Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill

on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I am very pleased to be doing this. I intend also to move, at the appropriate time, that this bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration. I will include an instruction that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and 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), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 December 2004.

This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant historical treaty grievances of Ngāti Awa of Eastern Bay of Plenty, who number about 18,000 members. The bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed with Ngāti Awa in March 2003 for the resolution of all of its historical treaty claims. These claims relate mainly to land confiscation, the compensation process, and the operation and impact of the native land laws. The Waitangi Tribunal heard the—mainly 19th century—claims in 1994 and 1995, and issued the Ngāti Awa Raupatu Report on 8 October 1999. Its principal findings were that the land confiscation was contrary to the treaty, there was no rebellion to justify confiscation, and confiscation appears to have been beyond the authority of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The Crown acknowledges in the settlement that the confiscation of about 250,000 acres of Ngāti Awa lands—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is pretty serious for the people who are here today.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. There is chatter around the House. If members cannot talk very quietly but need to talk, could they please go out to the lobby.

💬 Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Crown acknowledges in the settlement that the confiscation of about 250,000 acres of Ngāti Awa lands constituted an injustice, and was therefore a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. An agreed account of the historical events about the Crown’s interactions with Ngāti Awa is set out in the bill’s preamble.

The public can be reassured the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill, and has negotiated with the interests of the taxpayer in mind. It is not possible to compensate Ngāti Awa fully for all the prejudice and loss it has suffered. Settlements must take account of other developments and the commitments existing in New Zealand society today. I congratulate Ngāti Awa on negotiating on this wider-interests basis. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense, there would be no settlements and therefore no resolution of historical grievances.

I shall give a summary of the settlement redress. Ngāti Awa negotiators have agreed to a settlement package, which includes a Crown apology for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; financial redress of $42.39 million, including portions of the Rotoehu and Kaingaroa Forests; the vesting of six commercial properties; the vesting of seven cultural redress properties; a statutory acknowledgment of Ngāti Awa’s special association with nine statutory areas; the granting of renewable camping entitlements over four nohoanga sites; and the right of first refusal over an amount of quota for certain shellfish species.

The bill makes it clear this is a final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngāti Awa. Ancillary claims relate to the following: in recognition of the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings with regard to the three ancillary claims, the Crown agreed to settle these alongside the main Ngāti Awa settlement. I intend to include the provisions affecting the three ancillary claims, which have recently been finalised in the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill, by means of a Supplementary Order Paper.

I turn to the governance entity to be established through legislation. Last week this House debated the first reading of Ngāti Awa’s private bill—Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. That bill has been purpose-designed by Ngāti Awa to establish an appropriate entity to receive the settlement redress, while retaining key features of its existing entity, including its statutory status. As my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs signalled last week, it is important that these two bills are progressed through the House in a coordinated manner in order to implement the agreements reached.

There are challenges in this settlement process. Discussions around treaty settlement redress options, are sometimes controversial, and challenges to particular settlements are to be expected in the course of negotiations. There are often big issues at stake, and the Crown must carefully balance a range of interests. In Ngāti Awa’s case, challenges were raised by some overlapping claimant groups and by the licensee of the Crown forest land, who were concerned about the protection of their rights. The Crown and Ngāti Awa worked to ensure the issues raised were appropriately addressed. Consequently, the legal challenges brought by these groups were dismissed by the courts. The sound process that the Crown has followed in negotiating these and other claims ensures that treaty settlements will stand the test of time.

I now want to acknowledge the people who have been involved. I want first to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Awa, who have suffered as a result of the Crown’s breaches of the treaty, and those who carried the grievances and who are no longer with us. I want to thank the Ngāti Awa kaumātua, kuia, and negotiators—some of whom are present in the House today—for the constructive and conscientious way in which they have worked. Our goal is to ensure that settlements resolve grievances of the past. This bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Awa into the future. I wish to thank other Ministers and departments involved—in particular, the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Conservation, who have supported the process throughout. I also acknowledge the work contributed by former Ministers of the Crown. I also wish to thank the Office of Treaty Settlements for the work done in seeking a just and fair settlement. As New Zealanders we can be proud that real and significant grievances are being recognised and settled peacefully within the law. I say once again, on behalf of Margaret Wilson, the Minister for whom I am standing in, that I commend this bill to the House.

Waiata.

I will depart slightly from the strictures of the Standing Orders and offer greetings and best wishes to those of Ngāti Awa who are in the House today for this historic first reading of their settlement bill. I also extend best wishes to Ngāti Awa from my colleague Georgina te Heuheu, who is unfortunately not able to be here as she is on her way to China on public business.

The National Party supports the passage of this bill and the passing of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. The first reading of this bill today comes at the end of some 15 years of negotiations, and when the bill has passed its third reading it will end about 140 years during which there has been a feeling of grievance over the injustice of land confiscation and other matters that took place in the century before last. It is appropriate that in this country we do settle these matters and settle them as quickly as we possibly can. Perhaps 15 years seems like a long time, but in the context of the grievance it was a reasonable time, I think, to get a good outcome. It is important also that in reaching these settlements the Crown is certain of the mandate of those who are affected and party to the claim. In this case, that is well and truly satisfied and made all the more clear by the passing of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, which was introduced into the House last week. We have a slight concern about the way in which the ancillary claims are being dealt with, but we will participate fully in seeing those sorted out as quickly as possible.

I want to say on this occasion that during this year the party I represent has, at various times, been criticised for its attitude to things Māori and in some cases for its relationship with Māori. I want to make it very clear that we do not see any difficulty in settling historic grievances that were born out of misrepresentation or inappropriate activity subsequent to the passing of the treaty. We do have a deep concern about where this country goes from this point. Over the next 10 years or so, there will be many settlements such as this. At the end of that time, while the understanding of the history will be clear in all our heads, the only thing that we have together is the opportunity to look forward. That is the key point that my political party, under the leadership of Don Brash, has been trying to make and will continue to make. There will be those on the other side of the House who disagree with us. [Interruption] That is OK, as long as it is just an argument that we express in a verbal fashion, I say to Mr Horomia.

