Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

, on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that this bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee and that the committee have the authority to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during an evening on a day 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 back to the House on or before 10 May 2005.

This bill recognises and addresses longstanding and significant grievances of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, one of eight iwi in Taranaki. The iwi is situated between Pātea and Wanganui. The iwi has approximately 3,000 members. This bill settles all their historical claims.

This bill will give effect to the third treaty settlement in the Taranaki region. The historical claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi relate mainly to the Crown’s waging war in Taranaki in the 1860s and the confiscation of large areas of the iwi’s land. The claims also relate to the treatment of prisoners of war during the wars, the Crown’s unconscionable actions in dealing with the Parihaka community, the Crown’s actions that resulted in the loss of life during the Taranaki wars, including the lives of unarmed children, and the unfair labelling of some Ngā Rauru Kītahi as rebels.

This bill contains a formal apology to the iwi, to their ancestors, and to their descendants for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown. In April 2000 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority to represent the iwi in negotiations. In October 2000 the Crown and the iwi authority entered into terms of negotiation to specify the scope and objectives of, and general procedure for, the negotiations. The Crown acknowledged the objective of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to revitalise their own values, or tikanga—Ngā Raurutanga—through the settlement process and redress.

In May 2002 the Crown and the iwi entered into a non-binding agreement in principle. In November 2003 the Crown and Ngā Rauru Kītahi signed a deed of settlement after an overwhelming majority of the iwi showed their support for it by postal vote. A representative, transparent, and accountable governance entity was also ratified by the people to receive and manage the settlement assets.

I want to acknowledge those who suffered from the breaches of the treaty, who carried the grievances, and who are no longer with us. I want to pay tribute to those who negotiated this settlement on behalf of Ngā Rauru Kītahi—and some of them are here today. I want to thank the other Ministers and departments involved in this process and to acknowledge the debt this bill owes to the outgoing Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, my colleague the Hon Margaret Wilson. I also wish to thank and acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements for its outstanding efforts in seeking an honourable and reasonable settlement.

As New Zealanders, we can be proud that real and significant grievances are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill and that the settlement has been negotiated with the interests of all citizens in mind. It is not possible to fully compensate Ngā Rauru Kītahi for all the prejudice and loss they have suffered. The people of Taranaki, and of New Zealand generally, have benefited from the land and other resources confiscated and otherwise alienated from Ngā Rauru Kītahi. I wish to congratulate the iwi for negotiating on this basis. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense for what has been lost, there would be no settlements and therefore no resolution of the historical grievances. Our goal is to reach together settlements that resolve grievances of the past. This settlement also lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and iwi into the future. It is the first settlement that has been completed through all its stages under a Labour-led Government.

The Ngā Rauru Kītahi people have agreed to a settlement package that includes a Crown apology for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; recognition of the iwi to seek to revitalise their values and practices, known as Ngā Raurutanga; financial redress of $31 million; the gifting of four properties of high historical, cultural, and spiritual value to the iwi, including 110 hectares of the Nukumaru Recreation Reserve; the gifting of the Rehu Village site to Ngā Rauru Kītahi and Ngāti Ruanui; a statutory acknowledgment of the special association of Ngā Rauru Kītahi with eight statutory areas; entry by the Crown and the iwi governance entity into deeds of recognition relative to five statutory areas; the granting of renewable camping entitlements over two sites; the right of first refusal over certain Crown properties; and various items of fisheries-related redress. The settlement also includes the establishment of a forum to enable regular meetings between Ministers and the iwi to discuss the health of the treaty relationship.

The bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. This settlement has had a high level of support from the iwi community, with 92 percent of the eligible voters who participated supporting the Crown’s settlement offer. The people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi have been waiting a long time and have worked extremely hard to realise the settlement of their historical claims. That is why I consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee and be reported back by 10 May 2005. This timing will facilitate the timely transfer of the settlement redress to Ngā Rauru Kītahi. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

The National Party will be supporting this settlement bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee for its final consideration by Parliament. We will, though, be questioning some aspects of the bill itself. The first of those is the issue of the marine-farming opportunities that are provided for in the bill. Last year, just before Christmas, the Government raced through Parliament aquaculture legislation that reserved 20 percent of all future quota for Māori. That quota has been put in place and is being administered by Te Ohu Kai Moana. That 20 percent quota administered by Te Ohu Kai Moana will in part provide funding, eventually—if they are lucky—for Ngā Rauru Kītahi, as it will for many other iwi around the country. But in addition to that entitlement, the Government has decided to give this group another 20 percent of marine-farming opportunities, presumably within their rohe.

We simply ask why it was necessary to pass the aquaculture legislation last year at all if the intention was to give these sorts of specific preferences to various Māori claimant groups as treaty issues are settled. Ngā Rauru Kītahi will effectively have control of 40 percent of the marine-farming activities in their tribal area. Whether that is a good thing is something New Zealanders will make up their minds about at the polls later this year.

The other thing we are a little concerned about is the proposal to hand over in the settlement a number of properties, one of which is described as a beach site. We will want to find out through the select committee process how that ties in with the foreshore and seabed legislation that was also rushed through Parliament on the eve of Christmas last year. It appears to us that the Labour Party has said to New Zealanders that it has preserved the seabed and foreshore in Crown ownership on the one hand, and on the other it is progressively negotiating with iwi groups around the country to hand over the very customary title that they might have sought through the courts in the first place.

I see the Minister of Māori Affairs nodding his head and agreeing with me. I ask the Minister what the point was of passing the foreshore and seabed legislation in the first place. Just like the aquaculture legislation, it is being quietly pushed to one side as the Government goes about doing deals to hand the ownership of the foreshore and seabed of various parts of this country over to iwi groups. We know that a number of other settlements, with large tracts of coastline involved, are being negotiated at present. So we will have some questions about that.

Then there is the issue of mandating. This is something that causes me a great deal of concern. I noted that the Minister said that 92 percent of those eligible to vote within the iwi had supported the progress towards the settlement. I wonder how many participated in the vote to ratify the settlement. Because what has been concerning us a lot lately is that many of these settlements that are said to be full and final have, in some cases, had as little as a 27 percent participation rate from the iwi concerned. I do not know what it is in the case of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, but we will find out because it is no good saying the settlement is full and final if anything up to 70 percent of the iwi has not voted in favour of such a settlement. It leaves open the opportunity to say that Parliament forced the settlement on the iwi, when future generations consider how well the settlement has treated them.

