Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill

, on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill is an important milestone for Ngāti Awa and for the Crown. It addresses the longstanding grievances suffered by Ngāti Awa. The bill will enable both parties to move forward and strengthen their relationship as treaty partners. I encourage every member of the House to read carefully the preamble to this bill. It sets out the Crown acknowledgements and formal apology to Ngāti Awa for past dealings that breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. It acknowledges that the Crown breached the treaty and its principles by failing to ensure that the Ngāti Awa people were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs. It also acknowledges that the confiscation of Ngāti Awa tribal land had a devastating effect on the welfare, economy, and development of Ngāti Awa. Confiscation deprived the iwi of many wāhi tapu, of access to natural resources, and of opportunities for economic, social, and cultural development.

As well as a formal Crown apology to Ngāti Awa, this settlement provides for financial redress of $42.39 million, including the transfer of Crown-owned forest land in the Kāingaroa and Rotoehu forests, and a variety of cultural redress to recognise and protect the interests of the people of Ngāti Awa in sites of significance to them. That cultural redress will strengthen ties between Ngāti Awa and the Crown.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered this bill and submitted its commentary on it to the House. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with minor amendments of an editorial and technical nature. I thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the bill in general, and for its observations on the process of ratification by members of Ngāti Awa. Ratification of both the settlement offer and governance entity by members of the claimant community are crucial to the settlement process. The Crown has clear guidelines for reviewing ratification processes and their outcomes. Primarily, the Crown needs assurance that all eligible members of the claimant group have had a chance to participate and that a sufficient majority of the claimant group supports the proposals. A postal ballot is inevitably the preferred method to gauge that support. However, low voter turn-out can be a concern, especially when decisions of this magnitude are being made. In the case of Ngāti Awa, the committee stated that it was satisfied that a robust ratification process was run for both the settlement offer and the governance entity, and that they were supported by a high percentage of all those who voted.

Participation rates are a key consideration for the Crown. However, it would be unfair to deny claimants a settlement on the basis of voter turn-out alone. Short of compelling people to fill out their voting forms, the Crown and claimant groups do everything they can to ensure that all eligible members of the claimant community have a credible opportunity to participate. The Crown has worked, and will continue to work, closely with claimant groups to advise them on ways to maximise ratification participation. The Crown is confident that the majority of Ngāti Awa supports this settlement.

In recognition of the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings with regard to three ancillary claims, the Crown agreed to settle those claims alongside the main Ngāti Awa settlement. The provisions affecting the three ancillary claims were finalised as the bill was introduced. The committee agreed to the inclusion of those provisions in the bill to enable them to form part of the main Ngāti Awa settlement.

I note that the committee considered Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill at the same time as this bill. Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill was reported back on 1 December 2004 and passed its second reading in the House just yesterday. It enables Ngāti Awa to establish an appropriate entity to receive the settlement redress while retaining key features of their existing entity, including its statutory status. That bill now awaits the passing of this bill so that the rūnanga can take on its new responsibilities to the people of Ngāti Awa.

It has taken many years of challenging negotiations between Ngāti Awa and the Crown to reach this point. The Crown considers that the settlement is fair and just. The people of Ngāti Awa have ratified it, and both parties now look forward to a more positive future relationship.

In closing, I acknowledge the many people—officials, Ministers, and, of course, members of Ngāti Awa—who have worked hard to reach this settlement. I strongly urge members to progress this bill through the House without further delay.

This settlement bill does address grievances that the people of Ngāti Awa have had with the Crown, and it raises interesting questions to consider: who is the Crown and who is not, and why has this group of New Zealanders had its grievance with the Crown dealt with in this way? The answers to those questions are not terribly complex, but answering them does allow us to see the treaty settlement process in a much more positive light than it is seen by some New Zealanders.

The point I make is that the Labour Government constantly talks about the partnership between the Crown and Māori. We do not accept the term “partnership”. It is rubbish, because when the treaty was signed, if it was ever to have any validity at all, it had to be that there was one form of governance in this country from that point on, and that had to be that all New Zealanders would stand as equals before the law. Anyone who comes to the Government—which is the representative of the Crown these days—to have a grievance sorted out, and who then negotiates to have that grievance dealt with does so because he or she has a right to be treated as an equal under the law. And at some point or over some period of time since 1840, people have not been treated in that way. So in settling a grievance like this, the Crown, which is all of us, Māori and non-Māori, simply says it recognises that a group of us was not properly dealt with according to the law, and there are grounds for redress. That is the basis on which the National Party has approached treaty settlements since we started the process back in the early 1990s.

