Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the comments made earlier in question time, can I inquire whether Mr Tamihere will communicate with us all by phone on this matter?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

I move, That the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move at the appropriate time that this bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. 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, that it can meet during the evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 March 2005.

This bill brings to an end longstanding historical grievances of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty are from the Kawerau and Matatā area and number approximately 3,000 members. Their eponymous ancestor, Tūwharetoa, had 17 children, some of whom led migrations to Taupō. The people of Tūwharetoa are most closely associated with this district. The descendants of those who remained in the Kawerau area now comprise Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, also known as Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau.

The bill settles all the historical treaty claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty and gives effect to the deed of settlement signed with Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty in June 2003. The historical claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty relate mainly to the confiscation of land, the compensation process, and the operation and impact of the native land laws. This bill contains a formal apology, given by the Crown, to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, their ancestors, and their descendants, for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown. The bill also records an acknowledgment by the Crown that Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty’s loss of control of, and access to, the Kawerau geothermal system has caused a sense of grievance that is still held today.

The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill. It can, of course, not be possible to fully compensate Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty for all the prejudice and loss they have suffered. Settlements must take into account the other developments and commitments that exist in New Zealand society today. I wish to congratulate Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty on negotiating on this basis, and with regard to the interests of New Zealand society as a whole. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense for what they had lost, there could be no settlements, and therefore no resolution, of the historical grievances affecting claimant communities.

The negotiators for Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty have agreed to a package that includes a Crown apology for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, financial redress of $2.5 million, the vesting of four commercial properties, the vesting of five cultural redress properties, a statutory acknowledgment of the special association of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty with five statutory areas, and a geothermal statutory acknowledgment over geothermal water and energy located in the Kawerau geothermal system; also the granting of renewable camping entitlements over one nohoanga site, and at the granting of an owhakatihi, or overlay classification known as taupuni in the Ngāi Tahu settlement. That acknowledges the traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical values and associations of Ngāti Tūwharetoa with the Parimahana scenic reserve.

The bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Treaty settlement negotiations can be difficult and occasionally contentious processes. These negotiations require the Crown to balance a range of interests. Challenges to settlements are not entirely surprising, given the overlapping nature of the interests that are potentially at stake. In the course of negotiations with Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, challenges were raised by some overlapping claimant groups who were concerned to protect their existing rights. The Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty worked to ensure that the concerns raised by these overlapping claimants were adequately addressed.

I wish to acknowledge those Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty people 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. The bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty into the future. I acknowledge the work done by former treaty negotiations Ministers and Ministers of Māori Affairs who contributed to this settlement. I wish to thank other Ministers and departments involved, and in particular the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Conservation, who have supported the process throughout. 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 the real and significant grievances have been recognised and settled peacefully, and within the law.

The people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty have waited a long time and worked so hard to realise the settlement of their historical treaty claims. I consider that the bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and be reported back by 1 March 2005. This will allow for the timely transfer of the settlement redress to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Finally, I acknowledge the kaumātua, the members, and the negotiators of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, who have been a constructive and conscientious group to work with, and whose commitment on behalf of their people, their ancestors, and their descendants has led to this historic event and the restoration of the integrity of the Crown. I commend this bill to the House.

The National Party will support the passage of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill to the Māori Affairs Committee for further consideration.

There are a number of aspects in the bill that we have concerns about. Firstly, we are concerned about the fact that this is a relatively small group of people, and for a long period of time they came under the auspices of Ngāti Awa. What is of concern is that much of the rohe in question in this settlement bill, is also that of Ngāti Awa. The question is: where are the overlaps? How many people who claim their heritage from Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty are also Ngāti Awa? Therefore, how many times are the same issues being compensated for? [Interruption] I say to the member opposite that she may well screw up her face and say that is outrageous, but it is not. It is perfectly simple, perfectly reasonable, and quite appropriate that these issues should be raised during the select committee process. After all, that is why we have Parliament. But of course, the Labour Party has never ever respected Parliament to any great degree.

It is upsetting for us on this side of the House that the Hon John Tamihere is not here today, able to speak in favour of this bill. It is quite amazing that, on the one hand, Labour Party members say that John Tamihere is the great hope for the future of this country and therefore must be treated with kid gloves when he is caught with his hands in the till, and, on the other hand, keep him out of Parliament so that he cannot speak on an occasion such as this.

This is an important bill. The Minister has just told us so. I would have thought it appropriate that an Associate Minister of Māori Affairs might make some contribution to the bill before the House. Instead, the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs is off on some sort of paid holiday in the far north, still collecting $4,000 a week, to avoid the House’s scrutiny of his activities. He is trundling around the nation’s roads in one of his two self-drive ministerial cars. He is not coming to this House to make a contribution on what we are told is a significant and important bill. I offer apologies to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the people of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, for bringing up these matters at this stage, but it is simply a fact that the Labour Party is defending the indefensible in hiding Mr Tamihere from the scrutiny of this House.

My colleague Mr Ryall will talk about some of our very specific concerns about this bill. For a long time we have said it is important that there be enduring settlements when it comes to the final agreement over settlement of treaty issues. Therefore, there cannot be any of these concerns left hanging out, in the wind. It is quite wrong for members opposite to sit there po-faced and dare us to question the agreements that the Minister has reached with this group of people. Unless these issues are sorted out satisfactorily, I say to Mr Hughes, these people will come back in this House before we know where we are. We have seen too much of this in recent months.