The historical issues around this part of the country—the Land Wars and the activities around Parihaka—are well known to most New Zealanders. I do not think it was a particularly proud part of our history and it is appropriate that we do settle matters amicably and reasonably so that the grievance that is held by many of the descendants of the people of those times can be put to one side. New Zealand has overwhelmingly told politicians that in opinion polls on frequent occasions, so we do not want to stop the treaty settlement process. Rather, we have a party policy to say that we should get all the grievances on the table very, very quickly. We have said 2 years. We have said we should resource the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements so that the settlements can be put through to a final conclusion within 5 years. It is a very ambitious goal, but one, I think, the country needs to pick up on.

It is interesting to note that the Minister told us today that this is the first settlement that was fully negotiated under the Labour Government. The Labour Government has been around now for 5½ years and it shows just how much the treaty settlement process has slowed under its governance. The previous National Government, which started this, managed in just 6 years to conclude two of the biggest settlements. They were the Ngāi Tahu settlement and the settlement for the people of the Waikato—the Tainui settlement.

💬 Hon Mita Ririnui: Two of the easiest.

Although the member might say that they were the easy settlements, I do not think settlements of that size were particularly easy. They were very big. This is a $30 million settlement; they were—10 years ago—$170 million settlements. I think it is fair to say that Māori have not been served well by the Labour Government and have not prospered as a result of having Māori MPs in Labour’s caucus. I am sure the voters will make a decision about that later this year.

The other thing we will ask some questions about is a new term that appears to have come into this bill—ūkaipō. Although in the past there has been a pretty easy and well-known description of particular rights to occupy at particular times, it appears to us that there is a new term coming into this bill. We want to know whether it is an invention of the Office of Treaty Settlements or a term customarily used by Māori in that part of the country. There is no doubt that this term confers upon this group a particular opportunity that no other sector of the community will have. I am sure that during the process of the select committee we will find out what ūkaipō, or temporary occupation, actually means. I suspect that it is not something that was a customary activity of Māori in this area, but is, rather, a modern invention of the Office of Treaty Settlements. I think we need to be very careful about inventing new terms for activities that will be undertaken when we are settling historic grievances.

The National Party will support the first reading today. We have a number of questions to have answered in the select committee. We make a commitment to the people who are most affected here, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, that if everything is found to be satisfactory, we will be found—

💬 Jill Pettis: Pronounce it better than that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. An important issue was raised by the boisterous and often unruly Labour senior whip. I was not able to answer it. I would like to. Could we have that question asked more formally?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows it was just an interjection. The member’s time has expired.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. But, i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei o tātou tūnga, he wāhi poto tēnei ki te mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai i tēnā pito i raro o te maunga tapu o Taranaki. Arā, koutou o Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Koutou i haere mai ki te kite i te whakaurunga mai i te pire, arā, kia turengia tā koutou kerēme whakataunga i raro o te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[But, before continuing, I wish to extend a brief greeting to you of Ngā Rauru Kītahi who came from that end below the sacred mountain of Taranaki—those of you in particular who came to witness the tabling of the bill that will enable your settlement claim under the Treaty of Waitangi to be passed into law.]

As I said, I stand on behalf of New Zealand First, which, I might add, is the only non-aligned political party in this House. I acknowledge the presence in the House today of representatives of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and their negotiating team. I have no doubt that it is with a sense of relief and joy that they now witness the introduction of this bill—a bill that will help to provide the foundation for a better future for their iwi members.

The bill is intended to settle all historical claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. I remind the House that Ngā Rauru Kītahi is just one of eight generally recognised iwi in Taranaki. As with other claims already settled with the Crown, claimants are required to have in place an infrastructure that ensures the proper management and administration of the resources they will be responsible for under the settlement they enter into with the Crown, in order to ensure that all beneficiaries will be suitably considered in terms of the resources.

The bill is also intended to be a full and final settlement, and to provide full redress for all loss and prejudice. Given the circumstances in which this claim has been made, the bill is considered to be fair; yet, although we support the intent of the bill, we do not feel that this settlement will, in fact, provide full and final settlement.

Like earlier bills of a similar nature, it is indeed the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into by the Crown and Ngā Rauru Kītahi, dated 27 November 2003. In view of the fact that this Government has failed on a number of occasions to provide, when invited to do so, a clear and precise definition of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, New Zealand First has some disquiet about reference to “the principles” in the bill, albeit that that be part of the explanatory note. Our concern is that if those words are retained, then somewhere down the line, without a clear understanding of what “the principles” mean, we could be opening ourselves up to further claims. New Zealand First makes that point. I signal to this House that in supporting this bill going to a select committee, New Zealand First will vigorously seek the removal of that reference from all parts of the bill, albeit that it is in the explanatory note.

The previous speaker, Gerry Brownlee, referred to ūkaipō sites. He felt that ūkaipō was a new word that he had not seen before, and that it was creeping into legislation. Just by way of explanation, ūkaipō sites are those sites considered by the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to be linked to their poetical maternal origins. Although that might be a new concept for that member, for Māori, ūkaipō sites are very common and very sacred. So I just reassure the member that he should not be fearful of that expression.

Secondly, the previous speaker also referred to the handing over of a beach site and said that he thought it may be in contradiction to the intent of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. My understanding of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is that it covers only the wet part of the beach. I do not believe that it would honour the spirit in which Ngā Rauru Kītahi have accepted this settlement just to give them a beach they can enjoy only when the tide is out. I just remind the member of that.

My other concern is about some of the terms in the bill. The bill suggests that a number of local bodies should give due regard to the views of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Although that is a laudable point to include, the bill does not state that those local bodies are obliged to take on board the concerns and advice they receive through consultation with Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

New Zealand First has a number of issues with the bill. However, we would prefer to discuss them during the select committee process, because I think they could be easily explained then. So without further ado, New Zealand First supports the motion to send this bill to the select committee.

Ā, kai te maunga Tītōhia, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i haere tawhiti mai i te mata o te whenua nā runga i te kaupapa o te rā, kia whakatutukihia hoki tēnei kerēme o koutou. Nā runga i taua kōrero, kua hoki mai rā te kāwanatanga ki tana ūkaipō, kia whakatutukihia hoki ngā taimahatanga kai runga kai a koutou kia watea ai te huarahi ki mua. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Indeed my greetings to you all and the mountain of Tītōhia. Greetings to you who have travelled some distance to witness the introduction of this bill, which will eventually see this claim of yours under the treaty passed into law. As a result of what was stated before, the Government has returned to its seat of power to settle the encumbrances upon you, and, in doing so, clear the way forward for you. So, greetings to you and to all of us.]