I look now at the settlement bill in front of us at the moment, and particularly at Subpart 5 in Part 4, “Subpart 5—Joint management committee for Moutohorā (Whale Island) Wildlife Management Reserve, Ōhope Scenic Reserve, and Tauwhare Pā Scenic Reserve”. The way in which the parties to this bill have decided that a constitution should be put around a joint management committee for those parts of the country is very interesting. I note, as I look further through the bill, that that committee will have all the powers and capacities of what we understand currently to be conservation boards. We note that the obligation to service that board through funding provisions lies directly with the Crown—over and above any settlements in cash terms that are paid.

I cannot help thinking that in New Zealand today we need to look at more of these sorts of arrangements to get over some of the difficulties that we will face as the disastrous seabed and foreshore legislation progresses into law later this year. My party does not agree with that law, and we will not support it because it will create, in our view, too many more instances where there is grievance—and not only for Māori but for many other New Zealanders who have no other country in the world to call their own. I think that goes right to the heart of the issue that seems to be consuming us a little too much at the moment—the relationship between the Crown and Māori.

The first point is that Māori are not one grouping but many, in my understanding. That is fair and that is all right. But what has to be understood is that the Crown is all of us. Each and every one of us who claims to be a citizen in this country is the Crown. We cannot go on year in, year out, year after year allowing ourselves to believe that somehow, in all the obligation that is part and parcel of the treaty, there is an obligation from those who are the Crown to those who are Māori. That will never let us move forward as one country made up of many peoples with many different beliefs and cultural ties. It will keep us as separate people, and that is not a good thing for the future of this country.

I say again that, interestingly, in Subpart 5 of Part 4 there is the genesis of a new way of looking at the best interests of the land, of the sea, of the air, and of everything else that we value in the environment of New Zealand. I am sure that those sorts of thoughts will be something I will get an opportunity to speak about on a future occasion. I simply conclude my remarks this afternoon by congratulating those who have worked for so many years, with considerable good will, to get us to this point today. I also give the commitment that my party will continue to work through the treaty grievance process to see settlement as quickly as possible. I repeat that that is a commitment we can claim because of our past history in that regard, and because of the work done by our predecessors in this party. It is only by achieving these sorts of settlements and by having important parliamentary days like today, when the entire Parliament will cast its vote in favour of this bill, that New Zealand can be certain it has a very bright and vibrant future.

E tika ake anō i runga i te tū nei ki te mihi ake anō ki a rātou o Ngāti Awa e tae ake anō i konei. Ngā mea pakeke pērā i a koutou e Hirini, e Joe, ngā kuia, ngā koroua me rātau kāre i konei, kāre e tae. Kua haere ake anō ki tērā wāhi e mōhio ake anō tātau kei te mau mahara ake anō ngā tupuna. Tēnā tātau.

[It is apt that I acknowledge Ngāti Awa who have arrived here, as I rise. To you the elders, Hirini, Joe, grandmothers, grandfathers, as well as those who are not present, who have passed on and remain in our memories, greetings to us all.]

I rise to greet those people of Ngāti Awa who have arrived here today, and I certainly pay due respect to those people who have passed on in this long journey. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to support this bill.

I stand here today to support the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. This is an important day for Ngāti Awa, and I commend them for their vision and fortitude in getting this far. Along with my colleague Steve Maharey I recognise all those people involved in this lengthy journey, especially, at this stage, the Office of Treaty Settlements; the Minister, Margaret Wilson; and my colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mita Ririnui. This party is serious about finalising the settlements and getting on with business.

The deed settles all the historical claims of Ngāti Awa. It sets out an agreed historical background, acknowledged breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Crown apology for those breaches. The historical claims of Ngāti Awa mainly relate to the confiscation of land, the compensation process, and the operation and impact of the native land laws. In the settlement, the Crown has acknowledged that the confiscation of the Ngāti Awa lands constituted an injustice and was therefore a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The settlement also includes financial and commercial redress with a total value of $42,390,000, including portions of the Rotoehu and Kāingaroa Forests. It will enable Ngāti Awa to exercise kaitiakitanga and commercial management opportunities over some of their key places and resources. The settlement redress provides recognition of Ngāti Awa’s traditional historical, cultural, and spiritual association with places and sites.

Statutory acknowledgments that register the special association Ngāti Awa has with an area include acknowledgments over part of the Whakatāne, Rangitaiki, and Tarawera Rivers, Moutohorā Island Wildlife Management Reserve, and part of the Ohiwa Harbour. Deeds of recognition require the Crown to consult Ngāti Awa and have regard for their views about Ngāti Awa’s special association with a particular site. The bill provides for four deeds of recognition, covering the Crown-owned parts of the Whakatāne, Rangitaiki, and Tarawera riverbeds, and Uretara Island. Clauses 21 to 26 of the bill provide for the issues of protocols by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. The bill sets out that the Crown must comply with the protocols agreed between Ngāti Awa and the departments while they are in force. As well, the bill provides for noting of the Department of Conservation’s protocol in the conservation documents that affect Department of Conservation protocol areas. There are official place name changes in this category. The bill changes the name Volkner Rocks to Te Paepae o Aotea; Awāteatua Beach to Te Awa a Te Atua Beach; and Braemar Springs to Te Waiu o Pukemarie.

Areas of special significance to Ngāti Awa are to be returned to iwi. The bill provides for seven important reserves to be vested in the Ngāti Awa governance entity: Kāpūterangi Historic Reserve; Te Paripari Pā Historic Reserve; Otitapu Pā within the Mangaone Scenic Reserve; the former Matahina A4 block; Te Toangapoto within the Western Whakatāne Recreation Reserve; Te Ihukatia, part of the Port Ōhope Recreation Reserve; and Whakapaukorero within Matata Scenic Reserve. The Crown will gift Ngāti Awa $1 million to assist in the redevelopment of the Mātaatua meeting house complex.