The Minister of Māori Affairs knows what a mess he has allowed his Government to make of the Māori Fisheries Act. It will be a short period of time before disadvantaged Māori come back to this House saying: “Fix it.” I think that if there are boundary issues that we can spot in a bill like this, then we have to be absolutely certain that no one is being disadvantaged and that no one will be coming back to this House in years to come, having another go at it.

I repeat, we support the referral of this bill to the select committee. We look forward to engaging in that process, to ensure that our concerns are met. Labour Party members seem very offended that I have raised some reasonable concerns that ordinary New Zealanders might have. In a minute we will see Labour members, one after the other, stand and say: “That fellow knows nothing. That fellow is ignorant. That fellow is not in touch with New Zealanders.” I just say to those Labour members that they should get out of this place sometimes and talk to New Zealanders, and then they will start to understand that if these things are not done right, they will cause problems in the future. The questions I have raised are perfectly reasonable in that context. I do wish that John Tamihere was here to make some offering on this bill.

💬 Edwin Perry: Koha!

The member down the back asks whether that would be an offering of koha. I would hate to think what it might have cost various organisations in koha to have Mr Tamihere speak on their behalf. Might I just say that if he is supposed to be the man who can shine a light to show the way forward in this country, he should be here. The fact is that no one is going to have a fellow like that running this country. The Labour Party knows it, and that is why he is not in the House this afternoon. Frankly, if he is ever back in the House, he will not have a ministerial warrant slung around his belt.

A relatively small amount of money is being offered in compensation in this bill, but it involves a small number of people. We worry about the relativities between this settlement and others that have preceded it. It is important that we get these matters sorted, and I have made that very clear. As I said, we support the referral of the bill.

That, believe it or not, was the National Party spokesperson on treaty negotiations. If he is expecting criticism from me, I am not going to waste my time. It is obvious to me that he has not read the bill, and if he wants to continue to be the Opposition spokesperson I suggest he read every bill that has been passed in this House in relation to treaty settlements, including the ones passed by the previous National Government.

I stand to support this bill. In doing so I want to acknowledge the presence in the House today of the negotiators, or the representatives, of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau. To Bev Adlam, Bob Schuster, and the party that has come down here today to witness this very, very important occasion, I say tēnā koutou, nau mai haere mai, kia ora.

The Ngāti Tūwharetoa people located around Kawerau in the Bay of Plenty are of the Arawa waka and descendants of Tūwharetoa ki Te Aupōuri. As mentioned by the Hon Margaret Wilson, their tūpuna had 17 children, including Tūtanekai. It is important to acknowledge the distinction of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau from their whanaunga in Taupō. While many of the early descendants of the ancestor Tūwharetoa migrated to the Taupō area, others settled around Kawerau and Matatā. According to local tradition, various parts of the Kawerau district were named for them in recognition of their mana. They have longstanding claims against the Crown. This bill acknowledges their outstanding grievances and will end those claims. It will also provide a platform upon which Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown can build a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation.

The history of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty is filled with regrettable actions by the Crown. In the 19th century the Crown’s interaction with Ngāti Tūwharetoa resulted in the confiscation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa tribal land, the loss of life of some Ngāti Tūwharetoa people, and the erosion of the traditional social structures, mana, and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. In 1866 Ngāti Tūwharetoa had approximately 87,000 acres of land confiscated after Governor George Grey deemed the Eastern Bay of Plenty tribes to have been in rebellion. I repeat, for the benefit of Mr Stephen Franks, “in rebellion”.

While the compensation process in the years immediately following the raupatu saw approximately 20,000 acres returned to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, this land did not reflect customary forms of land tenure and was returned to individuals rather than iwi or hapū. It therefore became more susceptible to partition and alienation. Some Ngāti Tūwharetoa land was awarded to other iwi, and as a result Ngāti Tūwharetoa tangata were dislocated from the lands that they had traditionally occupied and cultivated. Ngāti Tūwharetoa iwi have lost traditional lands through Crown confiscation, Crown purchases, and other alienations under the native land laws. This loss has impacted on the access of Ngāti Tūwharetoa to resources such as the coast and the wetlands that traditionally provided food, medicine and shelter.

They also lost control over some of their urupā and significant sites. For Ngāti Tūwharetoa this has had an ongoing impact on their spiritual and physical relationship with their lands. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries a number of Ngāti Tūwharetoa tangata petitioned and met Crown officials to seek redress for their grievances. The failure of the Crown to redress these wrongs has also become a significant grievance for Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

This bill acknowledges that the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles by failing to ensure that Ngāti Tūwharetoa were left with sufficient land for their present and for their future. The ancestral lands and resources alienated from Ngāti Tūwharetoa made a significant contribution to the wealth and development of this nation. Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s loss of control over those lands has hindered their economic, social, and cultural development, and impeded their ability to exercise control over their taonga and wāhi tapu.

The acknowledgment of the injustices suffered by Ngāti Tūwharetoa is long overdue. I therefore commend this Government for introducing a bill to the House that contains a formal Crown apology to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, to their ancestors, and to their descendants for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown. The bill recognises that Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty have endured an arduous struggle in pursuit of their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown. I join my colleague the Hon Margaret Wilson in commending the individual kaumātua, members, and negotiators of Ngāti Tūwharetoa whose commitment and passion have enabled us to reach this stage of their settlement process. Their commitment provides us all with an appreciation that real and significant grievances are being recognised.

This final and comprehensive settlement is an important milestone for Ngāti Tūwharetoa and for the Crown. The settlement redress will provide Ngāti Tūwharetoa with the resources to assist them to develop their economic and social well-being, now and into the future. This settlement will also enable the Crown to restore its honour and will aid both parties to move forward together as treaty partners.