We are happy that this bill is before us today. We do want to see the people of Ngāti Awa receive their settlement and get on with things, because in so doing we all benefit. But I cannot help but make a few comments with regard to the Minister’s blasé approach to the appallingly low number of people from that iwi who have ratified this settlement. In saying that 40 percent of the eligible iwi members voted for this deed of settlement and that of those only 78 percent—78 percent of the 40 percent—support it, one is saying, actually, that less than one-third of that iwi says that this bill deals with the iwi’s grievance. I do not feel at all comfortable about being able to say to New Zealanders that the process of settlement of these treaty claims is full and final, when two-thirds or more of an iwi will be able to say, for some generations, that it was not part of that. Those people will be able to say that a particular leadership, which, clearly, they did not support, committed them to it, and that Parliament imposed it upon them.

Although we will vote for this bill to progress to the Committee stage today, I hope that Ngāti Awa may take some time to give us confidence that that appallingly low vote is enough for us to support this bill through its third reading. It is a failing on the part of the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements to accept such a low vote. I am sorry to be so strong on this point, but if this is the settlement of a long-held, deeply emotional grievance, what is so hard about getting a much bigger number of people to stick their hands up and say they want it? I do not think it should be too hard, at all. I would like to know whether the Office of Treaty Settlements, which I must say I find to be an office of Government run by people who are very, very light on life experience, let alone experience of the matters they are supposed to be dealing with—

💬 Hon Paul Swain: What about the National Party?

The Labour Party is getting upset! After 5 years of being in Government, it has brought to Parliament the very first treaty settlement bill that it has put together totally by itself, and we are not allowed to expose that the ratification process for it is a sham. The Minister, Margaret Wilson, does not have her hand on the throttle of that department; it is being driven by someone else.

If Labour knows a compelling reason why this Parliament and the people of this country should accept that one-third of an iwi that has a grievance can say that what the Government is offering is okay and that it is full and final, with never another comeback, then it should tell us what that reason is. If I were part of the other two-thirds, I would be making my argument. There is silence—absolute silence. There is a look of stunned disbelief on the face of the Minister of Māori Affairs. The Minister who spoke on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations today should not offer much more comment, because it was noted that he simply read the notes that the Office of Treaty Settlements had provided for him—and, as I have said, we do not think its credibility is all that good.

Although we do want to see claims progress—and we want to see them progressing at a much quicker rate than one every 5 years—in the future we will require in the ratification process that the buy-in from the settlors of any agreement be much greater than one-third of an iwi saying it is all right. Effectively, that calls into question the issue of “full and final” settlement. I hope that the people of Ngāti Awa who have heard our considerations today do accept the challenge to convince us that everything is OK. Maybe there is a good reason why two-thirds of the iwi who were eligible to vote for the deed of settlement decided not to. We will consider what those reasons might have been. Perhaps during the Committee stage we can test just what the failing has been.

E tika ake anō ki te mihi ake anō i a koutou i konei ki te tautoko i muri a te pire nei.

[It is apt indeed that I acknowledge those of you once again who are here to support this bill.]

I am privileged to stand here in support of this bill. I certainly enjoy the speeches delivered by National’s Māori spokesperson, because half of them are always cock-eyed. This bill is certainly about bringing to an end a long haul. That member only parroted and repeated what he said last night.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I am right!

He is right—in parts of his speech he is right—but the process has been transparent. The people driving it have lauded it through their rohe. They have put it in newspapers. They have been open about it. Nobody has complained about their being here today.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Two-thirds say it is not good.

How many? Well, well, well. I remember that member’s party when the Tainui case was settled. What were the numbers then? They got 30 percent, and 70 percent of the 30 percent voted—fewer than in this case. The member was a Tory then and he is a Tory now. Let me remind him that people in glass houses should not throw stones. [Interruption] There is a member who was involved in that settlement and was very close to one of its great drivers in creating it.

Why do people pontificate about partnership not being real? The Treaty of Waitangi was the document that started the journey of this country. People like my colleague over there pahupahu—espouse at length about nationhood—but they do not believe in it. They would rather scratch the itch, especially up in Ōrewa, and make people believe that all Māoris need to be kept in the dungeons of doom and gloom. Let me tell the House that this bill is critical. [Interruption] No, not in this booming economy. I can tell the House that 95 percent of the people who belong to this hapū who can work are working at the moment. This Government made that possible. [Interruption] That is dead right. I know it is the truth, and the member knows it is the truth.