As my learned colleague Gerry Brownlee said earlier on, we are all keen to get this finished. I remind that member that we did get it finished, rather than getting mixed up in his garble about whether they are being serious about handing Ngāti Awa a path towards a future that does recognise nationhood. Restoration of access to traditional tools and food gathering areas includes Ngāti Awa’s customary fisheries. Camping licenses, or nohoanga, will be established and located in the Matata Wildlife Reserve and the Port Ōhope Recreation Reserve, for example. This settlement is a great settlement. The deputy leader of the National Party, whom I have not seen for a couple of weeks, has returned to preach and to try to teach us about nationhood. It is important, for any unified way forward, that we do not scratch the racist itch—that we end and finish off, and make sure—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Let the guy who did the work speak!

—that people like Mr Ryall, especially, recognise the Māori people, the tangata whenua, in their areas. He should cough up and ensure that things are done. This is only the beginning. It has been a long journey, and the fact that we are arriving at the end is through the efforts of this Government in making sure that finality has come about. People who continue to preach one nation but say we should all live like other people, really alarm me.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: We have always recognised people’s needs.

I am really open to living as one people. There are different churches, such as the Catholic Church, the Baptists, the Mormons, and—dare I mention it—Destiny Church. Let us be all of that, but let us make sure—[Interruption] That is right. We are all New Zealanders, so let us start being proactive, whether we are Irish New Zealanders, Scottish Māori, Welsh Māori, Whakatāne Māori, and all of that. We treat them all the same when it suits. We look to members’ support all the way through, in order to finish this quickly, because we are right here now, and the proof will be in the pudding. I say to members that I thank them very much for their support—I thank the whole House. This is serious business. It is about nationhood, but it is also about the place of tangata whenua. In the sense of signing this off, we have done that.

Ā, tēnā anō tātau e huihui mai nei i roto i tēnei o ō tātau Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Awa kua tae mai ā-tinana mai nei ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e whakawhitiwhitia ana i roto i tēnei o ō tātau Whare.

Greetings to us all and greetings to Ngāti Awa, who have come not only in body but also in spirit to listen to the speaking and talking that will take place this afternoon. After having listened to the Minister of Māori Affairs talk about certain issues relating to Ngāti Awa, I would like to introduce three phrases: tapatapa whenua, takahi whenua, and ahi kā.

[naming the land, walking the land, and keeping the fires burning]

When our wakas originally came to Aotearoa and landed, the first thing our menfolk did was to walk the land and claim it, by leaving stone markers. They named the different places after historical events, genealogies, and important issues that were meaningful to them. As time went on and they moved to other areas of the country, the phrase ahi kā came into being. It meant that the fires were still burning at home. When the people moved away, that was indicated by them going home and walking over their lands—signifying to the whanaunga and those still at home that they still had their fires burning, and their interests in their land.

The deed of settlement contains acknowledgements by the Crown, and they include acknowledgements regarding the efforts of Ngāti Awa since 1867 to gain compensation, the events relating to the Crown expedition to arrest those involved in the murders of Fulloon and others, the confiscation of Ngāti Awa lands, the inadequacies of the Compensation Court process, the operation and impact of the native land laws, the loss of land under the public works legislation, the suffering and hardships resulting from the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions, and the contribution made by Ngāti Awa to the nation’s defence in New Zealand’s war efforts overseas.

Let us think about the positive contribution that Ngāti Awa has made by bringing this country of New Zealand into closer racial harmony during the Second World War. That was displayed by Ngāti Awa’s participation and sacrifice, along with other New Zealanders, as they took their full share in the front line of battle. The query I have is whether Ngāti Awa has proved to be an asset to this country. If it has, Ngāti Awa asks to be dealt with as such. An asset that is discovered in the crucible of war should have a value in peacetime. The men of the New Zealand Division saw below the dark skins of their Māori comrades. In a passage that should be memorised by every New Zealander, Ngata demanded: “Have the civilians of New Zealand, men and women, fully realised the implications of the joint participation of Māori and Pākehā in this last and greatest demonstration of the highest citizenship?”. We should think about that—the highest citizenship, of Pākehā and Māori, developed in the crucible of war.

I am sure that all that Ngāti Awa has laid claim to has not been, and will not be, missed, but there will probably be dissatisfaction amongst Ngāti Awa themselves. Kei te tika ōku kōrero? Āe,

[Is what I am saying correct? Yes,]

because let me go back to two of the three phrases I mentioned in the beginning—tapatapa whenua, and ahi kā—and ask what it all means. Even with the claim that has been settled now, the hearts of Ngāti Awa are still with the areas that have not been returned to them. Takahi whenua! Why do people think we have tribal boundaries that still exist today?

It is because the people, when they arrived in those times, walked those boundaries and put the stones there, which recognised a deal between tribes. Sometimes a bit of land was taken, but it was given back, because those who did go and take that land could not live on it. They went back to their homes. New Zealanders need to really understand the tikanga and culture of the people who first resided in this land, so that they can understand why their descendants are claiming what they claim. I am sure that Ngāti Awa, as I have said, has not realised its claims, but let me compliment it. New Zealand First salutes Ngāti Awa for what it has achieved in coming to an amicable agreement that will benefit not only Ngāti Awa but the country as a whole.

It could be said—and the idea has been kicked around—that racial tensions have been tested recently. I am sure, however, that the settlement issues that have been before the House, and that will come before the House in future, will lead to the remedy of a more harmonious future. New Zealand First is of the thinking and belief that we need to get these settlements settled in the best way possible, to the satisfaction, or close to the satisfaction, of the claimants and the general citizenship of this country. New Zealand First again, as in the past, asks this House what the principles are of the Treaty of Waitangi. That issue needs to be clarified, and to that end New Zealand First recommends that the bill goes to the select committee.