I wish Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the best in moving forward with their development. I support my colleague the Hon Margaret Wilson in commending this bill to the House.

Ā, tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Ā, tēnā hoki ngā mema o tēnā taha, koutou ngā mema Māori i roto i te Kāwanatanga. Engari, he tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te mihi atu ki a koutou o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, e kara ma, e Bob, koutou ngā tuāhine, ngā whaea hoki, ā, tēnā koutou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Thank you Madam Speaker. Greetings indeed to members on that side and in particular the Māori members in Government. I take this short call to extend greetings to you Ngāti Tūwharetoa, especially to you sirs, Bob, and sisters and aunties as well. Greetings to you all.]

On behalf of New Zealand First—the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. It is the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, together with members of the claims negotiating team. They have arrived at this point after a journey that has taken them almost 16 years. In New Zealand First’s view, that is clearly unacceptable.

I want to note that when speaking of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in terms of this bill, we are referring to those also known as Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, who are from the Kawerau-Matatā area in the Bay of Plenty.

Like many other claims already made to the Waitangi Tribunal, this claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and in particular to the following: first, the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe; second, inadequacies of the compensation court process; and, third, subsequent alienation of the remaining lands, which were subject to native land laws and Crown purchasing. In 1988 Ngāti Tūwharetoa registered their claim with the Waitangi Tribunal, which held hearings during 1994 and 1995, and released its findings in 1999. Negotiations commenced in 1998. All of that culminated in the signing of the deed of settlement last year.

It is unfair to claimants and it is detrimental to our moving on as a nation when such claims take such a long time to reach this stage. We in New Zealand First have already signalled our proposals for addressing the issue of the time taken to complete claims. By those proposals, we would hasten the settlement process, from the pre-negotiating stage through to the passage of settlement legislation. The saving of time could be made at several stages of the process, by more adequate funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements to assist claimant groups with mandating issues and dispute resolution, and by adequate resourcing to aid claimant groups to establish appropriate governance entities to manage settlement redress and provide investment plans. However, given the lack of support from the other parties in this House for advancing those proposals, other claimants, under this process, will unfortunately have to endure similar waiting times.

New Zealand First supports the settlement of genuine historical grievances. However, the lack of progress in addressing such historical grievances has diverted attention from key areas where real social and economic progress for Māori could be made, through sound education, well-paid employment, adequate health, and improved housing.

The settlement under this bill provides financial and commercial redress of $10.5 million, aimed at assisting Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty with their economic and social development. Regardless of whether that amount could ever be considered fair compensation, the key elements of the bill include acknowledgments that, firstly, it is difficult to assess redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and, secondly, it is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Tūwharetoa for all the loss and prejudice suffered by them. However, we do note that, in keeping with the true Ngāti Tūwharetoa tradition of giving to the nation what is their birthright, the true meaning of the word “koha” is being repeated, with Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty foregoing full compensation, and such koha being recognised by the Crown as a contribution to the development of our country, New Zealand.

Nā reira, ka nui rawa atu ngā mihi ki a koutou Ngāti Tūwharetoa mō tēnā whakaaro. Ehara he whakaaro mā koutou nahe, engari mō te iwi whānui i roto i a tātou o Aotearoa.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Therefore I fully admire that thought of yours, Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It is one not just for you alone to consider but one indeed that all of New Zealand should think about.]

In conclusion, we in New Zealand First note with a great deal of interest that, within the explanatory note of the bill, comment is made that the historical claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa “include all claims that are, or are founded on, a right arising—from the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi);”. It is a well-known fact that, of all the political parties in this House, New Zealand First has constantly sought an explanation of what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which are referred to in almost 30 different pieces of legislation, are. In supporting this bill being referred to a select committee, New Zealand First will want to know which claims, or which parts of claims, are actually being met as a consequence of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I give notice that we will seek vigorously, as part of the select committee process, that clarification, in order that we and the people of New Zealand know exactly what is meant by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Kia ora mai.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: New Zealand First will split its speech. There are 3 minutes 30 seconds remaining. In future, New Zealand First members need to advise me of that.

New Zealand First supports the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill going to a select committee. Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty are also known as Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau.

As the word “principle” seems to find its way into legislation, can anyone please explain what principle this claim comes under? I understand that I have a very brief moment to speak on this bill, but let me remind members of what a historical figure said: “Ko te waka hei hoehoenga mō koutou i muri i ahau, ko te ture. Mā te ture anō te ture e aki.”, which means “The canoe that you must paddle when I am gone is that of the law. Only the law can be pitched against the law.”

I also add that I disagree with the spokesperson from National when he quoted that Ngāti Tūwharetoa is under the auspices of Ngāti Awa. Let us really be clear at this moment that Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau is just as it is, and Ngāti Awa is Ngāti Awa; otherwise, Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau would never have been able to make the claim they have made in respect of the numbers of people—

💬 Stephen Franks: What do you think, Georgina?

Georgina te Heu Heu agrees, because she is Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I say to members that we of New Zealand First acknowledge Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, and we also remind those who may have a different view in terms of the tribal areas that if it was not for the understanding of the tribal areas, the people who are now sitting in the gallery would not be here today. They have been mandated by their people to speak on behalf of this bill. New Zealand First is of the thought that we need to get it through as quickly as possible so that Ngāti Tūwharetoa can get on with what it should be doing, and so that its people can benefit from, hopefully, the right and good decisions that those people who administer the claim will make. Kia ora tātou katoa.