I am glad we agree about bringing this to an end, but let us not preach things that we do not want to practise. The member says that the treaty has no standing. He says that partnerships, in the purest form, are unreal. Certainly, partnership has to be about getting on with everybody. The Māoris, being as transparent as they are, have signalled it—the developers in the tribe, in the iwi—and that is why we are here today. Custom and ritual at times hold indigenous people back, but they are not static. Some people in the tangata whenua try to bog down progress by bringing things mai i a Toi, mai i te taima o Captain Cook.

[from Toi and the time of Captain Cook]

I will translate for my Māori spokesperson friend opposite: they try to take a snapshot of the time before Captain Cook arrived here, and try to make out that it is relevant in contemporary times. That is what that member is doing. He is saying that Māori should not move forward, that the treaty should not be recognised, and that partnerships towards nationhood should not be recognised.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I haven’t said that.

That is not what Georgina te Heuheu told me, and I really believe it. The purpose of this claims settlement bill is to give effect to the deed in which the Crown and Ngāti Awa agreed to a final settlement. I trust them. I trust the Māoris and I trust the Crown in this deal, because that is true partnership. Saying that poor old Māori are getting something for nothing again is a lot of rot, and that member knows it. The notion that these people support out there—that Māori cannot do it, or should not do it, or should not get people registered to agree with them— is an abysmal performance in this House. [Interruption] I know that the member from Rangitikei understands progress, because he is starting to improve himself and impress people by wearing suits like Winston Peters’. There may be another thing going on there!

Talking about percentages and numbers, I heard the prattle over there from ACT, who are polling at 1.6 percent—a lot less support than Ngāti Awa have got here—and are allowed to sit in the House and abuse Māoris and accuse Māoris. They should not talk to me about percentages. These people have put a lot of effort into this. This bill needs to go through. The issue is that—[Interruption] That party has voted for the bill and I am really thankful for that. Good manners, forward thinking, and trying to emulate in this contemporary time the good faith with which those great people signed the treaty is something that this debate should be about—not all the other rot that I heard before.

I thank members for their support. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Ngā rangatira, ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa mō Ngāti Awa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to you the chiefs and those who handled this matter for Ngāti Awa, greetings to you, greetings.]

On behalf of New Zealand First I stand to speak to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. On behalf of the only non-aligned political party in this House, I will address some matters raised in the second reading.

I tender the apologies of my colleague Pita Paraone, our Māori affairs spokesperson, who would have spoken in this debate, but, because of the inability of the Leader of the House and the Minister of Māori Affairs to show due consideration to those who considered this bill, is not able to be present at this time, and instead is away with the select committee looking at other matters. As I heard the Minister make that grand statement about partnership, the Treaty of Waitangi, and so on, I thought that it would have been more appropriate and more fitting if there had been some consideration for the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who carefully went through the submissions, who made changes, and who will make further changes in the Committee of the whole House, so that they could be present today to state their minds on the matter.

This bill, as we see, is the culmination of what has been a long and arduous period of endeavour by the people of Ngāti Awa towards a satisfactory claims settlement. Therefore, it may seem churlish on the part of New Zealand First to signal at the very beginning that at the Committee stage we will propose two Supplementary Order Papers. The first is with regard to the landmark definition of hapū, and the second is to omit all present references in this bill to the undefined principles of the treaty.

The real matter before us is the culmination of a long endeavour. In 1999 the Waitangi Tribunal issued its report. Its principal findings, as are related in the preamble to the bill, were that the confiscation of Ngāti Awa’s lands was contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi, that there was no rebellion to justify confiscation—and that is a core matter here—and that the confiscation appeared to be beyond the authority of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. We know that the Government did not present evidence at the time, nor did it necessarily agree with the findings of the tribunal, but that was the core matter before the beginnings of this bill. We know that between 1996 and late 1998 the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa worked towards a negotiated settlement, and that in 1998 the Government made an offer. Ngāti Awa did not concur, and the Crown made a revised offer in 2000. That agreement was a joint deed statement. Finally, we come to the House and pick up a bill that records the acknowledgements and apologies given by the Crown to Ngāti Awa in a deed of settlement on 27 March 2003.

So we have before us a document that gives effect to the historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Ngāti Awa, and passes the governance responsibility of the assets of this settlement to that entity that the majority of the beneficiaries of Ngāti Awa have indicated support for. That last statement may seem to be in contrast to that raised by the deputy leader of the National Party, but there is some reason to believe that there has been increasing support by beneficiaries for this bill. So, along with the Ngāti Awa governance bill, which the House is looking at, this bill will lay the foundations, when it is finally passed, for the future development of Ngāti Awa, and New Zealand First would applaud that.