I just want to acknowledge the presence in the House today of representatives of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, and to acknowledge the very, very long journey to have this outstanding claim settled. At the same time, I acknowledge their great mountain, maunga Taranaki, te maunga Tītōhia.

Ngā Rauru Kītahi have longstanding claims against the Crown. Regardless of the statements made by the National Party spokesperson on Māori affairs, nothing new has been said in this House today, and there is nothing in this bill that many of us around the country do not already know. I want to make clear the history of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, particularly as it pertains to the muru raupatu o Taranaki. This bill will end those claims and provide a platform on which Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown can build a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation.

The history of Ngā Rauru Kītahi is filled with regrettable actions by the Crown in the 19th century. Those actions contributed to the dismantling of ngā raurutanga, and resulted in much loss of life and property for Ngā Rauru Kītahi during the Taranaki wars, including the lives of defenceless children killed by Government militia at Handley’s woolshed in an unprovoked attack. Ngā Rauru Kītahi became virtually landless. In 1865 the Crown confiscated a third of Ngā Rauru Kītahi land under the powers of the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863. The confiscation was indiscriminate in extent and application. Land was taken from those who were loyal to the Crown as well as those who were deemed to be rebels. In response to the confiscations, Ngā Rauru Kītahi supported acts of passive resistance. In 1881 the Crown invaded Parihaka with more than 1,500 armed troops. Men, women, and children were expelled from the settlement, their leaders were imprisoned, their crops were burnt, and their homes were destroyed.

This bill records that the confiscation of Ngā Rauru Kītahi land was wrongful and in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It also records the elements of the Crown’s purchase of the large block known as Waitōtara, which was also in breach of the treaty. The bill acknowledges that the west coast commissions set up in 1880 to inquire into confiscated lands were inadequate in their scope and did not fully address the injustices suffered by Ngā Rauru Kītahi. In fact, those commissions compounded the prejudice suffered by Māori in Taranaki that had arisen from earlier confiscations. The land returned through the west coast commissions process was then vested in the Public Trustee and leased in perpetuity or sold.

The acknowledgement by the Crown of the injustices suffered by Ngā Rauru Kītahi is long overdue. I therefore commend the Government for introducing a bill to this House that contains a formal apology to ngā tūpuna o Ngā Rauru Kītahi and to ngā uri o Ngā Rauru te Kītahi for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown. In this bill the Crown unreservedly apologises to Ngā Rauru Kītahi for actions that have caused them hardship and suffering up to the present day.

The bill records that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have pursued their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown with vigour and fortitude over the past 150 years. I join my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending the individual kaumātua members and negotiators of Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have demonstrated commitment, leadership, courage, and integrity in achieving a settlement of the claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. I say courage, because it is a huge responsibility for this generation of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to end the pursuit of their claims and accept redress that we all know is less than the total loss they suffered.

This final and comprehensive settlement is an important milestone for Ngā Rauru Kītahi and for the Crown. The settlement redress will provide Ngā Rauru Kītahi with resources to assist them in revitalising their ngā raurutanga. The settlement will assist the Crown to restore its honour, and assist both parties to move forward together as treaty partners.

I am encouraged by the fact that, in negotiating the settlement, Ngā Rauru Kītahi have expressed a desire to establish a forum to provide for an ongoing relationship with the Crown. That has been done through the establishment of a paepae rangatira, or a chief-to-chief forum. The forum will assist in contributing to the development of an ongoing and positive treaty relationship. Ngā Rauru Kītahi have established a new governance entity, Te Kāhui Rauru, to represent all 12 marae of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The trustees have pledged to uphold and be guarded by manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, whanaungatanga, kotahitanga, wairuatanga, mana whenua, kaitiakitanga, whakapapa, reo, and mātauranga.

[respect, principality, kinship, solidarity, spirituality, authority over the land, guardianship, genealogy, language, and knowledge.]

Their vision is to live as Ngā Rauru Kītahi, to enjoy good health and equality of lifestyle, to foster unity, and to enable their people to embrace the Ngā Rauru Kītahitanga. I offer my best wishes to Ngā Rauru Kītahi for their future. Koinā te kōrero, ko Rauru Kītahi e! Tēnā koutou!

[So that is the statement, and it is Rauru Kītahi indeed! Greetings to you!]

United Future is very pleased to support the first reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill and congratulates Ngā Rauru Kītahi on reaching this milestone. I note that it is 150 years since the grievances have been sought to be addressed—a long time—and I give my greetings to the negotiating team, led by Marty Davis, and congratulate them on the achievement they have reached.

United Future members have pushed for a speeding up of the historical grievance settlements ever since we arrived in this House. We are pleased that as a result of our efforts more resources have been allocated to the process by this Government, including a second claims negotiation team. The fruits of that are now being seen. We believe there is still room to speed up more, and we will need to do so if the goal of resolution of all historical grievances within 10 to 15 years is to be achieved. I am particularly keen and grateful to be able to speak to this bill and to support it because of my own ancestral links to the South Taranaki area and the fact that my tīpuna, my great-grandparents in particular, farmed in and around Maxwell. They would have been there at the time when a lot of these grievances arose. I want personally to extend the apologies of my own whānau and tīpuna for the events that caused such hurt and injury to the people of Ngā Rauru, and to give that apology personally so that I can recognise it on behalf of my own family.

I do not know a great deal of my own family history in that area, but my family and my tīpuna may well have been involved in military activity—certainly they were involved in farming—and may have been beneficiaries of some of the land confiscations, and to the extent that that happened I want to apologise.

The bill refers to a number of the grievances that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have had, and has general references to the legitimate grievances that they have had that arose out of the Taranaki wars—the labelling of some of Ngā Rauru Kītahi rebels, their arrest and internment in the South Island, the indiscriminate confiscations of their land, the inadequate compensation awarded later and the delays in payment, the lack of consultation in that process, the scorched-earth policy the Crown adopted that resulted in the destruction of the people’s homes and crops, and the effective landlessness that resulted from that.