E te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira o Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau kua tae tautoko mai i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

[To the visitors from afar, to the elders and chiefs of Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau who have arrived here in support this afternoon, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

The Greens will support this legislation to the select committee, as we have with previous settlement bills. We recognise the hard work and cost that Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau has put into its Waitangi Tribunal claim and, in particular, the direct negotiation process in order to gain recognition of, and restitution for, the dishonourable acts of the Crown. We want to ensure that the iwi has an opportunity to bring any issues to the select committee, and for any of those who disagree with the settlement to bring their concerns forward. The treaty settlement process is complex, costly, and undermining, and not everyone agrees with it. Whānau and hapū need to be able to come and tell politicians what the experience of direct negotiating is really like.

The range of the dishonourable acts recognised in the bill, for which restitution will be made, are very broad. About 450,000 acres of land in the Eastern Bay of Plenty were confiscated by the Crown under the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863. About 87,000 acres were traditional Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau land. That land was taken as punishment imposed on a whole iwi for alleged rebellion. The use of the settlements Act as a punitive measure against whānau and hapū is a clear example of the abuse of the absolute power of the Crown, enabled by legislation and enforced by the use of violence. The apology in the bill for those acts recognises the wrongfulness of that abusive power.

Later, the Compensation Court—also established in 1863—worked through what appears to be a very dodgy process in considering whether, and how, to allocate that confiscated land. That court unilaterally decided the process by which allocation would be made. It made value judgments as to whom it would deal with and whom it considered to be acceptable recipients of the land. It made decisions as to the ownership structure by which those people would receive the land. In this process the Compensation Court stripped Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau of its customary rights, traditional lands, and resources. The court enabled easier alienation and partition of this valued collective resource, pauperising the iwi as a result.

The same attitude of paternalism and dominance flavoured the Crown’s continued relationship with Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau during the last century. Destruction of sensitive wetlands, which are wāhi tapu, and of significant food-gathering areas occurred because the Government chose its interests over the rights of the hapū and iwi. The Government’s acquisition of the sole rights to the geothermal energy resource for its use, again resulted in a loss of control over access to those areas by the customary owners.

Finally, and critically, the establishment of the pulp and paper mill at Kawerau in the 1950s led to one of New Zealand’s worst environmental disasters. The bill acknowledges that the pollution and poisoning of the Tarawera River, along with the poisoning of the people who lived and worked in the area, were enabled by legislation. Despite this bill and the apology in it, there is still no real effort by this Government, or by any previous Government, to address the continued poisoning of that community. Legislation in the form of consents under the Resource Management Act, continues to allow poisoning and polluting by mills. That practice has not stopped.

Toxic dump sites remain open to the public, with no notification of the potential toxicity of the area. Soil caps, which are used to try to remedy the situation, are of no use. These areas are flood prone, and after a big flood the toxic sites are left open and exposed. The Government continues to fail to clean up the toxic sites and make sure they are fit for habitation. The environment continues to suffer. People continue to suffer the effects of poisoning from the mill. The children and the grandchildren of these people continue to suffer.

The Crown acknowledges the wrongfulness of the confiscation of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau lands; the inadequacy of the Compensation Court process; the loss of control of, and access to, the Kawerau geothermal system; the suffering and hardship resulting from the cumulative effect of the Crown actions; and the contribution made by Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty to New Zealand’s efforts in overseas wars. All these issues are recognised in the bill, yet we must not miss the irony that history is simply repeating itself. The process by which this restitution is made, is again paternalistic and domineering. The treaty settlement process was determined by the Crown, not by Māori. The Crown decides the validity of those to whom it will talk, and again establishes the criteria for the appropriate structures for how the collective assets of this iwi and others will be held.

At the end of this week another piece of confiscatory legislation will return to this House for debate. That bill will take back from Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau lands to which the iwi may have legal entitlement, because the Government thinks that it is in the Government’s interests to have it, regardless of the rights of that iwi.

The Greens want to see an honourable process for restitution for wrongs of the past. We want a process that is durable and acceptable; where the wronged have a direct say as to how the process is determined, so that they are not further injured or impoverished by the process itself. Justice is the purpose, not expediency. The Greens urge the Government at least to stop repeating the wrongs and mistakes of the past, as its first real gesture of recognition and apology.

Finally, the Greens congratulate Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau on their determination and resilience in achieving a settlement for the crimes committed against them. Kia ora koutou.

I rise for the ACT party in this Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Each time I have had an opportunity to speak in the House on claims settlement bills, I have done so with sorrow. I think the first one I spoke on was within a few months of my coming to this House 4½ years ago. I did not really understand the structure of the bills, although I had had occasion to read some of the settlement agreements, and at that time I was groping, trying to work out exactly what it was that Māori were being offered. Because of the difficulty of the language of the legislation, it was obvious that what was being offered was deliberately intended to be obscure. The pattern has changed very little over time—that is still plainly part of these bills.

The Government may justify this on the grounds that what is sought here is essentially face-saving, and I understand Mita Ririnui’s reminder that the people settling the claims are often giving up a very long-held sense of entitlement, which to them is of much greater value than what they are being offered in return. However, when I see this House being asked to pass law that neither side knows exactly what is meant, then I agree with the last speaker from the Greens: we are simply storing up for ourselves another round of grievance in the future.