Before I conclude, I ask this question: what is the difference between kāwanatanga and the Crown? That was an issue in the select committee last Tuesday. If we remember that prior to 1840 our people learnt the English language by reading and studying the Bible, we would know that the word “kāwanatanga” comes from a transliteration of the word “governorship”. When the treaty was translated from the English version into the Māori version, the word “sovereignty” could not be used, so kāwanatanga was used. Otherwise, the chiefs would not have signed the treaty. Rangatiratanga was not used. Today we have these disputes and we have this to-ing and fro-ing. But let us look ahead and work together as a nation that, as I have quoted, was created in the crucible of war, where skin and its colour was never taken into consideration but where men fought to give us our freedom. Nō reira e hoa mā, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

Kia ora koutou katoa! Te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira, ngā tungāne, ngā tuākana koutou o Ngāti Awa kua tae tautoko mai i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. Tēnā hoki koutou me te huhua o ō tātou mate, e kore e taea e tātau te aukatia, haere e ngā mate. Kua whakanaumaihia e ēnā o ō tātau mātua tūpuna. Ē kī ana te kōrero, oti atu te pō, nau mai te ao. Huri noa i tō tātau piringa nei e tū kaha nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa .

[Greetings to you all! Welcome to the visitors from afar, to the elders, chiefs, brothers, and senior peers of Ngāti Awa who have arrived here this afternoon in support. Welcome. Greetings to you in respect of our many deaths, which we are not able to avoid. Farewell the dead. Those of our ancestors who have gone before you are there to welcome you. It is said that when night is done, the world of light replaces it. And so to all of you throughout this building of ours, which stands firmly before us, greetings, greetings, greetings.]

This settlement arises out of confiscations of land made by the Crown in order to punish Ngāti Awa for alleged rebellions in the 1860s. The alleged rebellions arose out of the participation by some Ngāti Awa hapū in the Tai Rāwhiti force that was intending to go to the Waikato to assist the iwi there, as well as out of the retribution for the killing of four people in 1865. When the Crown executed arrest warrants in response to those killings, the Crown’s force destroyed considerable property and laid waste to many pā within the rohe of Ngāti Awa, causing massive damage to the hapū. Over 30 men were arrested under those warrants. All of them were imprisoned, and two were executed. Ngāti Awa, for generations, has carried the stigma of “tangata hara” as a result.

When the Waitangi Tribunal heard the case in the late 1990s, it was clearly of the view that the confiscation of the lands of Ngāti Awa was contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that there was no rebellion to justify the confiscations, and that the confiscations as effected were outside the law. About 245,000 acres of land were confiscated in 1866, and eventually about 77,000 acres were returned, but the land was returned to individuals—contrary to tikanga Māori. Of course, those lands became more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and land alienation because they were held in private title, and not by the collective from whom the land was stolen.

Ngāti Awa entered into the direct negotiations process in a formal way around 1996, I understand. Prior to that, Ngāti Awa had been involved in a variety of negotiations with various Governments since the 1980s. It had built up considerable experience and background, which should have provided a strong basis for a relatively smooth settlement process, one would think. But despite that long experience and the clear position of the tribunal, this settlement has been unnecessarily delayed, which has caused enormous and unjustified stress to be put on Ngāti Awa. The delay was specifically caused by the Crown’s refusal to accept the governance structure that Ngāti Awa considered best met its needs and which, with minor alterations, could have met the Crown’s requirements. But instead of working constructively with Ngāti Awa, the Crown took a policy position from which it refused to move, which has caused a very costly delay.

The settlement process has been described as one of “pauperising” an iwi—of draining critical resources over long periods, as a means of undermining an iwi and strengthening the Government’s negotiating position. One example is the Crown’s approach to funding the direct negotiations process, which is under considerable criticism. Thankfully, Ngāti Awa was able to receive some support for the negotiations from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust because its settlement includes some forestry land, but that does not relieve the Crown of its obligation to provide assistance to iwi to negotiate with the Crown on an equal footing. The Crown expects iwi to maintain a negotiation over a long period of time, but remains stingy with its resources. The lack of resourcing has received some criticism that it is in part a Crown policy to run iwi into the ground, and that perhaps by doing that, an iwi will fight a little less than it would otherwise, and the Crown will be victorious in the iwi’s defeat. The Greens certainly agree with the concern that it is grossly unjust and unfair that iwi must get into debt in order to seek redress for past wrongful Crown actions. A fair and just process, firstly, would have been designed by the treaty partners and, second, requires equally resourced and informed parties, ideally negotiating on a level playing field, with full disclosure of information at the outset of proceedings.

The Greens continue to be highly critical of a settlement process where the iwi, who are the aggrieved party, have no authority or control over that process. We understand that the necessary boundaries in a negotiation should be jointly negotiated if they are to be fair, but in the settlement process that is simply not the case. The Government sets its own policy and positions and remains inflexible, with a “take it or leave it” approach that is not fair negotiation but a managed bullying. We understand that there was little negotiation with the Crown over the amount of financial compensation, for example, that was eventually provided in the settlement. Ngāti Awa presented its views and the Crown came back with its quantum, but unsurprisingly, the Crown provided very little in the way of justification for the amount of compensation it offered. Again, it was a “take it or leave it” approach, not a negotiation.

Ngāti Awa did find more flexibility in negotiating cultural redress, and has as part of its settlement a number of statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, protocols, place-name changes, and transferred sites, to name just some of that redress. However, the cultural redress package, and its protocols and advisory committees, is a poor substitute for recognition of the treaty relationship. For example, providing for Ngāti Awa to express its views to the Ministry for the Environment, but not to the Minister, on the application of Treaty of Waitangi and Resource Management Act issues gives very little practical effect to te tiriti, and is in fact, in our view, a watering-down of it. Another example is clause 21 of the bill, which gives the Minister the authority to amend or cancel protocols after consulting and having regard to the views of Ngāti Awa. But again, Ngāti Awa does not have any control or decision making over that process, and there is little there for it. The principles of fairness and justice that supposedly guide the settlement process are not actually a true reflection of the process. It is a political one, in which the Crown sets the framework and Māori are continually expected to compromise.

