratulations are due I am not sure, but no doubt it is proper for him to say that. But what I would like to think, and I have raised this issue with the member several times now, is that Mita Ririnui is using his office to bring to bear positively on this whole governance structure issue—first of all with the mandating, and then, once the settlements are about to pass, that he might apply his thinking to making this process a lot easier than it has proven to be in this case and something that will stand us in good stead into the future, because there are still a number of settlements to go. If he would do that, then maybe we will have learnt something and maybe we will pay proper tribute to Ngāti Awa by making sure that no other iwi has to go through the drawn-out saga that they have had to, so as to conclude their settlement and have their preferences embodied in the bill that sits before us today. I would like to think that the honourable Mita Ririnui is using his power and his authority, such as it is, to see whether we in this place can come up with a format that is a lot more respectful of iwi Māori and that achieves the outcomes we all desire, in a much more timely fashion. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ā, te mea tuatahi māku, me mihi atu ki a tātou e huihui mai i roto i tēnei o tātou Whare, i tēnei ahiahi. Greetings to us all who have gathered to meet and speak in this House today.

Ā, ki a koutou Ngāti Awa, tēnā koutou kua tae mai nei ki te whakarongo i ngā kōrero e whakawhitiwhiti ana i tēnei rā. To Ngāti Awa, greetings to those who have arrived to listen to the toing and froing of the debate and the speech-making in the House today.

Let me begin by relating the key elements from the bill. The settlement represents the result of extended negotiations, conducted in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation and compromise. It is difficult to assess redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngāti Awa. It is not possible to compensate Ngāti Awa fully for all loss and prejudice suffered. The foregoing of compensation by Ngāti Awa is recognised by the Crown as a contribution to the development of New Zealand. The decision of Ngāti Awa in relation to the settlement is one that Ngāti Awa take for themselves alone. It does not purport to affect the position of other tribes.

Let me go back into a bit of history at this point. Modern history probably begins with the year 1479 BC, and treats as epic that time in the story of our race, which we may call the era of territorial imperialism. For 34 centuries all political ambition, whether of individuals or races, has aimed at geographical extension and the subjugation of neighbouring tribes and peoples. There have been other theories in men’s minds—dim adaptations of new concepts of human society—ideas of nationalism, of republicanism, and of self-determination.

But all have had as their basis the occupation of land. The different social organisms have been separated, one from another, by more or less clearly marked geographical frontiers. The Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill originated from the era of territorial imperialism, and since then has had dim adaptations again.

Today it seems that we stand on the verge of a whole new order, in which the division of mankind is no longer. Then again, I am reminded that New Zealand First is still concerned about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, as up to this date no one has made them clear. I say to Ngāti Awa that their proud heritage has brought them all to this point in time, and the spirit of their ancestors abound here today. Patience has been Ngāti Awa’s virtue, supported by endurance. Their whakapapa has been the driving force and to this end, hopefully, their concerns and the concerns of their whānau, hapū, and iwi will finally be settled.

As a recipient of land handed down from generation to generation, I understand only too well that feeling of being a caretaker. But let me remind us all that it is not only the beginning—when our placenta and pito are buried—that symbolically ties us to our tūrangawaewae but the forward-moving motion of what Ngāti Awa is going to generate for their up-and-coming generations. That is what will matter. The general public will scrutinise and, on occasion, be critical, but Ngāti Awa must go forth and do the best they can, and be accountable not only to their past but to their present and future, as their heritage demands that of them. Let not the weevils of discontent erode their ability to achieve and be an example of the highest order for their whānau, hapū, and iwi. The name of Awanui a Rangi expects nothing less. I remember a saying that I was quite fond of, when I was lecturing at the Waikato Institute of Technology. It was given by one of the Rangitira of Ngāti Awa, Hirini Moko Mead: he toi whakairo, he mana tangata; where there is artistic excellence, there is human dignity. I am sure that with the leadership Ngāti Awa has, that will come to fruition.

Nō reira e hoa mā, tēnā koutou kua tae mai nei i tēnei ahiahi ki te whakarongo i ngā kōrero kua puta i tēnei rā. Ahakoa kāore anō kia whakahokia mai te whenua katoa, kei a koutou tēnā ināianei. Greetings to Ngāti Awa, who have come together, gathered, and listened to this debate this day. New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee and, hopefully, with the direction, guidance, and ideas that will be given and shared there, the bill will come to its completion. E hari, e koa ana ngākau i a mātou o Aotearoa Tuatahi. Within our hearts, New Zealand First is happy that this bill is before the House this day.