What else can the successors of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who will be signing this agreement do when they read this, without the same sense of history or occasion, and when they see they have been offered protocols, acknowledgments, assurances, rights of consultation, and all the paraphernalia that the Government now provides in its relationship with Māori? They have been offered all of this as part of a grovelling apology, yet in their hands, in 15 to 30 years’ time, it is simply smoke. It means next to nothing, because the only concrete benefit from the rights that are being conferred here—the rights of consultation, the rights to be given resource management notices, the rights to be involved in setting management plans, and doing consents—is the right to be a nuisance to one’s neighbours, a right to block, and a right to hold up things and to delay negotiations for concessions. Even if people can tell us they were grateful—and I am sure that we all as MPs have heard this—because: “I dealt with iwi this time and it wasn’t as bad as I feared. We got through it, and in the end they were on our side.” In the end they are also seen simply as an obstacle—as a necessary phase to be got past, as people who have to be talked to, placated, and patronised—not as people who are respected. They are respected no more than the traffic cop is respected as someone to get past before speeding up again.

The problem with bills like this is that if the settlements are genuine, then there should be tangible, clear rights with both sides having exactly the same understanding of what they mean. If that cannot be done, then the law should state that. We should not pretend with this kind of agreement that we are offering something more than we can. These agreements look as though they are important. They are justified by those who advance them on the grounds that they are symbolically important, but in legal terms they are just an encouragement for another generation to feel ripped off.

The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations sits there looking solemn—and well she might, because she is not getting any support from the member who is being touted as Māoridom’s hope. Perhaps the Minister could call John Tamihere and tell him that my telephone extension is 6262, so he can communicate to this House just what he thinks of this bill. When Donna Awatere Huata was in trouble, ACT did not demand that she stay away from the House. ACT did not try to block her.

💬 Hon Annette King: She was kicked out of the party.

ACT wants to kick her out because she is not worthy of the honour. She is not worth the name. Who blocked a Privileges Committee inquiry? It was that member’s colleague, in the chair. Donna Awatere should have gone a year ago, and we will deal with it. This Prime Minister wants to keep the vote of Mr John Tamihere. She will keep that vote while she keeps him out of the House, because he is an embarrassment to her, as he is to every one in this House as long as he is here. It is a shame, of course, that in dealing with any bill from now on that has to do with Māori matters, John Tamihere will be the same embarrassment. It is not Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s problem that we raise this in this connection, but when that member starts attacking ACT on a ground of integrity, we can stand up and say that we dealt with that as soon as we could. As soon as we knew about it we dealt with it. We did not wait. [Interruption]

The member does raise the question of integrity. This bill, the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, actually goes through history and, without establishing why, says that those who were on the spot at the time, those who actually saw what was happening—and it was on both sides of the claim—were wrong and it is right. This bill does not have historical integrity. It has no more integrity than what we saw over the weekend when Major Ropata’s actions at Ngatapa Pā are suddenly characterised as some grotesque semi-holocaust event. Major Ropata was acting as a hero to most of the people in the Ngāti Porou area. The Crown engaged his services and was proud of what he did, and now the Waitangi Tribunal, no doubt, is angling to get another grovelling apology for what nearly everyone in that area was proud of at the time.

I believe we have the same situation here. When Falloon was murdered and the troops came down to arrest those who had done it, and were obstructed by some of the ancestors of the people here today, there could never have been any expectation by anyone on either side that 150 years later a Labour Government would be here grovelling and trying to extract political advantage out of rewriting history. I am sick of being part of a process that blesses these fraudulent statements of history. It is time New Zealanders stopped dredging around in their entrails and apologising for a past that was not shameful at the time. It was sad, but history was very different.

History has moved on, and there is no guarantee, and there is no assurance even from the most recent statements, even by the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal, that these things will make bygones be bygones. The promise in the early section of this bill, that the settlements are full and final, is almost guaranteed not to be true when it is so patent that the politicians on the other side of the House will respond to any kind of emotional plea with “deeming” provisions that deem to be facts things that no one can know. No one can now know just who was to blame. No one can know how wrong it was that that land was taken. We can guess, but for the Crown in this legislation to actually state categorically that it was wrong, is wrong in itself. We should not be opening ourselves up to this. We should not be participating. It is time, if we genuinely mean for bygones to be bygones, that we said: “That was then, this is now.”

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: You have never voted for a single settlement.

I believe that ACT has voted for them, but we have not since I have been here because these bills always refer to the so-called principles of the treaty. New Zealand First has joined in deriding what I am saying. Here are the politicians who have made a career out of demanding explanations of the so-called principles. Those members have been so hot in this House on the Prime Minister for her failure to define them, yet, every time, they vote in favour of bills that have the so-called principles of the treaty in them. This bill still has references to the principles of the treaty. Why not the treaty itself?

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and I would like to begin by greeting iwi leaders and negotiators who are with us today. I thank them for being with us and honouring us with their presence. Today we witness the opening words in what is the concluding chapter of a settlement process that has taken about 6 years to date. During those 6 years iwi representatives and a range of Government officials have worked productively to reach an agreement that has been ratified by 55 percent of eligible iwi members, who voted 95 percent in favour of the proposed settlement.

An important part of the process has been the work done to clarify the real facts around the historical events that necessitate this settlement. The facts are clear, and the House needs to be mindful of the overriding truth that today we seek to right breaches not of Ngāti Tūwharetoa tribal law but of British law—law that postured itself at the time as being fair and able to protect the property and rights of all New Zealand citizens. The consequences of those breaches have been paid for economically and culturally by every generation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa since they first occurred. The agreed-upon historical account and the Crown acknowledgements and apology begin the process by which much mana can be restored to an iwi that has, for generations, been bereft of both land and essential resources necessary to build a future for itself. The agreed-upon historical account leads naturally to an apology from the Crown for clear breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those breaches included the illegal confiscation of land, and land transfers under the native land laws. The overall effect for Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty was that access to traditional food and medicinal resources was lost. Later on, with the draining of the Rangitaiki swamplands, environmental pollution, and the loss of control of and access to geothermal resources and to Kawerau, further opportunities were stripped away.