We are also very aware of the events of Parihaka, and acknowledge that Ngā Rauru Kītahi were the people involved directly in the injustices that were caused there. However, there is one incident in particular that struck a chord with me—the incident in Handley’s Woolshed. It is worth this House again dwelling on the specific facts of that situation because I think it shows some of the worst excesses of the way that the Crown treated Ngā Rauru Kītahi, and Māori generally.

On 27 November 1868 a colonial militia led by Sergeant Maxwell encountered a group of unarmed Ngā Rauru Kītahi and Taranaki iwi children at Handley’s Woolshed near Waitōtara. The children were from the Tauranga-Ika Pa, the eldest of whom was about 10 years old. In an unprovoked attack the militia fired on the group, pursued them on horseback, and attacked them with sabres. The children were wounded and killed. It seems to me a huge injustice, adding insult to injury, that we then find that the town of Maxwell was named after the same Sergeant Maxwell and that the events that occurred in 1868 have been recorded in posterity almost, by naming the town after the sergeant who perpetrated them. I personally am very keen to see the pursuit of the renaming of the town of Maxwell. I am aware that the Crown has declined to do that as part of the settlement. I accept that there needs to be consultation with the community, but I would really encourage the local community to get behind the support to change the name of Maxwell so that that injustice and insult can be put behind us and a name more fittingly reflecting the land of Ngā Rauru Kītahi can be adopted.

I was delighted to see that the ratification of this settlement agreement and the ratification of the governing authority was among the highest, if not the highest, that has been achieved during the historical grievance process. Ninety-two percent of people participating have approved the settlement, and 94 percent have approved the governance entity. I congratulate the work that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have done in getting that result, and commend the people for the unity that shows in their approach to this settlement.

One of the unique features of this settlement has been a paepae rangatira, a new concept, a chief-to-chief forum that will bring about an annual hui between the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and the chiefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to discuss issues of concern they may have. In other settlements we have had provision for consultation between iwi and the Crown. This settlement goes further by providing for a very specific forum to be dealt with on an annual basis, in order to ensure that Ngā Rauru Kītahi are being heard and that any issues they have are being dealt with on a timely basis.

I am also aware that part of the settlement proceeds include the transfer of ownership of the bed of Lake Moumahaki—a lake of some 50 hectares that is of particular importance to Ngā Rauru Kītahi because of the waka that were scuttled in the lake by the Crown, and the loss of taonga that the iwi have suffered as a result. I understand that a prophecy was given about that time: “When our taonga returns, our grievance will be over.” I hope that the return of this lake and the waka that are in it will go a long way towards the fulfilment of that prophecy and bring about a genuine resolution of the grievance, and a feeling of contentment and settlement among the iwi that their concerns have at last been heard, and that they can move on in strength and in confidence.

I am pleased also to learn that the access to the lake through a paper road over the land owned by the Murphy family has had an amicable resolution. I understand there was some apprehension in terms of the Murphy family’s support of the Crown’s endeavours but they have been supportive and there are signs that there will be a very positive relationship between the Pākehā families who own the land around the lake, and the iwi itself. That is pleasing to see, too, because it is evidence of a direct positive relationship that reflects the unity between Pākehā and Māori, and the Crown and Māori, that this bill seeks to exemplify.

I commend Ngā Rauru Kītahi and their future, as they see the fruits of this settlement and are able to get on and rebuild, as far as they can, the lives that they had before these things were taken. I acknowledge that Ngā Rauru Kītahi, like all iwi who have accepted settlements, have accepted far less than was taken from them. It is to their tremendous credit that they have bent over backwards to provide a resolution, and to agree to a resolution that can put these grievances behind us all as a nation, and allow us to go forward as a nation together.

I personally am not unhappy if there are some small aspects of this settlement that people may have some question marks over, because I think what Ngā Rauru Kītahi are accepting here, overall, is far less than what was stolen from them. Some of it, of course, can never be replaced—the loss of lives, the loss of mana, and the loss of a large part of their land. But at least this goes some way towards it. I commend this bill to the House and to the Māori Affairs Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise this matter before beginning, because I am not sure whether it has been covered by anything that I have seen in terms of translation. We have, in this bill, two texts of acknowledgments. The text of acknowledgment in English in clause 8 states, or appears to imply, that it is a translation of the text in clause 7. I raise this to ask whether you could inquire into whether we are entitled to get a translation or to get some confirmation from the Crown that this is a translation, because I cannot see in the Māori version some of the words that are in the English version. It does not need to be immediate, and I am not trying to hold up the debate on this, but I would like you to consider that when the House is considering a document that is in English and in Māori we should be able to ask for the same kind of assurance that we get when discussing that the translation is appropriate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for raising that point with me. It is really a matter for the select committee to deal with, and we now need to proceed.

I am aware of that. But I am asking, as a matter of principle, that when we are debating written material with both languages, what mechanism there may be for assurance as to the accuracy of the translation. That is something that is not holding up this debate, but I raise it because the word “rangatiratanga”, which is a word of considerable interest, appears in the English version here. I do not see it in the purportedly corresponding Māori version, and I ask what assurance the House has that materials placed before it for debate, which purport to be representative of each other, are representative. However, I will proceed, if you have delivered yourself on that, but ask you to consider whether it is an issue that does need some sort of ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I again thank the member. The issue really is one that needs to be dealt with by the select committee. There are many different pieces of legislation that have all sorts of interpretation, and it is often for the select committee to work that out with the members present, and I encourage the member to do that during the select committee process.

I raised that point because I have been trying to see what kind of development there has been in this pattern of settlement document over the period I have been in Parliament. This has evolved to some extent. One point that was raised—and I was glad to see it raised by New Zealand First—was that we could now find in this document only a couple of references to the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So the Government has obviously taken on board the weakness in its position, and the weakness that there has been in the entire consideration of these matters, when such contentious terms have been sprinkled throughout documents without any explanation. ACT has not been able to vote for settlement bills for quite some time, because we have been asked to vote on the translation, into statute, of words that no one can give an authoritative definition or a provenance for.

So I am pleased to see that that has been diminished. However, I am sorry to warn New Zealand First that it still does appear. It still does appear in the actual text of the document in clause 8(5) in Part 1. There is a reference to “basic human rights”, undefined, and “a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” So there is still some work to be done in cleaning the stables of this pernicious term.