Engari kaua e wareware ki ō koutou mahi, ki ō koutou tamariki, mokopuna o Ngāti Awa. I say to Ngāti Awa not to forget the responsibilities they have for their children and for the mokopuna of Ngāti Awa.

When I look ahead and hear about the other claims now on the waiting list I stand in humility, because there is this one that is finally going to be settled. Let not the weevils of discontent erode the ability of Ngāti Awa to achieve, and to be an example of the highest order for their whānau, hapū, and iwi. The name of Awanui a Rangi expects that to happen. In conjunction with that name, I quote that whakatauāki again—that proverbial saying: he toi whakairo, he mana tangata; where there is artistic excellence, there is human dignity.

Nō reira, kua mutu nei ōku nei kōrero. I have come to the end of my speech today. Ki a koutou, ki a koe e te Minita, tēnā koe e awhi mai nei koe ō mātou whanaunga o Ngāti Awa.

[And to you the Minister, greetings to you for embracing our relatives of Ngāti Awa.]

Tēnā koutou Ngāti Awa e noho mai nā i runga nā. E hari, e koa ana te ngākau kua whiwhi koutou ētahi o ngā taonga i ngāro. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

To Ngāti Awa, greetings, and for the gifts that have been returned to them: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

Tēnā koutou ngā mihi nui ki ngā hapū katoa, me ngā whānau hoki o Ngāti Awa. I give greetings to all of the people of Ngāti Awa.

Let me begin by making it clear that the Greens support this bill, because we support Ngāti Awa in their attempts to get redress for injustices perpetrated against them historically by the Crown and others. It is clear that Ngāti Awa have worked extremely hard to get to this point in the settlement process, and the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has already made mention of that, and spoken of it in some detail.

I understand that the formal process began in 1988. There were Waitangi Tribunal hearings in 1994, and negotiations were entered into in 1996. Eight years later, their legislation is finally coming to this Parliament. It is coming in two bills: this governance bill, which is before us today, and the settlement bill, which will have its first reading next week. As the Hon Parekura Horomia has said, this bill establishes a governance structure for the management of Ngāti Awa settlement assets. This is a significant issue, and there has been a lot of debate about the proper form of post-settlement governance structures.

I remember the hui in Taupō—I think it was last year—where there was quite extensive debate about what form post-settlement governance structures should take, and that will be the subject of ongoing debate, but I understand that Ngāti Awa did not want themselves to have to develop a new bill to establish a governance structure. My understanding is that they wanted to use the structure that had already been established in legislation in the 1988 Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act, and there are issues there. The rūnanga is currently a Māori trust board under the Māori trust board legislation. That means it is accountable to the Minister of Māori Affairs, and that is something that cannot continue.

The way that Māori trust board legislation is written has been a source of some mystery to me for some time. In particular, I have always found it somewhat patronising that a Māori trust board needs to have ministerial sign-off before it is accepted as a Māori trust board. So it is good to see that this will mean that the rūnanga will not be accountable to the Minister of Māori Affairs and will not need the Minister’s sign-off, but it will be accountable to ngā hapū me ngā whānau of Ngāti Awa. That is a good thing, because clearly that old configuration was not appropriate. But it seems that having a separate bill, in the way this bill is separate, could have been avoided by having a little bit more flexibility in the way that the Office of Treaty Settlements approached the issue. We think there could have been an amendment to the Maori Trust Boards Act, where those accountabilities could have been rectified on a broader front, which would have made some sense. But it seems that the Office of Treaty Settlements has bullied Ngāti Awa into an unnecessary legislative process, where a separate bill is going through to formalise the governance structure at the same time as the settlement bill is going ahead.

It is interesting that the Office of Treaty Settlements was happy to negotiate with the established rūnanga, which had received assets from the Crown in the past, but refused to accept them as a governance entity for the settlement, and I sometimes wonder at the pressures and imperatives on the Office of Treaty Settlements. I understand that the Office of Treaty Settlements wanted Ngāti Awa to establish a private trust, which would have meant that the assets would not be collectively owned in law but that there would have been individual entitlement, and, clearly, that approach would have been a cause of major problems. Ngāti Awa quite correctly did not want to go down that path, because they wanted their assets to be collectively owned, and that, I understand, would be correct according to tikanga.