Some of the lands lost through that process were culturally significant sites. There is a series of cultural redress provisions in this proposal that help to restore access to traditional foods and food-gathering areas, and there is a statutory acknowledgement of places of special association. Deeds of recognition are established that require the Crown to consult with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and five sites are to be returned to the iwi. The financial and commercial redress is geared towards recognising the economic loss that was suffered. The deed of settlement will come into effect only after a governance body is set in place, and after that governance body has been ratified by iwi. There is an agreed-upon figure that can be paid in cash or in Crown properties to the amount set. There is also a right of refusal on the geothermal assets should they be offered up for sale at any time. The overlay provisions that acknowledge the significance of a site or area, without overturning existing classifications and provisions, are a sensible and a clear demonstration of the good faith that has undergirded the settlement process.

United Future is supportive of the need to advance this bill through the select committee in a timely way, and wishes well to all those who are working behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on the structures and systems needed to manage the settlement in this very important journey.

I rise to take a brief call on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I rise in support of the bill, and I pay my respects to all the people involved—the Hon Margaret Wilson and the negotiators from Ngāti Tūwharetoa—for all the work they have put into this settlement bill. Settlement bills are one of the most important things, I believe, that we do in this House. It is those bills that really do allow us to move forward. While it is not very politically acceptable now to say that one supports this kind of claims bill and it is very politically hip to say that one does not like one part or another part of it, I believe—I know—that a lot of work has gone into this settlement bill, in good faith, from those in Ngāti Tūwharetoa and from the Government on behalf of the Crown. I believe that a lot of the fears that have been brought into this House about there being some kind of crossover between Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa are largely baseless, but that is what we have a select committee process for, and I hope that the National Party members who do have concerns about the extent of these claims will take them to the Māori Affairs Committee, where they will be heard in full.

It is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Tūwharetoa for the prejudice and loss they have suffered, but I do believe that this bill is a great step forward, and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House.

I, too, take a moment to acknowledge the people from Kawerau who are present. Many of them are known to me—in fact, I went to school in Kawerau with Mrs Adlam’s children, and one of Canon Schuster’s whanaunga was my teacher at intermediate school, so is no doubt responsible in terms of my education for much of what everyone is about to hear.

I think that National’s deputy leader, Gerry Brownlee, raised an important issue in terms of how this House deals with the matter of overlapping claims. Throughout the entire process of the treaty claims since it was started by Sir Douglas Graham in the 1990s, we have had overlapping claims. In my own area we have the overlapping claims of Ngāti Awa and the Tūhoe people, on a particular track towards the Ōhiwa harbour. Closer to Tauranga, we have issues with Te Arawa and the Tauranga Māori about some of the beaches, etc., near Maketū. So dealing with overlapping claims is something that is part and parcel of dealing with treaty claims.

But what makes this legislation somewhat more challenging is the fact that the overlap is total. If one looks at a map of what Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau has been talking about, one sees that it is within what Ngāti Awa has been talking about—it is hand in glove. So the point that Mr Brownlee raised, which was so quickly dismissed by the Government, requires examination by the select committee because—and Mr Brownlee is right—Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau was represented on the Ngāti Awa Trust Board for some years, and left in the 1980s. I do not know the story behind its departure from that board in the 1980s and the setting up of the charitable trust at that time, but I would have thought that it is valuable for the select committee to look into where that springs from. What about the issues being raised about the hand in glove nature of the overlapping claims, and where does the previous association with Ngāti Awa fit in? Those points are well worth being looked into by the select committee but they are not the responsibility of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, because the decision to negotiate is that of the Government. It is the Government’s decision to deal with Ngāti Awa in one way and with Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau in another way. It is up to the Government to come before the select committee, and I hope that questions will be asked about how it is dealing with that issue.

The whole overlapping situation is further complicated by the admission from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that none of the memorials will be removed from any of the titles.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s the whole point of the settlement.

Well, it may be the whole point of the settlement, but it comes down to the points that Mr Brownlee talked about at the very beginning—that is, the overlapping claims and how the issue of memorials will be dealt with by the Government in relation to both Ngāti Awa and Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau. I am certain that once the Ngāti Awa settlement goes through, finally, and that of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, those memorials must be wiped. So the two settlements run on parallel lines whether or not we like it, and the points that Mr Brownlee raised are completely valid and should be looked at by the select committee.

I also have some concerns about where the Government is going in this bill, because I think it is political correctness gone mad. Are we serious? I do not believe for one minute that Tūwharetoa came to the Government and asked for an apology for the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains. I could tell this House about the number of Māori and Pākehā people who have become incredibly successful and wealthy farmers as a result of the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains, including many who would count themselves as Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau. I simply do not believe that the Government can seriously expect to stand up and apologise for the draining of those plains when we look at the wealth that has been created there. Sure, maybe it can acknowledge some of the difficulties caused by that, and the fact that some traditional fishing areas might have disappeared, but does the Government seriously want to apologise for the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains?

And what do members feel about this one? Does the Government seriously want to apologise for building the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. in Kawerau? I cannot believe that Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau would come and ask for an apology because the Government built that company.

💬 Stephen Franks: Where would they have worked otherwise?