I believe that, in fact, it would be in the interests of both the counter party with the Crown—the iwi concerned—and the Crown, to make sure that we do not leave those sorts of terms there. These people deserve certainty after all these years. They do not deserve to have themselves, or the next generation, pointed yet again to another area for suspicions about each other. Why are weasel words being used instead of clear and straightforward words of intended agreement?

I was also pleased to hear New Zealand First members say that they were looking forward to the select committee process of examining some of these provisions. Because, in the past, this process has been seen as a rubber stamp. In fact, Parliament has been told that there is a very strong convention that these deals cannot be altered. It has made a mockery of the debating process and the vetting by Parliament of these deals, that they come here and are then processed through as if it were a rubber stamp process, because it should not be.

In these bills we see a whole lot of issues postponed for the future. Future generations will look at these bills and be completely baffled as to what could have been meant. They will be looking at them assuming that we were more courageous and more deliberate in what we are doing than, in fact, this generation has actually been. For example, there is a guardianship created for the bed of Lake Moumahaki. There is a vesting in the beds of rivers. There is a creation of ūkaipō sites and tōpuni with definitions by the Crown, which look as if they ought to be creating some kind of substantive right. Then, in the same legislation, statements that categorically say that they do not have a legally enforceable effect, or, if they do, it can be avoided by the Minister changing a protocol, or that any effect is simply one that an authority must take notice of, but there is no indication of what that notice means.

Now it may be very simple for people accustomed to being mealy-mouthed after 20 years of conspiracy between the two big parties to pretend that the treaty industry was a highly principled and necessary process. It may be very simple. It may be very easy for this generation to see those kinds of lip service statements and those kinds of spurious rights as just a process of face saving. The trouble is we will not know whose face is being saved. Future courts will say that surely the Crown must have meant more, surely the Crown and the legislature cannot have been saying: “You people have a grievance, you have legitimate grounds for complaint, we will recognise and register solemn documents around particular areas of value to you, but nothing in those documents means a thing in the law.”

Surely, we can do better than that. In matrimonial law many years ago it was decided that a clean break was a better arrangement than forcing the parties to continue in relationships that could provide grounds for misunderstanding. We are seeing this Government do it repeatedly—postponing a dispute to the next generation. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill did it, and this bill does it. This bill gives some sort of preferential right to the new aquacultural areas. We do not know what the principle is that lies behind that. We do not know whether these aquacultural areas can be what used to be called the arse-end of allotments, or whether they have to be primaries. We do not know, because this is deliberately fudging. This bill is providing an opportunity for future generations to say quite rightly that the Crown must have known that it was in the wrong, that the Crown said it was in the wrong, and that the Crown purported to make compensation. We have been obliged to accept the compromise by being worn down, and by fear of the industry coming to an end, but all we got was shadow with no substance.

Worse, it seems to point those people, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, in the direction of being a constant pain in the neck to their neighbours, the local authorities, the people administering the Resource Management Act, the Department of Conservation, and all the other bodies that will have to consult them and appear to give weight to their concerns. The rights that they get are not the positive rights of real property ownership promised by article 2 of the treaty. They are not the rangatiratanga that was intended to describe the property owners’ right of exclusive use, possession, enjoyment, and right to sell. The new rights have nothing in them other than an encouragement to always be negative, to block, to oppose, to object, and to hold out for ransom payments in settlement of purported grievances.

Sure, they are for relatively small areas. When we go through the schedule to the bill we see that quite meagre areas are being offered for that special status. We can understand that the original inhabitants desire to be recognised for the importance to them of those sites. But we should be deciding right now in this Parliament what that recognition means, not postponing it to a Minister under a protocol for the future, and not postponing it in the fond hope that the Environment Court will know what to do. We know what this does. It does the sort of thing that we have just seen in the Whanganui River where one of the State’s power companies has been told to throw away between $10 million and $20 million a year’s worth of electricity generation for 10 years, in the hope that the parties can come to agree in an irreconcilable conflict.

It is hopeless, because in that case the iwi should be able to convert their concerns to some concrete rules, to a monetary compensation, or to a set of remedial actions that then result in clear legal rights being given to the other side. Instead, the Environment Court, faced with just that kind of fudge instruction, has said that it cannot decide, it will give them 10 years, and to sort it out. That is not a responsible position for Parliament to be adopting. It is not a responsible position, particularly now that the scales have fallen from the eyes of the New Zealand establishment and it realises that the treaty industry is in its dying days and that the treaty has lost its talisman status. The treaty is not a trump card any longer to block debate. The generation of politicians who refused to recognise the concern of ordinary New Zealanders about setting up one law for Pākehā and one law for the rest is going. Those statutory instructions to bodies to take note of that agreement, without saying what it really means, without creating concrete rights, without creating a process for compensation of breach of them, is simply ensuring that this will not be the final settlement. That is why ACT will vote against it.

E te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira, ngā tungāne, ngā tuākana, koutou o Ngā Rauru Kītahi kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

[To the visitors from afar, to the elders, chiefs, brothers, elder sisters and brother, and to you especially of Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have arrived here this afternoon in support, welcome, welcome, alight here.]

The Green Party congratulates Ngā Rauru Kītahi on its settlement. Ngā Rauru is one of the eight Taranaki iwi, as we have heard, whose lives and lands were shattered by the vicious attacks of the New Zealand settler Government, which, out of greed, unlawfully confiscated their lands and imprisoned their people. The Waitangi Tribunal, in its interim Taranaki report, upheld the two platforms of that iwi’s claim: those of land deprivation and disempowerment. By disempowerment, the tribunal referred to the denigration and destruction of Māori autonomy, or self-government. We are very pleased that Ngā Rauru is to receive some financial compensation, however poor in comparison with the resources that were wrongly taken.

We are also pleased to see in this bill the opportunities for the protection of ūkaipō and tōpuni. The Greens are strongly in favour of co-management options whereby the arrangements recognise the kaitiakitanga of the iwi or hapū, and whereby the Government agencies are actively responsible for protecting those values. We do not doubt that there will still be some issues to work through, and we look forward to exploring the effectiveness of those mechanisms in the select committee. We are also very supportive of the paepae rangatira, which operates as a forum for leaders to deal with treaty matters. The Greens strongly urge the Government to engage in that process, to make an active commitment to ensure that the process is effective, and to explore similar forums with other iwi and hapū.