In my second reading speech on the Ngāti Ruanui settlement some time ago, I referred to a description of the Crown’s process as one of the duress of poverty, whereby the needs of hapū are such that every opportunity must be taken to build resources in order to undo the deprivation and harm caused by over a century of legislative violence committed against Māori, even where those resources fall massively short of what was wrongfully taken. After witnessing the signing of the deed of settlement for the Ngāti Awa claim, it became clear that the Crown, the Ministers, and the officials will never understand at what a cost that was to the rangatira who have fought for so long to obtain recognition of the crimes, restitution for the theft, and a simple but genuine apology. Surely, no one can fail to see the irony of the Government making its heartfelt apology for its past wrongful confiscations against Ngāti Awa, while—as I stand here in the House now—a select committee is hearing strenuous and articulate objections to a further wrongful confiscation of land within the rohe of Ngāti Awa.

What is an apology worth? The Greens acknowledge that this settlement is the best that Ngāti Awa could have secured under the current settlement policy, and we congratulate Ngāti Awa on pursuing some restitution through that demanding and unjust process. Despite our serious misgivings about the underlying nature of the settlement process and the long and difficult path that is involved, we understand that the people of Ngāti Awa are confident that for them, this settlement provides a measure of rangatiratanga. That is why the Greens will support the referral of this bill to the select committee.

I rise with some mixed feelings to speak on this bill. I am not the Māori affairs spokesperson for our party, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, for I am one of the few whom I would call—and, indeed, whom my Māori colleagues call—tangata whenua. I am a man of the land, I speak with passion about the land, and I understand the feeling deep within Ngāti Awa today at the redressing, in some respect, of the stealing of land from the Ngāti Awa people many years ago by the Crown. I do not stand here today to talk about my grievance, which will occur, and is occurring, to 350 people from the South Island, where I come from; that is not a matter to be addressed today. I mention it only so that the people listening to this debate can understand that I speak with courage and conviction on this issue of land. I understand what is happening, and what has happened, to Ngāti Awa in the past.

I note the waiata in clause 8(8)(c) of the bill:

Here I live as an orphan

An orphan upon the land,

An orphan among the people.

At night I weep helplessly,

For where is hospitality to be given?

They are rather beautiful words. Those of us who have put down our roots in this land, only to have the land taken by the Crown for another purpose, understand those words—but that, as I said, is a matter for another day.

As I said earlier, it is with some mixed feelings that I speak, because the ACT party will not support the passage of this bill, and I hope the House will give me the opportunity to explain why that should be. It has been mentioned before, and I will read from clause 8(7) of the bill, that “The Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngati Awa were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” I do not know how many times members from this side of the House have asked the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Margaret Wilson, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Māori Affairs to stand in this House and tell us what those principles are, so that we can debate them accurately. What are those principles? They have never been given. Nobody in this country has been told by the Prime Minister or by the Labour Government exactly what the principles are that have not been addressed. So ACT cannot, in any conscience, support legislation that does not define exactly what is meant by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

It is a policy of the ACT party that it is appropriate for a bill before the House to go to a select committee for further consideration and determination, and to sort out idiosyncrasies or aspects that may not be appropriate. This bill is a done deal. What is the point of sending a bill to a select committee when the deal has already been done? There will be no changes to this bill; it is fixed, so why send it? That is the charade that Parliament indulges in. The Government says that it will send this bill to a select committee, but that it does not care if somebody points out that Ngāti Awa are entitled to extra than what has been negotiated at this time—it will not happen. It could well be that during the select committee process we find problems that have occurred and sort those matters out, with the result that Ngāti Awa are better off under this settlement. But that will not happen, it cannot happen, because the deal has been done, and that is totally inappropriate.

There are a number of issues I would like to address, but in the limited time I have I will address only one other. It is in the schedules, which, quite frankly, I find bizarre. I read from schedule 4: “All elements of the natural environment possess a life force and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngati Awa …” to the harbour. That is animist belief. As I said earlier, I speak with passion about, and believe I have a spiritual attachment to, the land. I understand what is meant by “mauri”, but spirituality comes from the individual. It does not come from a rock, a piece of water, a landfall, or some statue. That is animist belief. If this House will indulge in such forms of animist belief, why do we not write into statute the beliefs of the Anglican church? Why do we not write in the beliefs of Catholics, Methodists, Muslims, and anybody else? If we are going to introduce this spiritual belief into statute, why not introduce everything else? Why is it appropriate to write into statute only the spiritual belief of Māori? Why not the spiritual belief of every other person in this country? Of course, we should remind ourselves from time to time that this House is secular; it does not write into statute the spiritual beliefs of any particular party or any particular individual, and long may that continue. But that particular aspect is written into this Ngāti Awa settlement, and the ACT party says that is wrong.

If I were to hazard a guess as to why it is written in, I would say it is part of the ongoing settlement with Māori; they can have another bite of the cherry, because this is not a full and final settlement. Any Māori can go to a resource management hearing and point out the requirement in the Resource Management Act that regional councils take into account the spiritual beliefs of Māori. Ngāi Tahu, for example, did just that at the resource management hearing on the Clutha River, and said that they had lost their spirituality, their special relationship with the river. That cost the electricity consumers of this country $1.5 million. So it appears that under the Resource Management Act, with special reference to Māori, spirituality can be bought for $1.5 million. That is outrageous. It is impossible to buy the spiritual beliefs of an individual, yet they can be traded under the Resource Management Act—in that particular instance, for $1.5 million.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: What a lot of nonsense!

The Minister of Māori Affairs, who is not even sponsoring this bill, says that is nonsense. I ask Mr Parekura Horomia why he is not even sponsoring this bill. Why is his colleague Mr Maharey sponsoring the bill? A number of aspects of this bill are inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate that past grievances are addressed and settled, and ACT applauds that. But I cannot stand in this House and say I applaud the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when I do not even accurately know—nor does anybody in the House—what those principles are. Mr Peters from New Zealand First has stood in this House and constantly challenged the Government to tell us what those principles are, and the Government has not come out with them. It will be very interesting to see what New Zealand First will do about this bill.