Well, that is the very point. Many people in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, both Pākehā and Māori, have become very successful because of the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co.—very successful. Mr Paraone talked about—and I wrote the words down—the advancement of Māori, in terms of wealth, jobs, education, and economic development. That paper mill, along with the dairy industry, has been the basis of prosperity in the Eastern Bay of Plenty for 50 years, and I do not believe that the Government was ever asked to apologise for that. Sure, there are some issues about the pollution of the river and its colouration that need to be discussed, but does the Government really expect to apologise for building the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co.? Was it asked to do so? I do not think so. Yet here we are with a whole lot of hand-wringing in the Government’s preamble to this bill about the problems caused by the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains, and by the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co.

Is it not time that the Government actually took a balanced approach with regard to these treaty settlements? Instead of the Government saying that everything the Crown does is wrong, it could actually acknowledge that there are some significant benefits to the people of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau and the Eastern Bay of Plenty because of what happened in the past. We do not see any of that in this bill. We do not see anything about the jobs, wealth, and prosperity created because of some of the Government’s actions in that area. But the Government is very happy to wring its hands and to be full of apologies for stuff that has actually benefited the very people who will benefit from the passing of this bill. I think that that should have been acknowledged. The leadership of Sir William Sullivan in securing that paper mill in Kawerau is something that this Government should have acknowledged in this deal, because it has been the basis of wealth and prosperity in that region, and for many of the people of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, for 50 years. That should be recognised in this legislation.

At the select committee I am also looking forward to discussion of the issues associated with geothermal energy, and the fact that the Geothermal Energy Act of 1953 took geothermal rights from Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau. Well, the fact is that the Act took geothermal rights from everybody in 1953.

💬 Stephen Franks: Just like oil and gas.

Geothermal energy is just like oil and gas, but the Prime Minister says that she is not going to entertain claims to rights in relation to oil and gas. So I will be interested to see what the thinking process was behind recognising the geothermal issue. I think that it is perfectly valid to say that it would be a fair form of commercial compensation or redress to give Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau or Ngāti Tūwharetoa the rights that are in this deal. That is fine, but do we have to say, necessarily, that the passing of the Geothermal Energy Act was wrong? Was it wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights to the ownership of the geothermal resource? The Prime Minister said that it was not wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights over oil and gas, so why are we saying—or even suggesting—that it is wrong in this case? It is fine to do the deal on the geothermal stuff, but it does not need to be wrapped up in language that states it was wrong to pass the Act in 1953. It was not wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights with regard to oil and gas, so why is it wrong in this case now?

I think that a number of issues will be raised at the select committee. The National Party supports the progress of this bill, but its deputy leader raised some legitimate issues about dealing with overlapping claims, and about how this settlement inter-relates with the Ngāti Awa settlement. When we consider that the memorials are not being removed—and I suspect that the only way they will be removed is with the passing of the other Eastern Bay of Plenty settlement—then that is a legitimate issue. That is what Gerry Brownlee was talking about. It is all too easy for the Government to dismiss what I think was a well-thought-out view on a number of issues that are important to resolve.

I rise in support of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Mr Ryall managed to raise issues with more sense than the deputy leader of the National Party, Mr Brownlee, did. At least I understood what Mr Ryall was trying to say, even if I did not agree with it. The summary of the settlement redress that is provided for in this bill includes a Crown apology, financial redress of $10.5 million, the vesting of various properties back to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, a statutory acknowledgment of the association that it has with some statutory areas, including the geothermal area, and the granting of some renewable camping entitlements over one nohoanga site. As well as that, various other provisions are detailed in the bill. I think it is a good bill. It makes it clear that it is a final settlement of all the historic claims, and I support its progression to the select committee.

It is disappointing, I must say, that in the House today the Minister of Māori Affairs has remained sitting in his seat for the entire time. It is quite remarkable that the members of Parliament who were voted in here on a separate roll, to represent the interests of Māori people, remained silent through the entire debate. Frankly, I find that that amounts to a vote of no confidence by the Government in its own team. Labour believes in—

💬 Hon Annette King: Mita spoke.

That is correct. Mita Ririnui did speak—that is a fair point.

It is remarkable that the Minister chooses not to take the call when this is the very time that one would expect him to do so. Instead we get the member from Otago, who will not be here for very much longer. That may explain why he took the call—it is one of the few opportunities that he will get to speak.

I wish to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa from the Bay of Plenty because National supports the settlement of historic grievances. I hardly need to recite to this House, or to the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the importance that National places on settling historic grievances. I note that it was endorsed by Dr Brash in his now-famous speech given at Ōrewa earlier this year.

I guess that is one thing that does set us apart from the ACT party. The ACT party customarily comes along in these kinds of debates and finds every reason to oppose settlements. It may have, perhaps, supported one in a third reading. Perhaps the Te Uri o Hau settlement may have been one occasion, but as a general proposition it is very clear on where it stands. I acknowledge that Mr Franks is always a superb debater and makes it very clear where ACT stands. But to advance this nation we have to acknowledge the past, and that does not just mean saying that we cannot know about it now, therefore we will ignore it—it means addressing legitimate grievances.

I might note that this settlement has its origins, and indeed its settlement, in Sir Douglas Graham’s work in 1998.