This highlights the difficulty the Crown has in dealing with concepts of collective ownership, and it is the same difficulty we have seen in its approach to the seabed and foreshore legislation, where concepts of ownership governed by tikanga rather than by fee simple and individual title is something the Crown finds very difficult to grapple with, despite the ability of other jurisdictions to deal with those issues. Notably, Canada has been able to recognise those customary collective ownerships, but in New Zealand, it is something the Crown has great difficulty dealing with. So we are concerned that instead of working with Ngāti Awa to look at how to develop the best governance structures that are appropriate for the iwi, the Office of Treaty Settlements has tried to fit a round peg into a square hole. We think this is a classic case of the Office of Treaty Settlements attempting—and fortunately, failing—to impose its own views on iwi, forcing them to squeeze into models dictated by the Crown, and, we believe, failing to operate with the best interests of the iwi in mind.

What is of particular concern is that once again the costs of the delay and the obstructionist positioning by the Office of Treaty Settlements on behalf of the Crown are being borne primarily by the iwi. That is the standard practice, and it is most unfortunate that this is the case, because the iwi has incurred enormous time and fiscal costs that we believe would have been absolutely unnecessary if the Office of Treaty Settlements had been prepared to work with iwi instead of against them and had been prepared to show some flexibility and fluidity in the way it approached those issues.

So in supporting the progress of this bill—and we do support it and want to see this come to a speedy resolution—the Green Party thinks it is also an absolute disgrace that the Government is taking up time on a members’ day for this bill, when we believe it should have proceeded alongside the settlement bill as part of the Government legislative programme. We believe that the two bills could have been one bill, which could have gone through the process and then, if necessary, it could have been separated at the third reading, and there are many, many examples in this House where that process happens. We think that it is a slight to Ngāti Awa that this is the case, and that their governance entity legislation, which was required of them by the Office of Treaty Settlements, was not considered important enough by this Government to take up a slot on the Government’s timetable, and we wonder whether this is the quid pro quo for Ngāti Awa pursuing the best governance structure for Ngāti Awa. We think the Government should be ashamed of its bullying tactics in this regard. We do not believe that it had to be dealt with in that way, and we believe that Ngāti Awa should be congratulated on refusing to accept the Crown’s one-size-fits-all approach and demanding that the best results for their own people should be what determines their own governance structure. We support them in their expression of their rangatiratanga, and we congratulate them on working so persistently and so hard to bring this matter before the House. We look forward to the House passing this legislation forthwith.

I rise on behalf the ACT party to address the first reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I do not know what the ACT party’s position will be on this bill. At this stage I can give a few indications of the sorts of things that we would hope a select committee report on this bill might address, but I have to say that the bill seems to me to exhibit that kind of patronising contempt that George Bush has called “the bigotry of low expectations”. This bill looks like legislation in the same way that plastic pistols look like real ones. But when one looks at the words, one sees that it is legislation in form only. I believe that when article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi said that Māori were to get the same rights and privileges as British subjects, the people who entered into the treaty assumed that Māori would not be patronised with pale imitations of real law and real legislation.

As a lawyer, when I look at this bill and try to work out what it is doing, I cannot tell what that is, even with the explanation. The definitions that usually start a bill are circular. For instance, clause 3(1) provides that: “charter—(a) means the charter of Te Rūnanga; and (b) includes any amendments made to the charter”. The only definition of charter is that it is something that has been adopted by postal ballot of the adult members between 26 January and 1 March. It says what the charter must have, but it does not say whether it always has to have those characteristics. It is essentially embodying a charter or blessing a charter in legislation, but it might be amended the day after members pass this, so that all those protections mean nothing.

Clause 3(1) states: “customary rights—(a) means rights according to tikanga Māori … ”. That is a circular definition—what else could they be? Further in the definitions listed, the clause states that the people who are to benefit from this bill are those: “(A) descended from a Ngāti Awa tipuna: (B) a member of a hapu, group, family, or whanau referred to in paragraph (b);”, and I see that paragraph (b) then cross refers to the previous paragraph.