We note that the level of support was deemed sufficient by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa for it to proceed with the signing of the deed. We note that this is a timely and satisfactory settlement of claims before the Waitangi Tribunal, by way of either hearing or direct negotiation, that have taken over almost a decade of time. But we have serious concerns about what is a landmark departure from established and known practice. I am referring to clause 13, which covers the hapū of Ngāti Awa, and particularly to subparagraphs (xx) and (xxi), which refer to Ngāti Awa ki Tāmaki-makau-rau and Ngāti Awa ki Pōneke. We believe that the inclusion of these two entities as hapū for the purpose of this bill is outside the traditional concept of what establishes or creates a hapū.

In this House we know that the social structure of Māori is made up of whānau, or family; hapū, which are a number of families that have a common ancestor, who is normally a descendant of an iwi ancestor; and iwi, which is aggregated hapū with a common ancestor. That is common understanding in the wider society. But in this bill we have a departure—we have a landmark—and that is that these two hapū, we are advised, descend from the other hapū and from iwi descendants of Ngāti Awa. Essentially, Parliament is being asked to include them in the bill to ensure that those who are living in Ākarana, and those who are living in Pōneke, or Wellington, are assured access to the benefits that this settlement will bring to Ngāti Awa.

During the course of the hearing, submissions on this very issue were made. I believe that they were made very cogently. I want quickly to go through what they say. One submitter said this: “These entities are not hapū, but have been created for political expedience and convenience. They don’t qualify. They do not have urupā. They do not have any place to stand in. Every member registered to these entities”—that is, No. (xx) and No. (xxi)—“has whakapapa links back to the official hapū within Ngāti Awa area, in the same way that other Ngāti Awa have residing anywhere in the world.” The conclusion, this submitter stated—and he is well known in this land—is that, as a result, these two entities have got another meaning and significance.

The question that one would ask is why this was regarded as a matter of expediency and convenience. Should the authority to create a new hapū be vested in Parliament, for the first time? This is indeed very, very strange. What of the other Ngāti Awa descendants living elsewhere in the world? Why about those living in Sydney, Brisbane, or Perth? Why should they be expected to connect with their hapū at home, while residents in Tāmaki and Pōneke have the convenience and the choice of connecting with either? This is indeed a very strange, landmark departure.

In New Zealand First we acknowledge the intent of Ngāti Awa to have a governance structure that ensures their people are easily able to access the benefits of their settlement with the Crown. But we believe that what is proposed in this bill, in clause 13, is not a matter for this House. We believe that for this House to legislate for the creation of hapū, as proposed, will pose a question long into the future, and subsequently people will be asked why Parliament legislated for this strange new entity.

So New Zealand First will seek to amend the bill by way of a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage, in the belief that the creation of hapū, as proposed in this bill, is not the responsibility of this House, nor should it be. That should be the responsibility of those who sit elsewhere, in other places. When they have resolved the issue as to how they are able to maintain and govern in their structures, and ensure that the benefits of the settlement are conveyed to their people, they should be deciding that issue. It is not for this House suddenly, at this point in 2005, to decide for the first time to create something that has not been known in Māori traditional structure. The Associate Minister, who has departed, made great talk about traditions and the like; this issue is certainly a departure, which he should have thought about very, very carefully.

We will seek to further amend the bill by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, as we have stated, to omit all present references in this bill to the undefined principles of the treaty.

We commend the bill to the House. We say these words in sorrow because we would wish that Ngāti Awa, their beneficiaries, and their people have at this time the ability to realise what this settlement could do for their present and their future. But my having said that, the matters that I have raised are important. The creation of hapū in this bill is alien to Māori. It is alien to this land. And the references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, undefined as they are, need to be expunged. We wish Ngāti Awa well. With those reservations, we will support the bill proceeding to the Committee of the whole House, and hope that at that stage these matters can be defined.

Ngāti Awa ka nui te mihi ki a koutou. First I wish to echo the comments of Jim Peters when he refers to the poor timetabling of this bill. It is unfortunate that the Māori Affairs Committee is not in Wellington and members are unable to speak to this bill. [Interruption] As with members’ day yesterday where we saw the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour senior whip just interrupted the speech of Mr Nandor Tanczos to suggest that the issue of the Māori Affairs Committee not being in Wellington today—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I say to him that that is not a point of order. It is part of the debate, and that is what is happening now.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Your job is to keep order in the House to make sure the place does not disintegrate—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): This is not a point of order.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, here is my point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, it had better be a point of order.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I would ask you to require the Labour senior whip to stand up and apologise to Mr Tanczos for interrupting his speech, particularly with a statement that was patently untrue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the honourable member that I was distracted, because what was actually happening was that there was an interjection between two members who do not have the floor, one on my right and one on my left. I say to members that interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the floor. In this case, neither member did.