May I take the House’s indulgence to greet Ngāti Awa and to say what an honour it is to have them with us today.

The Guide to Treaty of Waitangi Claims and Direct Negotiations with the Crown publication is appropriately titled Healing the Past, Building a Future. As with any settlement of this kind, we need to be mindful that this is not a payout, a catch-up, or even compensation in the truest sense. We can never compensate the generations of Ngāti Awa who lived without the collective resources to provide the kind of future they wanted for their children and mokopuna. The apology from the Crown for breaching its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi is an essential starting point. It is an apology for the confiscation of land, for inappropriate compensation mechanisms, and for legislative initiatives that undermined traditional tribal structures and left Ngāti Awa virtually landless.

It is important that an account of the historical background has been agreed upon by both Ngāti Awa and the Crown, and is included in the deed of settlement, and that a written apology is to be included in attached material. It is important because we need to be very clear, both now and in the future, about what underpinned this settlement. We also need to be very clear that this settlement is not about Ngāti Awa jumping on some treaty gravy train—as some would refer to it—in some opportunistic way, but is, in fact, the final outcome of a process started by Ngāti Awa in 1867, when they proactively sought redress for the wrongs inflicted on iwi by the Crown.

So what is the historical context? In June 1840 certain Ngāti Awa chiefs signed the treaty in Whakatāne. Twenty-four years later, some of the Ngāti Awa hapū attempted to provide support for the Tai Rāwhiti group that was offering assistance to the Waikato Māori who were embroiled in disputes with the Crown. In July the following year, as part of the ongoing conflict, a Crown official by the name of Fulloon and three others were killed in Whakatāne, and a month later, in August, a large Crown-led force arrived to arrest those responsible. Much property was destroyed, and some people were killed. A month later, in September, the Crown proclaimed peace and pardoned those who had opposed the Crown, with the exception of those who had killed Fulloon. In October, after the peace proclamation, a Crown-led force laid siege to pā at Matatā, Whakatāne, and Te Teko, arresting 30 men for the deaths in Whakatāne. There were two separate trials, followed by prison sentences and two executions. Three months later, Governor Grey declared the Bay of Plenty tribes to have been in rebellion, and confiscated 448,000 acres of land, 245,000 of which were Ngāti Awa rohe. The huge loss of resources, plus the stigma of being tangata hara, or rebels, is what we now seek to address, understanding that Ngāti Awa have been seeking this redress since 1867, the year after the confiscation.

I also endorse the comments made by my colleague Murray Smith during the first reading of Te Runga o Ngati Awa Bill last week. Mr Smith, when commenting on the substantial progress that this bill represents, said: “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 too want to pay tribute to Ngāti Awa for their willingness to reach a place of resolution, to accept an apology, and to accept compensation that is substantially less than they deserve. On behalf of United Future, I wish them well as they take on the resources agreed upon and chart a brighter future for all their members. I congratulate them on negotiating a governance structure that best reflects their interests, and I congratulate the Minister on facilitating this with a private bill. Based on what I have observed to date at a local level, I am sure that Ngāti Awa will chart a course that results in economic and social well-being for all of their members. I congratulate them, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

Otirā, tēnā koe kai te Kaihautū o te Whare nei. Ā, tēnā kōtou o Ngāti Awa, kōutou i haere tawhiti mai, mai i te hau kāinga, mai i Te Moana-a-Toi-te-Huatahi, mai i Te Mānuka Tuatahi, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou. Tēnā kōtou te āhuatanga o te kaupapa kei runga kei te tēpu i tēnei wā. Nā kōutou i kawe mai rā i te nuku o te whenua, kia whakamanahia i roto i te ture, e tutuki ai, e oti ai ngā taimahatanga o te ao tawhito i waenganui i a kōtou. Nō reira, nā kōtou hoki te kaupapa o te rā nō reira, nau mai, hara mai.

Kai te Kaihautū, kaua e pāpōuri mai, ko te hiahia tonu au ki te tū, ki te kōrero ki roto i te reo rangatira ki taku iwi ki a Ngāti Awa. Kua kōrerohia ngā kōrero i roto i te Whare nei. Ko wētahi kua kauhautia ētahi kōrero ki a koutou, ko wētahi kua tohutohungia hoki ō rātou kōrero ki a kōtou te āhua nei ka tau mai kōtou ehara he rangatira, engari he tamariki tonu. Nō reira, koia nā hoki au e whakahē atu ki a rātau nā rātau ēnei kōrero i whakaputa. Ā, ko tēnei mea te utu mō te wairuatanga he kōrero kūware noa iho tēnā. Nō reira, kaua kōtou e pāpōuri mai ki tēnei kōrero, koia nei ngā tino mate o tēnei Whare. Nō reira, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou.

[Greetings indeed to you, the Speaker of this House. And greetings to you of Ngāti Awa, who have travelled some distance from the home winds of Whakatāne in the Bay of Plenty. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you. Acknowledgments to you in respect to the bill that is on the Table. You brought it here from across the land to have it passed into law, and, in so doing, fulfil and complete the burdens of the past that were among you. And because this bill today is yours as well, I bid you welcome, welcome.

Please bear with me Mr Speaker, but I really want to take the call and address my people of Ngāti Awa in Māori. Statements have been made in this House, some of which have been directed at you in a manner that treat you as though you were still children, and not chiefs. That is why I objected to those who expressed themselves in this manner. And in regard to this matter about paying for spirituality, that kind of talk is pure ignorance. So do not be disappointed by this type of talk: it is a real problem in this House. So greetings to you all.]

The history of the Ngāti Awa claim is well documented and well understood by the members of this House. I find myself short of words even to attempt to repeat much of what has already been said here today. But I do congratulate Ngāti Awa, my people, who have come a long way today, but also a long way in time, to bring to an end the tragic history of all of us as Ngāti Awa that occurred through the actions of the Crown.