The treaty settlements provide the Government of New Zealand with a ready-made opportunity to engage in a community dialogue with New Zealanders about our collective history as a nation. The Greens have long advocated for such a dialogue. In our view the settlements provide an accessible, localised history that can be of enormous benefit to our communities. New Zealanders are crying out for information about our collective history. In a television poll held just last week, race relations was the second most important issue for those polled. Our education system does not provide enough information, and too many people in our community have missed out on learning about our nation’s history. We urge the Government, through the Office of Treaty Settlements, to hold community meetings in areas where settlements occur.

The Ngā Rauru Kītahi settlement is a good opportunity to do that—to provide the community not just with information about the history of the area but with the opportunity for people to ask questions and to hear the histories of Māori and Pākehā. That is one mechanism to undo the 19th century racist scaremongering and false representation of special treatment for Māori that are continually advocated by the radical revisionist right. Although most people will agree that actions such as the sacking of Parihaka were unjust, many will still deny that it was racist, and that the purpose of those sackings and thefts was to destroy the Māori culture. One need only read the Hansard of the time to know that that is the truth. New Zealanders must look their history clearly in the face and learn from their mistakes. Knowing their history is a first critical step. All people in this country will benefit from the settlement, not just Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Every effort to redress the wrongs of the past and remedy the breaches of the treaty is a good thing.

But the Treaty of Waitangi is not just about property rights. It is about the ongoing relationship between iwi, hapū, and the Government. That relationship is continually abused by the Government in its operations—not just in its legislation, as we saw last year, but in its policies and resourcing decisions. It is generally assumed that the treaty settlement process is an attempt to resolve the injustices of the past and represents a genuine effort on the part of the Government to bridge the divide between Māori and Pākehā, but it is not. The Waitangi Tribunal, although it has achieved a great deal through its meticulous report writing and its ability to operate on the proverbial smell of an oily rag, is a creature of statute. Yet it is literally starved of resources, and its recommendations, reached after considerable work, are continually ignored by the Government. In negotiating settlements such as this one, claimants are routinely presented with a “take it or leave it” bottom line from the Office of Treaty Settlements, with the Government prepared to negotiate only on the minor matters.

We must remember that Māori are extremely generous in accepting these settlements. Ngā Rauru Kītahi has agreed, as part of its settlement, to forgo full redress for all the loss and prejudice it has suffered, and to take the settlement described as “fair in the circumstances” rather than its actual rightful entitlement. Ngā Rauru Kītahi has agreed to operate within a Government process that does not recognise tikanga Māori, but requires Ngā Rauru to operate within a Pākehā—not a Māori—framework. That is why these settlements cannot be full and final—not until the Government commits not just to the financial redress but to the implementation of te tiriti. The primary problem with the settlement process is that it is the Government that dictates the way in which things should be done in the tangata whenua domain. It is the wronged party that is expected to submit to terms imposed by the wrongdoer. That method of dealing with the injustices of the past cannot possibly hope to achieve a real resolution. The same thinking chooses to ignore the benefits to all communities reaped from addressing those injustices of the past, while arguing that the, on average, 1 percent compensation that is paid in treaty settlements and other initiatives that are designed to bring Māori on a par with Pākehā is considered to be too generous. An unfair process for the resolution of wrongs does not have any durability. Our own history proves that, and it is about time that the Government learnt from those mistakes. Had the reaffirmation of Māori authority and the second article of Te Tiriti o Waitangi been adhered to in the past, the relationship between Māori and Pākehā would have resulted in a far healthier relationship than the one we currently have. That relationship continues to be abused.

This is a time when our constitutional make-up is to be examined by this Parliament through the select committee, and when the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to be discussed in our communities. Therefore, we eagerly welcome the establishment of the Ngā Rauru - Government paepae rangatira.

We very much look forward to seeing how it will work, and how it may be a model for future Māori-Government relations—if that is what Māori choose. It is a forum that is very important to the treaty relationship. Any discussions about the nature and implementation of te tiriti must not be about the relevance of the treaty, because that is not the question. The question is, and always will be, how we work with it, how we implement it in our daily lives, and how we address those issues. The paepae rangatira that is recommended and suggested in this bill has been talked about for quite some time now, as far back as the Hīrangi hui in the 1990s. It has taken 10 years for this model to come to fruition, and we congratulate Ngā Rauru on their pursuit of it and on the achievement of it in this bill.

We look forward to hearing the concerns and views of Ngā Rauru and of those involved in the settlement during the select committee process. We again congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi on its perseverance and commitment to achieving a settlement for the benefit of its people. We recognise the hardship the iwi has endured in doing so, and the cost to it and to its people in the past, and in the future, of obtaining a settlement that does not fully address the issues and wrongs that were committed against it. However, we will be voting for this bill because we believe that it is better than nothing, and we want to support Ngā Rauru in its achievements.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak briefly to the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. This is a historic occasion, and I am sure everyone in the House is pleased to see that some settlement is being reached in these longstanding claims. Eight Taranaki iwi have been working through their issues, and this will be the third settlement to be reached. A great deal of work has been done. I thank all of those who have been involved in that work and congratulate them on the job they have done. I look forward to the continuing work and to the report from the Māori Affairs Committee on this issue.

I want to acknowledge the presence of representatives of Ngā Rauru Kītahi in Parliament today. I cannot see their eyes or faces, but I know they are up above in the gallery behind me. I say greetings to them all—tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. There they are, in all their dignity, upholding their mana—their rangatiratanga. I congratulate them on being here today. The very fact that they are here, given the sad and tragic history that underpins this settlement bill, is cause for celebration and commendation.

As we all know, the history that underpins this settlement bill is like the history of all the Taranaki and other tribes that suffered raupatu, particularly following military action. It is one of total dispossession, of humiliation, of belittlement, of the loss of life of men, women, and children—sometimes in the most appalling circumstances—and of the suspension of the law so that the Crown could have its way. It is not a history that any of us can be proud of, but we—all of us New Zealanders today—can take some pleasure in the fact that we have found a way to try to restore some justice to tribes like Ngā Rauru Kītahi. I again congratulate the members of Ngā Rauru Kītahi on their settlement, and on being courageous and brave enough to conclude a settlement. I congratulate them on their patience, their long forbearance, and on the fact that they have been through so much in order to get here today. They give Parliament the opportunity to restore the honour of the Crown, in relation to circumstances that have not been honourable in the past.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee has outlined the three or four issues in particular that National is concerned about, but, thankfully, we will have the opportunity to explore those issues in the Māori Affairs Committee, so I do not intend to traverse them again. I do want to make some general comments. First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Hon Mark Burton on taking over the treaty settlements portfolio. I am sure it is not the job he intended to have as we go into the new year, but none the less it is as important as any other job in this Parliament. In the long run it may be more important than any other job, in any event. I congratulate Mark Burton particularly because he is from home—from where I come from. He is a longstanding Taupō resident. I hope that his interactions with my own tribe, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, over the past years will have given him a particular and unique understanding of tribal dynamics, and of the ways that iwi think and work. Those matters are not always visible to people who do not take the time to try to understand them, but who think that they know it all anyway. This Parliament is full of that kind of person.