I thank Mr Brownlee for that clarification. Yesterday, we saw a bill regarding the rūnanga of Ngāti Awa being put through in members’ day as a member’s bill, when it should have been a Government bill, and it shows the lack of respect on behalf of the Crown with regard to this issue. We in the Greens think that that is unfortunate.

We do support the bill. This settlement arises out of confiscations of land made by the Crown in order to punish Ngāti Awa for alleged rebellions in the 1860s. Those alleged rebellions arose out of the participation of some Ngāti Awa hapū in the Tairāwhiti force that was intending to go to the Waikato to assist the iwi there, as well as out of the retribution for the killing of four people in 1865.

When the Crown executed arrest warrants in response to those killings, the Crown’s force destroyed considerable property and laid waste to many pā within the rōhe of Ngāti Awa, causing enormous damage to the hapū. Over 13 men were arrested under those warrants. All of them were imprisoned, and two of them were executed. For generations Ngāti Awa has carried the stigma of tangata hara as a result.

When the Waitangi Tribunal heard the case in the late 1990s, the tribunal was clearly of the view that the confiscation of the lands of Ngāti Awa was contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that there was no rebellion to justify the confiscations, and that the confiscations as effected were outside the law.

About 245,000 acres of land were confiscated in 1866, and eventually around 77,000 acres were returned. But that land was returned to individuals, contrary to tikanga Māori and, inevitably, those lands became susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, because they were held in individual title and not by the collective from whom the lands were stolen. It is against that background of abuse that the settlement has occurred.

In the select committee a number of concerns were raised. For example—and this has been referred to by previous speakers—the rate of participation for the ratification process was low in the settlement. But of course that is an issue for all settlements, and the Hon Parekura Horomia referred to that, as well. In our opinion, the low participation rate arises directly out of the process that the Office of Treaty Settlements requires.

What is desperately needed in this whole issue is a thorough review of the settlement process from the viewpoint of the claimants. It is the claimants who need to be given the opportunity to give direct advice to the Office of Treaty Settlements as to what it is they need from the office, to ensure they get the most appropriate processes to meet the needs of the hapū involved. The Office of Treaty Settlements needs to give effect to that advice, without excuse. It is a simple enough request, which that office has steadfastly refused to accept.

The Greens continue to be highly critical of a settlement process where the iwi, who are the aggrieved party, have no authority, control, or decision-making powers over the process. We understand that the necessary boundaries in a negotiation should be jointly negotiated if they are to be fair, but in the settlement process that is simply not what happens. The Government sets its own policy and positions, remains inflexible, and offers iwi and hapū a “take it or leave it” approach. That is not fair negotiation. Justice cannot be properly achieved when the process is so fundamentally unjust.

The Greens acknowledge that this settlement is the best that Ngāti Awa could have secured under the current settlement policy, and we congratulate Ngāti Awa on pursuing some restitution—though it is through that demanding and unjust process. Despite our serious misgivings about the underlying nature of the settlement process, and the long and difficult path involved in it, we understand that the people of Ngāti Awa are confident that for them this settlement provides some measure of rangatiratanga. Therefore, we support this bill and we pay our respects to Ngāti Awa: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will speak briefly to it. During the debate Mr Peters from New Zealand First and Mr Tanczos from the Greens talked about the fact that the Māori Affairs Committee was meeting in Kawerau today, which was disruptive to their respective party members’ ability to be here in Parliament. I want to tell members that on 14 December 2004 the Business Committee, by unanimous agreement of its members with regard to item No. 5 on the agenda, gave permission for Māori Affairs Committee members to meet in Kawerau, according to Standing Order 193(a). The minutes were circulated on Wednesday, 15 December 2004, and no objection has been lodged.

I want to confirm that what the senior Labour whip has said is absolutely right. Back in last December the Business Committee considered the matter of the Māori Affairs Committee travelling to Kawerau but being considered on that occasion to be present in the House for the purpose of voting. The minutes were circulated, and all members accepted that. The difficulty, though, is that it was not until 8 February—Tuesday of this week—that the Business Committee was notified that this bill would be on the Order Paper today. The question was asked of Dr Michael Cullen, Leader of the House, as to why he was putting this bill forward on a day when Māori Affairs Committee members would not be here. He said it was because there was no other day on which he could do it. Although there were arrangements and accommodations sought and in part made, particularly about the rūnanga bill and other such matters, there was no such gracious move on the part of the Government to see this bill debated on a day when the members who had done the work behind it could all be here to speak to it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): On the basis of fairness, I have allowed one member from each side of the House to voice his or her concerns. I would like to inform the House that it is not a matter for a point of order; it is actually a matter for debate.