I sat here sadly and listened to some people preach to Ngāti Awa, and I heard other members patronise Ngāti Awa. I heard another member even call Ngāti Awa a sell-out. Those words were unfortunate, given that this is a very positive day for Ngāti Awa. The wairua of Ngāti Awa does not have a price tag on it, but Ngāti Awa say to those who want to speak to them to make sure to bring their money to the table—and there is nothing wrong with that. Hoi anō rā, koia nei ngā kōrero ki a tātau.

[Indeed, that is what I wanted to say to us.]

I congratulate the negotiators of the Ngāti Awa settlement. This is a first step of many steps that Ngāti Awa will take into the future. Our young people are watching today, witnessing what Ngāti Awa kaumātua and kuia are doing for the benefit of their futures. I have to say that my seven children will be beneficiaries of what they do today. No reira, I have not much more to say except to say to Ngāti Awa: he kōrero tēnei ki a kōtou. Ko ahau tenei tā koutou mokopuna, māngai kōrero i roto i te Whare nei e tū whakaiti atu ana nei i a mua i a kōtou. Nō reira tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou, tēnā kōtou katoa.

[And to you Ngāti Awa, as your grandchild and representative in this House, I stand before you in total humility. Greetings to you and to all of us.]

I welcome to Parliament the people of Ngāti Awa, and I acknowledge Professor Mead, and Hōhepa Mason from the trust board—who I thought would have been in Whakatāne today campaigning in the regional council elections. I suspect that John Hohāpata has probably knocked on several hundred doors this afternoon, so I am sure Mr Mason will be returning with some speed today. I also want to acknowledge the women of Ngāti Awa—the first in this country to prove that women can do anything.

In speaking today on this bill I observe that it has taken a very long time for this settlement to come before Parliament. I also acknowledge that it is important that these negotiations eventually proceeded with some pace, because it is vitally important that these things can be achieved without all the money going to the lawyers. There is a huge amount of money being spent in the central North Island as I speak. I know that the people of that area are concerned about the huge amount of money being tied up in that process. But it is important that this matter proceed with speed, because the people in the Eastern Bay of Plenty need the money—especially under this Labour Government—to advance and prosper.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a number of matters: firstly, there is a drafting error in the bill, which Ministers will need to fix; and, secondly, I want to note some of the ways that the Government is handling overlapping claims. Recently I pulled out of my files a couple of maps to do with the claims that have been settled in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. I have here a map that relates to the Ngāti Awa settlement that indicates the area of interest of Ngāti Awa, and I have a second map that shows the area of interest of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and one fits inside the other.

💬 Mita Ririnui: What is your point?

My point is where is the explanation of what is going on there. [Interruption] Well, I am asking the member who, apparently, negotiated all this stuff. The Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the people of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, have a settlement of $10.5 million cash, and the people of Ngāti Awa have $42 million cash. It seems one lot has a much better deal than the other. I was brought up in Kawerau. I went to school with a number of the Adlam children. I have to say that when we were at school, I am sure we were always told that Kawerau was part of the area of Ngāti Awa. I am positive of that. Now we find there is a settlement for Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, which is interesting, and I am sure there will be some discussions in the select committee to explain how one area of interest fits into the other area of interest, but the first area of interest gets a lot more. We look forward to the member who, apparently, negotiated all of this explaining to Parliament how that will be dealt with—

💬 Mita Ririnui: What are the key principles of negotiations? To get as much as one can, when one can.

And whose side was the Minister on?

💬 Mita Ririnui: Both sides.

That sounds like him, does it not—always on both sides of the argument. It is vitally important that this settlement proceed with pace. I think the Government will have to explain how it is dealing with these overlapping claims, because one is a lot more generous than the other. I will be interested to hear about the history of Tūwharetoa and why it is so distinct from Ngāti Awa, because, no doubt, that will take ages to explain.

I draw to the attention of the House that there is a new area in the Eastern Bay of Plenty called the Ōhope Holiday Beach Park. We are actually providing that there be some Ōhope Holiday Beach Park land. There is no such thing as the Ōhope Holiday Beach Park. There is an Ōhope Beach Holiday Park, but there is not an Ōhope Holiday Beach Park, which is written in this bill. So the Minister negotiated the deal but he did not check the spelling; what does Mita Ririnui do with himself all day? I am sure the select committee will pick up on that.

I think it is right that the Government has moved to negotiate this deal in the way that it is proceeding, to get some action on it. I acknowledge those who have negotiated, and the tremendous amount of work and effort they have done. I look forward to the Government explaining why the group that fits inside this other group is being acknowledged much more generously than the other.

E te Kaihautū, te whakaruruhau ki a mātau, Jonathan, tēnā rā koe. E ngā tuāhine, tuākana i roto i te Whare Pāremata, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Nō reira e te rangatira mō ngā hapū o Ngāti Awa, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihimihi a Mita rāua ko Parekura, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihimihi, ā, he tipuna rātau. Nō reira koutou mā, tēnā koutou kia ora huihui mai anō rā tātau katoa.

[Greetings to you Mr Speaker, the one who shelters us, Jonathan, greetings. A huge greeting to you sister and brother colleagues in the House, to the chief of the sub-tribes of Ngāti Awa, and to everyone else. I endorse the tributes made by Mita and Parekura. They have done a fine job too and I support their efforts. And so greetings to all of you and to all of us who have gathered here.]

I acknowledge my two colleagues Parekura Horomia and Mita Ririnui for the contribution they have made to the debate today. It has been on song, on point, and representative of this Government’s position in its negotiation process with Ngāti Awa.

I want to comment on a number of observations and points made by members opposite. I regret to say that I do not have the same level of dignity and humility of some of my comrades in the Māori caucus—but, notwithstanding that, we make a reasonable team. I reject absolutely the divide and rule tactics of the member for Bay of Plenty, who has just resumed his seat. He always makes a very pithy and pious contribution to this House. He is consistent in doing that. I regret that; he should stop taking evil and ugly pills.