The quality of drafting in this bill is utterly insulting. I assume it is deliberate, that the Minister is not unaware of it, and that it is intended as some kind of smokescreen, but there is no indication to the House as to why. This House has a whole range of mechanisms that draw on the 150 years of accumulated experiences of New Zealanders, and, better than that, on the accumulated experiences of people struggling with the age-old problems that face all human institutions all around the world. When we draw on those experiences, we know some of the things that every human institution faces. We know what some of the more successful solutions are—and they can only be probabilities—and we know some of the things that do not work.

This bill says absolutely nothing about how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with and nothing about how nepotism is to be dealt with. It says nothing about the kinds of accounts and what scrutiny they will get, or what kind of independent audit there will be. This bill says nothing about the utterly essential element of every power structure—and a rūnanga is a structure for organising and coordinating collective assets—succession. All those matters are dealt with in any responsible legislation that sees some people entrusted with the custody of assets on behalf of others.

This bill should define what good stewardship is, and we know that is what the Crown set out to insist on. We know that when the hopeless Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations entered into office 5 years ago, she too was determined to draw on the good work that Te Ohu Kai Moana had done on appropriate governance models. That office had drawn mandate requirements, because it knew the kinds of things that happen when money is “easy come easy go”. It knew that all around the world those kinds of redress sums disappear, not necessarily through fraud, but because the governance of other people’s money when one has not earned it oneself is one of the hardest things for any body to achieve.

It is very hard to sustain an organisation. This bill seems to deliberately reject the Companies Act as a model. It seems to reject the Charitable Trusts Act, Co-operative Companies Act, and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act models. It seems to reject every possible model that could be drawn on as a guide to the sorts of things that make for robust long-term governance. Instead, we have a fake bill. That is typical of this Government’s approach to Māoridom. It sucks and crawls and pretends it is acting in the interests of Māoridom, when it is acting only in the interests of a tiny elite who have their hands on the levers of power. That is what happens when no retirement and succession mechanisms are specified. That is what happens when nothing in a bill states when a charter, deed, or constitution cannot be changed. When people in companies who have their hands on assets have the power to use them for their own purposes or to cement themselves in power, they do so, because they are human. Māori are not exempt from that. Sir Apirana Ngata and the others who worked all those years ago to try to create modern governance mechanisms for collectively held assets—to get away from the dreadful problems of trying to coordinate collective asset holdings when tribal entities had lost their power—did not ask for some Clayton’s imitation of a governance model.

This desperate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has entered into a deal because she has given up going for quality, and will now do a deal with a governance entity that Parliament has absolutely no way of assessing. Nothing in this bill tells us what will happen if beneficiaries decide that a small clique has power and is running away with it. Nothing in this bill tells us what duties and obligations Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa has in administering its assets. But the bill pretends to deal with that. Clause 8 states what the charter must have. It has a nice little list of desiderata, but it does not state what model or kind they are, nor how one can change them. They have been taken out of the purview of the Māori Trustee, presumably because of historical hostility to the interference—as some would see it—of the Māori Trustee, which itself was patronising. But governance is for others; stewardship is for others. Since time immemorial, in all cultures and all societies, stewards have run away with assets unless someone has kept an eye on them. This bill does not tell us who will keep an eye on those stewards. It does not even tell us how we can identify the stewards, who they are, and what they will be doing.

The bill states, for example, that Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa must hold assets on trust for the benefit of members. Does that mean all the members? Exclusively the members? Just some of the members? It does not say. It states that it must specify the manner in which the representatives are to be elected. Is that for all time? I ask the Minister what the purpose of this bill is. When the Minister of Māori Affairs sponsors a bill like this, one would assume he could answer those questions and that the select committee will give us a report that will explain clearly why this one-off, imitation legislation has come before the House to implement a settlement that should require a proper governance entity.

One day this House will debate yet another round of settlements, and Ngāti Awa will argue that the Government ought to pay them again because they lost that money, and it was utterly predictable that they lost it because the Crown allowed it to go to an entity that had no proper constraints. The next generation will argue that the Crown has set up a situation whereby it must know, in all probability, that the governance of the entity does not fall into any pattern that has been tried and tested by experience. The governance of this entity will fall into the hands of a self-interested group, and will be predictably—[Interruption] Exactly. The Hon Parekura Horomia said: “Like companies”. Companies fail, and that is why we refine company law year after year. Year after year governance is refined, and this House considers amendments so we can draw on the lessons of experience. Now the Ngāti Awa are being thrown into limbo. Ngāti Awa will be free to relearn all those lessons. But the money will be gone.