I will turn to the issue of overlapping claims. It has been raised by my colleague Mr Ryall, and more particularly by the deputy leader of the National Party, Mr Gerry Brownlee. There are a number of facets that relate to it. One of those, of course, is not something that anyone envisaged some 10 or 15 years ago. In 21st century New Zealand society, people have many different origins—all of us—because we are a highly mobile nation. People move around the country. Whereas 100 years ago it was relatively unusual—not so common—for Māori people to have multiple ancestries, today that would be the norm. It has never been an issue in the past, but Ngāi Tahu raised a very serious question earlier this year. It is the prospect that Ngāi Tahu may, due to the size of its settlement and its general success in relation to it, pay a dividend to each and every one of its beneficiaries—just as if they were shareholders in a public company. That is the prospect that Ngāi Tahu has raised. Other iwi have not done that yet, but I suggest that in due course they will arrive at that point.

The question is about what happens to the people—relatively few, I suspect—who are largely Ngāi Tahu by descent and whakapapa, compared with the person or family with many different iwi genealogies within the family line. Does the family with essentially one descent in whakapapa terms just get one beneficiary benefit or dividend, and those with multiple descents get multiple cheques over time? As I say, that is not an issue that has ever had to be addressed before. Even when the whole settlement process was started off, this issue was not considered, because people were always talking about scholarships, marae restoration grants, economic development grants, and so on. But in the case of Ngāi Tahu, for instance, there is now a $500 million fund and 30,000 beneficiaries. Under normal rates of return it works out at potentially $1,000 per person over time. The same could occur with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. How do we deal with that? Because issues that simply were not important in the past will suddenly assume some real significance.

There will be real concern, I suggest, about a huge level of unequal division of the returns of the settlements. I know full well that in the north there is a certain level of resentment towards those who some in the north would say are the belted earls of the south, because of the unequal division of wealth. It is an inevitable feature of owning property. Property is not owned equally. I know that in some of the origins of Māori society, it is as if it were owned equally. But in reality that is not how it happens. Property is invariably not owned equally. I suggest that on this issue of overlapping claims and the diverse nature of descent there will be some very real issues that iwi will have to deal with.

I will also turn to the geothermal issue and pick up on a point raised by Mr Franks. This nation has developed, through the hard work of all its peoples, resources that had no value whatsoever when they were not developed and were nascent in the ground. They suddenly assumed value because of the application of modern technology. The geothermal resources would have no value if the Tasman Pulp and Paper plant had not been developed. That caused the development of that particular resource.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Madam Deputy Speaker—

Sit down. I still have 2 minutes to go. That member has been here for 6 years now.

💬 Hon Annette King: Now you have to apologise, Wayne.

I am prepared to acknowledge that the Minister of Māori Affairs will be taking a call. I would like to think that it will be a full 10-minute call, because this nation deserves that kind of focus.

The development of resources like the geothermal resource depends on the application of modern technology, which comes from the hard work of all New Zealanders—no matter what their descent. To have the implication that there should be an apology for that seems rather odd, because the benefit exists only because of contemporary developments.

New Zealand is a different kind of country, dare I say it, from a number of other countries on the globe. It is the work ethic, and, dare I say it, the benefits, of British colonialism that have lifted the development of our country. I think that people, when they think about that statement, will fairly acknowledge that contemporary New Zealand, with all its heritage and traditions, benefits from that very fact. Sometimes we overlook that reality, in that those deeds that have a gloss of apology on them mean we should be ashamed of our entire past. Although it is true that there are things we should be contrite for, there are also huge benefits from our past, and contemporary Māori benefit from those as much as anyone else.

Sometimes one is alarmed in this House at some of the perceptions of those people on the Opposition benches. I am alarmed because, certainly, this is about prejudice and loss. That member is trying to get me to talk for 10 minutes. I do not need to do that, because this Government has worked very, very hard with the local member to get this settlement to this stage. I am thankful that two other Māori from this side of the House have spoken—including myself, that makes three of us—because that shows how much we care about this bill. Opposition members will not even let our fine friend Georgina te Heuheu stand up.

💬 Pita Paraone: Whanaunga.

There is no whanaungatanga there—none whatsoever. I am encouraged that our whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau has seen fit to stand up, because part of this bill is about people up in Te Tai Tokerau. Certainly, in each settlement, which is not too different from the settlements that that member was involved in, we have to make sure we get there.

This is not just about the Crown telling people what to do. This is about the Crown and this fine Government making a very, very serious effort to bring this to an end. That member from the Opposition—who has disappeared like his leader—was starting to pontificate about the work issues that were relevant to the sawmill there. I tell members that for over 50 years Māori have given loyal service, generally as manual labourers. They have had no recognition in management, and no recognition in the down flow of ownership and the profits out of it. That member has stretched it out. I am amazed that he does not care about the environmental disaster that happened up there in that creek. It has been as black as the ace of spades for years and years, and nobody has done anything about it. That member says that is OK. Lo and behold, if that is what we have in the sense of representation of all those constituents in that area!

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Shut it down, then.

No, we do not want to shut it down. With this great economy—with the way it is travelling and is sitting fourth among the OECD countries—I tell the member that he is lucky he has this Government to ensure the booming rural economy in the Bay of Plenty. It has been created by this Government’s efforts. He knows that. This is the best time farmers have had for about 36 years. Thank goodness for this Government! It has kept all that great energy going in the Bay of Plenty. Even the performance of the Bay of Plenty rugby team has been due to the support of this Government. That is dead right. Everything that is going well there has something to do with this Government. I tell Opposition members that we will see this settlement through, and we look forward to their support all the way. We pay due respect to one of Tūwharetoa’s members, Georgina te Heuheu.

I move, That the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, 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, despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c), and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 March 2005.

Before I put that motion, I have an amendment in the name of Stephen Franks. The amendment is to the Minister’s motion to commit the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and is to omit all the words after the words “Māori Affairs Committee”.