💬 Jim Peters: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I tell the member I have already ruled that it is not a matter for a point of order; it is a matter for debate as to whether the committee meets here or elsewhere.

It may be that this bill will be one of the first settlement bills that the ACT party can support at the end of the select committee process, because I was delighted to hear that New Zealand First will be moving for the elimination of all the references in this bill to the spurious, so-called principles of the treaty. I hope that that gets support from the whole of this House, because those spurious references have been the source of a great deal of grief. I am delighted that New Zealand First has reached the point of putting its votes where its mouth has been for a couple of years. I hope that that succeeds. But if it does not succeed this party will not vote for the bill, irrespective of whether the other matters that I now wish to raise as concerns are addressed, because it is time for this Parliament to stop passing law when it does not know the meaning of the words in it. It is time for Parliament, as Mr Brownlee said, to stop passing law that reflects a completely mythical partnership, and it is time to respect the actual words of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I just want to read one article of the treaty before commenting on the way in which it is reflected, or not reflected, in this bill. I am afraid I will read the English version. I would prefer to read the Māori version retranslated—Sir Hugh Kāwharu’s version, but it is not in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which I think it is polite to use in this House: “Article the Second. Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;”.

I have read that because one of the most offensive parts of this bill is the repeated, bleeding, nauseating references to the Crown accepting blame for the fact that many Māori chose to sell their land, as, indeed, have most people who have ever owned land in this country. There are very few pieces of land anywhere in this country that are still in the possession of the original holders, or even in the possession of their direct ancestors. Of course that occurs, but people sell their land because, as the treaty assumed, it may be their wish and desire to do so. Yet this Parliament is being asked in this bill to make a nauseating acceptance of blame for the fact that the land ceased to be held communally.

There are other things that we could dispute. But that one seems to me to be the most fundamental, because part of the purpose of the treaty was to enable the alienation of land. Let us remember the treaty was signed in a country where a population the size of that of the Palmerston North area occupied the entire country, and where the typical span of a farm might have been 10 acres. New Zealand was enormously long in land, and it was properly contemplated that Māori would sell land. It was also contemplated that they could make those decisions individually, and get individual benefit from them. The people who drafted the treaty were very aware of what happened when collective rights were left in the hands of the chiefs. They were very aware of the injustice that could occur if it were left up to the chiefs to decide on what happened to collective property.

I believe the Labour Government, for its own political advantage, is getting this House to make those nauseating statements of grief and blame because Māori people in this area have chosen not to maintain their 1840s lifestyle, or even their 1860s lifestyle, and have chosen to operate as individuals, as families, as hapū, and as iwi, but in very different ways from what they were then. It is time Labour gave that up, so we will move amendments on that. I doubt whether they will be accepted, but it is certainly time that that sort of thing was dropped from the precedents—[Interruption] Land was confiscated, but land was handed back. There were injustices. The United Future party is protesting at this speech.

One of the things that this bill does is to actually repeat the unfair pattern of the past. One of the complaints was that when the commissioners examined afterwards the far too broad confiscations—the very unfair collective punishments—and handed some property back to the sections of this iwi that had not been in rebellion, those amounts were handed back individually. But it was not going to be very easy to leave them in the state in which they had been confiscated. The commissioners were deliberately drawing distinctions between those who were the wrongdoers and those who were not. Now we have a collective settlement that ends up by giving the benefit of the compensation for those who were wronged to the descendants of those who were in the wrong. This bill does not draw distinctions between those who killed Volkner or Fulloon—or the descendants of the wrongdoers—and the benefit that can flow from this settlement. If the same principle had been being applied that the Crown is busy saying should have been applied back there in the 19th century, there would have been a very careful effort to make sure that the beneficiaries of this settlement did not include those who had brought down the wrath of the Queen on that iwi. To turn around now and say that what was done 150 years ago is wrong because it was collective punishment, and then to give collective compensation that includes benefit to those who ought to have been considered to be in the wrong, is wrong in itself. Either collective treatment was wrong then and it is wrong now, or it was not wrong then and it is not wrong now. It is time that this Parliament stopped pursuing those one-sided repeats of the wrong.