On behalf of United Future, I extend a welcome and greetings to the people of Ngāti Awa and congratulate them on their achievement in this bill and the bill that will accompany it. In particular, I thank them for their graciousness in accepting a settlement from the Crown that inadequately compensates them for their losses. How can the Crown compensate for the mana of those who have already passed on? How can the Crown compensate in any adequate fashion for the loss of land that Ngāti Awa suffered? United Future is delighted to support this bill, and delighted that what is the third-biggest settlement, I understand, after those of Ngāi Tahu and Tainui, has now come to fruition. This bill represents further substantial progress in our resolving of all historical treaty claims.

The historical treaty grievance process is weighted against Māori. Indeed, some could say it is unfair and unjust. But in the settlements that have been enacted, Māori have accepted with graciousness the reality that it is impossible for the Crown to fully compensate for the losses they have suffered. I pay tribute to Māori in general for their approach in doing that, their willingness to reach a resolution in terms of grievances, and their willingness to accept an apology and compensation that is substantially less than they deserve.

Normally it is the wrongdoers who come to the person who has been wronged to ask what they need to do to put things right. They ask what they can do in terms of full recompense for the losses suffered, and what they can do to provide additional compensation for the hurt feelings and lost mana suffered through the wrongs they have done.

The Crown does not act like that. The Crown puts very tight restrictions in terms of what it is prepared to offer, and offers a “take it or leave it” basis. The Crown admits it has done wrong, but in terms of compensation and redress, it dictates the terms upon which it will put it right. Those terms fall into a number of particular categories including who the Crown will negotiate with, and in particular its requirements that the group it negotiates with will be iwi or large natural groupings, when very often the wrongs that have been done have been wrongs against hapū, whānau in some cases, and individuals.

The Crown first dictates and says that it will not necessarily compensate those people who have actually been wronged. Instead, it wants to deal with large natural groupings. That is the first restriction.

The second is with regard to the maximum sum the Crown will be prepared to pay. It says that although it recognises the substantial degree of losses, and the substantial compensation that would be required to put that right, it will pay only a small percentage of that. The Crown sets a finite limit and says that is the bounds within which it will negotiate, and if that is not accepted, then it will not be able to negotiate.

Third, the Crown dictates which confiscated property is to be returned. In some cases the Crown has alienated the property and put it in private hands, and it is difficult to give it back to the iwi and hapū it was confiscated from. Nevertheless, the Crown then dictates the terms and says: “Well this is the property on offer. If you want compensation, this is all we have available for you to take, and you must accept that.”

The fourth area, which this bill particularly addresses, is the governance entity. In the past the Crown has tended to say it will dictate the form of governance entity to manage the settlement proceeds. It says: “These are the models, which are Western-constructed models in the British tradition, that you are to use, and that is what is required of you.” I am delighted that this bill is one of the few examples where the Crown has been prepared to allow Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to dictate the sort of governance entity that they want in order to manage their own assets. The Government has allowed this bill as a one-off in order to reflect what Ngāti Awa are wanting to achieve.

Certainly there are some bottom lines, I think, for the sake of Māori generally, for the sake of Ngāti Awa and their descendants, and for the sake of the country as a whole, that need to be met. This includes provisions for democratically elected representatives to manage the funds, so that the people do indeed have a say as to how that should be done, and the need for some accountability with regard to the settlement proceeds, so that they cannot be frittered away or taken away without the people’s knowledge and consent.

That accountability is necessary and, in the area of accountability, this bill is particularly distinctive, in so far as the current situation with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, and the situation with some of the other settlements, is concerned. In the past those entities were required to be Māori trust boards under the Māori Trust Boards Act of 1955, and were thereby accountable to the Minister of Māori Affairs and, by that, to the Crown. So the accountability of the iwi was an accountability to the State. I think that is wrong and I am very pleased to see that in this bill, accountability is to the people of Ngāti Awa instead.

In our Western society and in our inherited British systems, there are structures such as companies, trusts, and incorporated societies that are accountable to their own members—not to the Crown—with regard to the assets owned by those members. It is not the Crown’s money once the compensation has been paid, and it is very appropriate that the Crown does not then hold the strings and say: “Well, you be accountable to the Crown, and if you are not managing it correctly, then the Crown will step in and make decisions.”