I just want to say that in a way, although I was surprised by the appointment of Mark Burton, having thought about it, I think it is probably a good choice. I hope it will be. The Minister will know that our people at home—the members of my tribe—will always be there if he wants to run ideas by them or to receive some input in a general way on matters he is dealing with. I think Māori people have not necessarily been well served in the last few years by the previous Minister. Not the least of that was because she seemed to have a lot of work in any event, and the success of the treaty work depends very much on the ability of people to listen. The portfolio needs a Minister who will listen, who will talk straight, and who will not try to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes. Māori people are not dumb; they can see through all that. As I say, my congratulations go to Mark Burton, and we are always there at home if he thinks members of my tribe can help him.

I want to comment about something that Mita Ririnui said. He mocked the record of the previous National Government by describing our settling of the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui claims as two of the easiest settlements. He would not have a clue about that. He would have no idea of the effort, commitment, dedication, brainpower, and sheer hard work—the 80-hour weeks—that the Hon Douglas Graham put into settling those claims. And those weeks were not just the odd week here and there; it was week after week after week. Although the settlements that are now coming through under the Labour Government have some differences in them, the reality is that the National Government of the 1990s developed the treaty settlement framework, which survives almost intact to this day. The Labour Government had the benefit of coming into office in the year 1999, picking up that framework, and running with it. Although it may not be perfect, it is the best that we were able to put together in the 1990s. Stephen Franks should take note of that. I would have thought that his legal background would suggest to him that it is absolutely imperative to give Māori a sense of having the injustices that were wrought on them put right. For this country to be putting right only now the things that happened 160-odd years ago does not say a lot for us. On the other hand, New Zealanders can take some pride that our generation is trying to address those matters.

I think that Stephen Franks should also think about this: as far as I could see, there was certainly no intention on the part of the previous National Government—at least, from the time I first entered Parliament in 1996—to be pulling the wool, as he tried to imply, over the eyes of New Zealanders. This is a complex thing we are doing. It is difficult, it is hard, and it has been sitting around for years. It is about total injustice. To put a framework together that would, hopefully, work was not easy—not easy at all. Our country can be proud that we are doing these settlements. Other countries have not dealt as well as New Zealand with the same problem. If I look across the Tasman, as I have said before in this House, I for one can say that I am glad we are not Australians, given the way they are dealing with their indigenous population. But I can certainly speak for the previous National Government when I say that there was never any intention to suggest that we had developed a perfect framework. We have never said that. The framework was the best we could find, and it still seems to be the best we can offer. I do not think that Ngā Rauru should in any way feel that their settlement is diminished just because someone in this place thinks that that framework is not good enough.

I congratulate Ngā Rauru again. The iwi’s members will require some more patience before we get to the end of this process. But I hope and trust that what they have agreed to will see them in good stead and at least provide some building blocks for them to feel that their mana has been restored, and that they, at long last, will feel that all those things that happened to their tūpuna in the late 19th century will have been put right by this legislation.

I rise to take a very brief call in support of the first reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill, another piece of legislation that has come before the House to give effect to treaty settlements that the Crown has entered into with iwi and hapū groups around the country. I particularly acknowledge the hard work that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have done in bringing their claim forward to this point, and the work done by the Crown, led by the Hon Margaret Wilson and the Hon Mita Ririnui, along with officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, to come to an arrangement with Ngā Rauru that can now be considered by our Māori Affairs Committee of this House. This is one of the good things our Parliament often does—the discussion of these matters and the fronting up to parts of our history—and we do it in quite a formal, proper, and professional way. I know that that is the way this matter has been dealt with since the negotiation settlement began in October 2000. I think it is appropriate that, our having just marked the commemoration of Waitangi Day, one of the first bills the House deals with after our formal business with the Prime Minister’s statement is this settlement bill. I support its first reading.

Members of the House can be in no doubt that the National Party supports this settlement bill, the Crown’s settlement with Ngā Rauru Kītahi. We absolutely support that. I would like to acknowledge those from that iwi who are present today, those listening in, and those who are here in spirit, for all that the iwi have been through, firstly, in recent years in bringing their claims and their case to the Crown—which is a reasonably watertight one; I think all could acknowledge that—and also way back, when their ancestors went through catastrophic times in the way they were treated.

I feel ashamed in some way—and I speak personally, not for the National Party—to think that as a European New Zealander some of my ancestors may have been involved in the terrible undertakings back then. We heard a little about that from other speakers. I would like to lay on the table my personal apologies from my family line through the last 150 years. The stories that come out of Taranaki about the way Māori were treated historically I guess call on future Governments to make sure that those sorts of things never happen again, and that they are put right. Perhaps in other areas of the country maltreatment of Māori was not quite as severe, but that does not mean to say that all claims for restitution should not be put forward and settled, once and for all. So my voice certainly joins that of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in acknowledging the Ngā Rauru Kītahi present here today, in acknowledging the fact that there needs to be a settlement, an apology, and this official process, and in acknowledging that the National Party supports the passing of this bill.

The Hon Georgina te Heuheu gave Mita Ririnui a verbal clip across the ear, because in his youth and enthusiasm he had made the statement that some settlements with iwi in this country, like Ngāi Tahu’s, were easy settlements. Well, I can tell Mita Ririnui and members of the Labour Party that no settlement is an easy settlement, because even in the discussion there is pain. Whether it is a settlement of a dollar and an acre of land, or thousands and thousands of acres of land and millions and millions of dollars, is not what is important; what is important is that the ancestors of many Māori went through much pain to bring their claims to the table, and no settlement is a small, minor, or easy settlement. We would like to see Mita Ririnui go through the process of sitting down at the negotiating table, like some of my forebears in the National Party did—Sir Doug Graham, Georgina te Heuheu herself, and others—to see how he would get on. We in the National Party take settlements seriously. We take this one seriously, and we certainly took seriously the settlements with Ngāi Tahu and others.