I was interested too, in Mr Peters’ explanation of the effect of clause 13. I do not fully understand how the definition of hapū flows through to the definition of Ngāti Awa, and accordingly to the definition of the beneficiaries. But I can see, when the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau and Pōneke are deemed to be hapū if they never have been under any kind of customary definition, that what we have here appears to be a deliberate attempt to extend benefit to circumstances where an entitlement should not exist, and the corresponding exclusion of people who should have just the same claim, when they have none. During the Committee stage of this bill I would like to hear what happens, for example, to the descendants of people who may qualify today when they, as so many of the energetic, capable, and promising ones do, go to live in Sydney. What happens to the descendants who have not got as far as Pōneke or Tāmaki-makau-rau, and who are simply living in Rotorua? Does it mean that they need to come back to this House to get an express extension of the definition of a separate hapū? What exactly does it mean?

We need people who understand this bill to be here in the House. I am not sure whether members of the Māori Affairs Committee could explain it, because that is the committee that tells us that we have rules relating to legislation to confirm agreements such as deeds of settlement. Those rules mean that we cannot substantively amend this bill in any way that is not acceptable to the party to the deed being implemented. The party to this deed is defined as a group of whom it appears only about one-third have approved the deal, and of whom less than one-third have approved the entity that is to receive it. Maybe the Crown is just being ruthlessly practical and saying it will settle with the nearest to a majority that it is going to get, and put that issue behind it. I am afraid that it will not put the matter behind us if the low vote actually means there is another group of claimants out there.

I have just mentioned two respects in which the bill can obviously be attacked in principle. Why did the select committee state that there are rules stating the House cannot change it? There may be conventions, and there may have been practices that the Government and the Crown have bound themselves by, but this House is not bound to rubber-stamp these settlements.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. I note that the bill returns largely unchanged from the select committee. There has been a strengthening of the definition of Ngāti Awa, and there have been amendments to three ancillary claims, plus some technical changes. The progress last night of the bill that sets out the governance provisions that will be used to manage the resources from this settlement was further evidence that Ngāti Awa have given careful consideration to the process.

The settlement includes a Crown apology, cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress as well. The impact of the settlement on the wider community is minimal. There is no private land involved, and no national parks are included. Some small access issues are included—that is, camping rights for certain parts of the year—and a 6-hectare pā site, and there are some place-name changes, but apart from that there is very little impact on the wider community.

I am particularly pleased that the deed of settlement includes an account of the historical background regarding breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that has been agreed to by both the Crown and Ngāti Awa, setting the record straight. This is important so that this redress is seen to be the response to genuine matters of law. I find it quite bizarre that a man who is normally renowned in this House for his expertise in law should make the statements that Mr Franks did in his previous speech. I want to read from a summary of the historical background to the claims by Ngāti Awa: “Subsequently, the Crown expeditionary force laid siege to the pa at Matata, Whakatane and Te Teko. In October 1865 over 30 men were arrested for the killing of James Fulloon and related offences. Many were found guilty at trial by Courts-Martial and sentenced to death. They were re-tried before the Supreme Court in Auckland. All were found guilty of at least one charge and were sentenced to imprisonment or execution. Two men were subsequently executed for the murder of Fulloon and three others died while in prison.” I say to Mr Franks that it certainly sounds as though justice was meted out to the individuals involved, but what he failed to mention was that Governor George Grey then deemed that the Bay of Plenty tribes had been in rebellion and confiscated 448,000 acres of land from those people. So here we are today, trying to make sense of individual property rights versus collective property rights. [Interruption] That is exactly why.

Ngāti Awa have been seeking much of this redress since the year 1870, so United Future wishes to reiterate the commitment made last night during the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill to continue our support of the timely passage of this bill through the House.

I rise in support of the second reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, and in doing so echo the comments of previous speakers on the relationship—

💬 Stephen Franks: Including me?

No, not of that member; I never echo the 17th century views of the ACT party. When a party is polling at only 1.6 percent it is very difficult to take its views very seriously. After September we will not have to hear any speeches like that when we talk about important constitutional matters in Parliament. Most political parties agree that the treaty settlements process is an honourable way of getting things done for all people in New Zealand. I look forward to the departure of the ACT party in that regard.

I want to draw to the House’s attention one small correction to the commentary on the bill from the Māori Affairs Committee. On page 13 it refers to 78.3 percent of valid votes being in support of the settlement, in terms of the Ngāti Awa voters. The correct figure is 87 percent, and that is the figure that should be in the commentary. I understand that was advised to the clerk and to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. There was much higher support amongst Ngāti Awa for the settlement—87 percent.