In the event that certain people do not vote for the members of the Māori caucus of the Labour Party, we could end up with an ACT - National Party Government. We heard the ACT member who has just resumed his seat say that we are animists. I have to look that up in the dictionary because I do not really understand it, but, whatever it means, we as Māori people honour the integrity of our mountains and rivers, honour the integrity of our ancestors. These are great things. I am also a Catholic—a failed one—and the reality is that we also honour our saints and some of the great people in history who have made a contribution to the continuity of that faith. All of a sudden, a member from ACT stands up and says he does not understand this mumbo-jumbo and this sort of spirituality. He farms the high country in the South Island, and he will bang his desk in this House over that debate and say: “I’m culturally and spiritually entwined with my land that we have farmed for generations.”, but when it comes to a Māori debate he will reject that argument. That sort of nonsense needs to be challenged because we get it here day in and day out. Any person who has the audacity and temerity to come to this House and suggest that New Zealand will make millions of dollars by farming kiwis and selling them to KFC has really got something wrong with him. That is what that member did.

In terms of the contribution made by the Green Party member, we could wail in difficulty and victimhood, which that member always makes a contribution on. I regret that, because no one has a monopoly on hurt, hate, hunger, and the rip-offs that have occurred and that this process is looking to alleviate. Ngāti Awa will know, just as a number of our other hapū and iwi know, that we have all been scarred. But members of the leadership of Ngāti Awa have made a determined determination—that is, they have documented their hurt and understood their difficulty, and now they will provide some clear opportunities for their people. The only thing that I agree with the member for Bay of Plenty on is the huge range of opportunities that this Government has made available. This settlement is coming at a wonderful time, and Ngāti Awa can actually make some marvellous contributions to the Bay of Plenty.

I also acknowledge Ngāti Awa for setting the precedent on the eastern seaboard of this country. Here is another point that Mr Ryall should get his mind round if he can—that is, the easy settlements were done by Douglas Montrose Graham. The hard ones are where the real Māoris live. Seventy percent of Māoris live north of Taupō, and those settlements will be difficult because that is where the numbers are, that is where the population of the Māori nation is. It is about the Bay of Plenty and places heading north. We will settle, and will set good precedents in place. As I said, I regret that I do not have the dignity or the humility of the Minister of Māori Affairs, but I will not stand for the tripe, cant, and nonsense that have been spoken in some of the contributions to this debate.

I conclude by once again bringing the debate back to the real people. I congratulate Ngāti Awa on their effort and work, and I commend them for bringing this bill to the House. I commend the select committee for the way in which it will respond to it and bring Ngāti Awa closure. Kia ora.

I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Awa. I appreciate that it has taken a long time to get to this day. I also note that the heads of agreement was first signed on 21 December 1998, so for the previous member to make some sort of outlandish claim that it takes Labour to do the tough ones—well, if only that were true is all I can say. All that Labour has done is the ones that National started. Labour has yet to do any significant or substantial settlement that it itself initiated. This Government simply does not have the wit or will to do the tough settlements. That is why it keeps saying it will take until 2020 at the earliest to complete the process.

Let us go back into our history—the history of the settlements, specifically. It started early in the 1990s. That is now nearly 15 years ago. It started with the settlements with Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. The Minister knows full well that they were not easy. National was asking them, particularly Tainui, to make a huge leap of faith to settle with the Crown. They were the first, and that was tough. Everyone knows and acknowledges that fact. Frankly, I would like to think that the current Government knows the reality of it. I would like to see a good deal less political rhetoric from that side, and some acknowledgement that this whole process has a high level of bipartisanship about it.

The reality is that this settlement fits with the historic precedents set in the last 15 years. That is why National supports this settlement. It actually fits within the very specific commitments that Dr Brash made in the Ōrewa speech. We do recognise our history, and we will settle the historic grievances. We go much further, of course, than the current Government; we want to put some energy and real commitment into it and to settle the grievances within a 5-year period. The Government keeps saying that is unrealistic. But to have them take the period from 1990 to 2010 is to have them take a whole 20 years, and 20 years is, effectively, one generation. We say that for this generation of politicians, going back to the 1990s—and Mr Ryall was elected, in fact, in 1990—through to 2010, it is our historic task to complete them. It is for the benefit not just of the claimants—and it is hugely for their benefit to get the settlements—but also of the nation at large.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh, what nonsense.

The Minister might interject “what nonsense”, but, in reality, if he thought about it he would understand, in fact, the importance of bringing people forward through the process so that they move out of the grievance mode into the settlement mode—a concept referred to by this Government from time to time. Surely one generation is enough time to do that.

I say also, to the ACT party, that it cannot keep coming to this Parliament, settlement after settlement, and saying it wants to settle all these historic grievances in a 10-year-period—and it even has a bill, which has been drawn in the members’ ballot, to settle within that time frame, and National will support that bill. The only thing about that, and I say this deliberately to the ACT members, is that it actually requires them to vote for a settlement—at least once, for heaven’s sake. Because unless they do that they will not get progress. It is true that not every detail of every settlement will meet the requirements or needs of particular parties. We understand that on this side of the House. I know for a fact that Labour had significant misgivings over the Tainui and Ngāi Tahu settlements. From time to time parties actually have to rise above that sort of thing and vote for the big picture. I do not direct that at the Labour Government; I direct that statement specifically at ACT. From time to time one has to look at the big picture and ask whether a settlement meets the general perspective of the principles—and I want to talk about the principles.

National is terribly clear that we support the idea that this nation is founded on the principle that we are all equal before the law, that we all have equal rights of participation in our Government. Provided that the settlements broadly meet that test, then they should be supported. The schedules that the member for ACT referred to are essentially recitations. They are not this Parliament endorsing people’s beliefs; they are simply recitations about connections. That surely is understandable. I want to put on record that we do support the settlements. There may come a time, and I say this to the Government specifically and clearly, when it puts a settlement before this House that does not meet the test of equality before the law, and that does not meet the test of equal participation in Government. When that issue occurs—should it occur—we will clearly signal that, and vote against it.

But this bill is not one of those. We do support this bill going to the select committee, because we understand that it is part of an important, historic process that this country is going through.

I move, That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during an evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 December 2004.