Once the Crown has paid the compensation and returned the assets to Ngāti Awa, it is entirely appropriate that Ngāti Awa should then be in control of those assets. If the people of Ngāti Awa are not happy with the way things are happening, then they are the ones to whom the accountability is directed, and can take control, take up the issue, and make changes themselves. I am aware that the rūnanga has been reconstituted rather than a new body being formed, and I think it is good that that continuity has been able to be built into the legislation so that it will avoid problems that would otherwise have arisen in a legal sense by deconstructing one form of entity, namely, a Māori trust board, and the construction of a new entity as proposed in this bill.

Clearly these issues have been carefully thought through by Ngāti Awa. The huge level of support in terms of the governance entity is a reflection of that, and I am delighted there has been such a high level of registration of people, and also that there was no opposition to the bill’s provisions from those who had registered. It bodes very well for Ngāti Awa that it has been given control over its own destiny as far as these assets are concerned.

United Future has been pleased to support the Government’s intention to shorten the time for the select committee to deal with this issue so that the bill comes back to the House sooner than it would otherwise. Given the huge level of consent for the bill and the lack of opposition to it, it should mean that the select committee is well able to consider the bill and report it back in speedy time so that it can be passed reasonably promptly, and certainly before the end of the year.

As I have said, United Future is very supportive of what is happening here. We congratulate Ngāti Awa on its achievements and we wish it well in terms of its management of these new assets.

I seek leave to make a 5-minute contribution to this debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Tēnā tātou katoa. Tuatahi tēnei ahau e mihi kau ana ki ngā mōrehu o Ngāti Awa, koutou ko ngā tini mate e pīkau nei e koutou i runga i ō koutou nei pokohiwa, e kawea nei e rātau i roto i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou. Ki a tātau, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Greetings to us all. I stand here and extend a greeting to the survivors of Ngāti Awa in the first instance and then to the many deaths that are upon your shoulders that you bring with you into this House. Greetings, and greetings to us all.]

I rise to speak on the first reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. As members are aware, this is a member’s bill sponsored by the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who is also the Minister of Māori Affairs, and I think it is an appropriate measure given that he is going to cut the apron strings with regard to the Maori Trust Boards Act. This bill is sponsored by the member as a transitional step to ensure that Ngāti Awa has a governance entity that can receive and administer settlement assets from the Ngāti Awa treaty claims settlement. A lot of work has gone into preparing this bill, and it is most certainly worth congratulating the people of Ngāti Awa—Professor Hirini Mead—and Andrew Hampton at the Office of Treaty Settlements on constructing this bill.

The establishment of a governance entity for Ngāti Awa has a unique and distinct history. My humble recollection of events is that up until about the 1980s there was no central entity to represent the particular interests of Ngāti Awa. In previous representations to Parliament and the Board of Māori Affairs they were asked to consider this matter, but historically that was to no avail. I have looked at the Ngāti Awa website and seen that it shows that upon the advice of Sir James Fletcher to Eruera Manuera and Hirini Mead, it was recommended that Ngāti Awa go ahead and set itself up as a trust board. It did that as a charitable trust incorporated in 1981 under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. So basically Ngāti Awa had to do that all by itself. That was agreed to and confirmed at a hui-ā-iwi on 16 November 1980 at Puawairua Marae in Whakatāne.

It was at that point that work was commenced to advance Ngāti Awa’s raupatu case. I guess that people on the Government side of the House with a long enough tooth will recall that in 1983 Ben Couch made the first offer of a settlement, which was turned down by Ngāti Awa, and the iwi has that story to tell. Perhaps the most difficult part of the journey to advance the raupatu case was for Ngāti Awa to gain confirmation of its governance entity as a trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act. Other trust boards already in existence received some type of annuity in recognition of prior injustices caused by raupatu, or the land confiscations that occurred in 1863. So trust boards emerged, such as Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board, the Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board, and, in my own area, the Tainui Māori Trust Board, for the very reason of advancing claims against the Crown for the injustices of raupatu. That was not the case for Ngāti Awa. It was some 8 years later, in 1988, that Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa was established by statute as a Māori trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act, with a statutory pardon included in recognition of historical grievances committed by the Crown against Ngāti Awa dating back to the early 1860s—the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863, and the subsequent confiscation of Ngāti Awa lands.