In that light, in talking about the serious nature of settlements and the National Party record in that area, I say that we have always sought to get them right and to ensure that settlements are enduring. That is our wish for this particular settlement, also. Members will note that the agreement around the general nature of this bill was actually nutted out and pretty much decided on in about October 2003, which was about 18 months ago. Some time has passed since then. To get the legislation correct, and to have it improved through the select committee process, all takes time. We on this side of the House are disappointed that there has not been the number of settlements in the last 5 years that we hoped could happen, but we do understand how long they take, and we acknowledge the efforts of the current Government.

The National Party wants to get this one right, and we want to make sure it is enduring. That is why Gerry Brownlee raised the four issues that we will be examining in the select committee process. I would like to highlight a couple of them, myself. The first is around the issue of coastal space. Members will recall that last year we saw 20 percent of aquaculture space passed on to iwi throughout this country in a sort of blanket approach to coastal aquaculture space settlement. So whether an iwi was inland, or just on the seashore, or had had coastal marae many, many decades ago, or has them currently, each iwi got some sort of equal share of 20 percent of the coastline for aquaculture.

On top of that, there was up to 40 percent provision of new aquaculture space. Part of that was new aquaculture space, to go directly to Māori and to iwi groups, but there was also an extra 20 percent, which made up the 40 percent, in case this Government was not able to throw existing space to Māori. We could not see the sense—and we highlighted this—in a blanket settlement across the country of aquaculture space being thrown at Māori, unless, of course, the Government was trying to placate Māori who are upset about the seabed and foreshore legislation. I know that is why Tariana Turia left the Labour Party—because she felt there was a bit of a deal done there.

We still have that question arising, because in our view this bill deals with aquaculture space better than the aquaculture bill does. Under this Ngā Rauru Kītahi Claims Settlement Bill the iwi get a preferential right to buy a certain percentage of space, because of their particular situation, their individual requirements, the case that they put up during treaty negotiations. As opposed to last year, when we saw a blanket 20 percent given to all Māori, here we have a negotiated agreement based on its merits. We applaud that, and think it should happen throughout the country. Every case should be dealt with on its merits—not like last year.

But we will question the reason why Ngā Rauru Kītahi also receives the 20 percent of space that was thrown at Māori throughout the country last year to placate them. We do not question whether they deserve the space allocated in this bill, although I must say that “deserve” is a poor word; rather, this settlement is in some sense a compensation package. It has not been earned; it is an acknowledgment of the pain they went through. We do not argue about why space has been given away in this bill, because it is an individual negotiation on merit, and is completely understandable, but we will have to question the iwi getting the blanket 20 percent of space thrown at Māori last year.

There is also the issue of shellfish quota. I note that a certain percentage of quota for kina and surf clams will be given to this iwi some time in the future. Does that ignore the fact that there was a 1990s fisheries settlement, which already gives 20 percent of total quota to Māori? Clearly, this quota is over and above that, and that makes one wonder about the finality of that 1990s fisheries settlement.

Our questions will be around those particular issues, not to rob Ngā Rauru Kītahi of anything— because, in fact, one could never give them enough, given the pain they have been through traditionally and historically—but to question the authenticity and endurance of this particular settlement. How can it be enduring, given that those other two settlements—the 20 percent of aquaculture space allocated last year, and the 1990s fisheries settlement a decade ago—are being relitigated? I question Labour members about what promises they are making out there on the hustings to iwi. They will have to throw them a lot more than that, I would think, to pull Māori away from the Māori Party.

We commend this bill to the House and will be supporting it.

Ngā Rauru Kītahi is situated in South Taranaki between Pātea and Wanganui, which is part of the electorate of Whanganui that I am privileged to represent. I am very pleased to know a significant number of Ngā Rauru people who live within the Whanganui electorate. They are fine, hard-working, and forward-looking people who do an awful lot within their community. The iwi has approximately 3,000 members, which is a significant grouping of people within the geographical area.

This bill is important, because it settles all the historical claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and gives effect to the third treaty settlement in the Taranaki region. The historical claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi relate mainly to the Crown’s raging of war in the Taranaki area in the 1860s, and a fascinating history that is. Many events of the 1860s and the land confiscation remain at the forefront of many people’s memories. The Crown acknowledged the objective of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to revitalise their own values, their tikanga, through this settlement process and redress.

I look forward to this bill progressing through the House. I also look forward to the magnanimous statements that have been made by the Opposition this afternoon continuing during the further stages of the bill as it progresses through the House. I wish all those associated with Ngā Rauru Kītahi well. I know that they too are very keen to get on and, with the forward-looking attitude they have today, continue to assist their people, particularly the young people who are so important to the continuation of Ngā Rauru Kītahi within our area.

, on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 10 May 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I put the question on the Minister’s motion, the honourable member Stephen Franks has lodged an amendment, which is to omit from the instruction all the words after the expression “10 May 2005”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that the motion moved by the Minister be read again so that we can have the exact wording of what was proposed.

The wording of the motion was: “That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 10 May 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191, and 194(1)(b) and (c).”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious matter, and you might recall that on numerous occasions in the past I have raised the question of the difficulty that arises when the executive, by its referral motion, circumvents the Standing Orders—principally Standing Order 194.

The point I am making is that under this Government, this executive, it has become standard practice automatically to circumvent the Standing Orders every time a bill is referred to a select committee. As you will appreciate, the Standing Orders are there to protect members of Parliament, particularly the interests of minor parties and Opposition parties, against abuse by the executive. Here again, with that very close vote following the vote on my colleague Stephen Franks’ amendment, it is quite clear that it is only the executive, with the support of United Future, that effectively is allowing this House to suspend the Standing Orders. I draw this matter to your attention. What remedy do Opposition members have to protect the interests of members of Parliament, who are here for a very good purpose and a very good reason? It is really the arrogance of the executive that means that select committees can sit through urgency or at any time the House may be sitting, and that impinges on the rights of members of Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer members to Standing Order 284(4), which states: “An amendment to substitute another committee or to alter any proposed special powers or instruction may be moved if notice of such an amendment is delivered to the Clerk at the Table before the bill is read a first time.” The question now is that the motion be agreed to.