It is important at the first reading of this bill to remind members of the House of the statutory pardon that is in this Bill. It reads: “He panui tenei ki te motu katoa, ka tutuki ana tenei Ture, koinei te wa e whakahokia ai ki a ratou te ihi, te mana, te tapu o nga tangata o Ngati Awa i mauhereheretia, i whakawakia i te tau 1865, ki o ratou whanau hoki, ki o ratou iwi, tae atu ki a Ngati Awa whanui. Ka wetekina katoatia nga whiu o te ture i pa ki a ratou i roto i nga pakanga whenua o Te Tau 1865.”

[“It is hereby declared that after the passing of this Part of this Act the character, mana, and reputation of the persons of Ngati Awa descent who were arrested, tried, and labelled as rebels in or about 1865 is restored to them and their whanau and to the iwi of Ngati Awa as a whole, and a full pardon is hereby granted to them in respect of all matters arising out of the land wars in 1865.”]

The English translation of that is actually in the bill, and members will get to see it in the Māori Affairs Committee. It is a carry-over provision, and it is an important provision that should not be overlooked by members.

The members who preceded me have outlined what is in the bill. Of interest to members will be the issues around the question of the charter that Mr Franks raised. The fact that the charter is not in the bill provides greater flexibility for Ngāti Awa basically to determine issues for itself. People are quick to talk about breaking the shackles of dependency, but then they want to try to legislate and regulate everything within the governance entity legislation. That is simply not on. We accept that there is some way to go. We also accept that there are some issues to discuss at the select committee level. I look forward to hearing from Ngāti Awa as to its views on this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

E tū ake anō au ki te mihi ake anō i a koutou, Hirini, ngā tū pakeke o te wāhi i a koutou e tae kaha ake anō i konei i tū i mua i te kaupapa, e Joe, koutou e Hune, koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

[I rise once again to acknowledge you all, Hirini, the elders, Joe, Hune, for the part that you all had a hand in as well as the strong presence shown here at the reading of this bill, greetings to you all.]

To the learned elders and the people who have come here today, I thank them very much. I thank the previous speakers for the support they have shown for this bill, which proposes the establishment of a new governance entity for Ngāti Awa. My honourable friend Nanaia Mahuta has certainly summarised the essence of this bill very well. People have said this has taken too long, and that Ngāti Awa would have done better if they had been there. Well, they were not. There are certainly people who want to mirror the progress of Māori through the narrowness of companies that are accountable only to their owners and their directors, and that issue is not too dissimilar to that.

💬 Stephen Franks: What about trust?

I want to make sure that the trust that I have in the leaders of Ngāti Awa and in the people, who have been quite clear on their succession plan and their progress towards it, are the reasons why I have sponsored this bill. The days of Māori being patronised and looked down on—dare I mention it, at times by this bastion of supposed knowledge—are over.

This bill is about freeing up people to do what they wish, to express themselves, and to undertake development for their people—those who are here now in contemporary times, and those who are about to come. Most certainly, the distrust that is espoused at times by people who are over-endowed with legalistic constraint is something that I always shudder at. It is more important to understand that Māori people know what they want. The people of Ngāti Awa have put a lot of effort into this bill, and they sure as hang know where they need to go. They do not need to hang on to the apron strings of a Minister of Māori Affairs, or of anyone else. I have faith in their courage. I appreciate and recognise that they want to do the best that they can for their people. I remind the member Stephen Franks, who is trying to interject, that they are no different from his companies, which look after themselves.

I wish to reinforce that the new entity will provide a structure that is accountable to its beneficiaries—to the people. The benefits that have been squared off are the benefits that were tuku-ed to those people, not to that member and to everybody else who wants to keep this issue in the quagmire of deficit and deceit. This bill is about Ngāti Awa going forward. It has to be about transparent decision-making procedures and a dispute resolution process. There are ups and downs amongst the iwi, and at times there are tensions. That is no different to the situation of a whole lot of Pākehā companies, which try to take one another over.

💬 Stephen Franks: Exactly!

Let us not make believe that those things only happen in certain people’s cultures.

It is most certainly more important to understand that the new entity and the settlement it will administer are major milestones for Ngāti Awa. I respect and pay real recognition to Ngāti Awa for its patience. I am proud to support Ngāti Awa through my sponsorship of the bill, and I remind that member and other members that they need to watch this space because Ngāti Awa is going forward. It is not that the iwi has stopped. However, this legislation should help Ngāti Awa to determine and define the better way forward for its people. I am confident that Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa will continue to prosper under the new structural arrangements. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report by 1 December 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).