That is quite a big figure for the ACT party to comprehend, but something that shows me that this has been a very careful process between the Crown and Ngāti Awa, and it is for that reason that I support the second reading of the bill.

Lest people need to be corrected regarding that last speech, it is worth noting that 60 percent of all the people of Ngāti Awa did not even bother to vote. That is a growing problem. I know that the Minister of Māori Affairs said that only 30 percent voted in Tainui, but in fact the percentage was much higher.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It was the same percentage.

No, I say to the Minister that it was lower than that. It was a lower percentage. We are seeing a declining percentage of people participating in those polls. I suggest that that is an issue of real concern. Despite what the Minister said by way of interjection, the percentages are going down. Those are the facts. It is worth noting the words of the Māori Affairs Committee. It states in the commentary on the bill: “The committee is concerned however that numbers participating in the ratification process were low. This concern has been expressed previously in regards to other Treaty claim settlement legislation, as it may ultimately affect the durability of settlements.”

I suggest that what that really reflects amongst the Māori community is treaty fatigue. We have all heard that saying, and it is normally applied to the wider community—that it wants the process completed. I suggest that it applies to the claimants, as well. Part of the reason is that the processes undertaken by this Government are simply taking too long. They are literally grinding down the people involved in the process, and are destroying consent by that. I suggest that a more rapid and engaged process would be more effective. The reality is that people want to move on, Māori and Pākehā alike, and the method the Government is currently choosing will simply not fulfil that.

It is worth noting that the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, by the Government’s own choice to construct the Order Paper in the way it has, cannot speak today. The Government has deliberately constructed an Order Paper to exclude them. I guess that the Government did not want members of the committee to refer to their own comments. It is worth noting who the members of the committee were, because those comments are their words. The chair at the time was Nanaia Mahuta, the deputy chair was Georgina te Heuheu, and the other members were Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Gerry Brownlee, Pita Paraone, and Metiria Turei. The one committee member present here spoke directly about the concern the committee unanimously signed up to—I stress “unanimously”.

The point I am trying to make is that the systems and methods the Government is undertaking to deal with the treaty processes are destroying the integrity of the process. The longer the process is dragged out—the 10, 15, or 20 years that Dr Cullen referred to—the more and greater harm it will do over time. Perhaps we will actually see a time when the select committee, composed largely of Māori members, will say that a particular future settlement is so bereft of consent that it would find it hard to support by way of recommendation.

I turn to another issue—the constant reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those principles have now bedevilled this country for some 20 years. They were inserted by the Lange Labour Government in the 1986 State-owned enterprises legislation—at, I might add, the very last minute, by way of a Supplementary Order Paper on the day the issue was voted on—and ever since, they have caused trouble.

The first thing that happened was that the case went to the Court of Appeal back in 1987. The court, obviously having to interpret the words in front of it, then developed the concept known as partnership. Where was that in the principles? Where is it in the treaty? It is not there at all, yet the Government has simply accepted the view of the Court of Appeal that partnership is the way to go. It must be clear to the Government by now that whatever consensus has existed around those terms has fundamentally broken down. I say to the Government that it is time to move on from that.

Surely the Government must recognise that one does not talk about principles of the treaty. What should be talked about are the words of the treaty—the undertakings in the agreement itself. Just because Sir Geoffrey Palmer made an error some 20 years ago, why do we have to live with it for the next 20 years? Why can we not fix it up? We should be talking about the words of the treaty itself, not the principles.

I turn to the meaning of those words and to what actually drives, when we think about it, the whole process of settlements. The fundamental provision we talk about in those settlements is article 2 of the treaty. Without reading out the words directly—that has already been done by Mr Franks—it is in essence a protection of property provision. That is what it is, and I am sure that the Government, if it thought about it, would acknowledge that simple fact. The whole point of those agreements—those special pieces of legislation—is essentially to provide a compensation scheme. That is what it is about. It is not about returning some form of governance, autonomy, partnership, or rangatiratanga—it is about compensation. That is what is really at the heart of this bill, and the compensation is reasonably significant.

Mr Franks, in particular, had some questions about who gets what, and whether people should be able to sell land. I perhaps take a different view. The actions of the Government back in 1877 to return to individuals lands that had been taken from the collective was wrong, and it led to enormous problems. In many respects, we are dealing with the consequences of those legislative actions today. That is why the land is being properly restored to the iwi itself. There is the rather odd construction in the legislation about these new hapū, which seem to be a new statutory invention. This Labour Government has decided that there are new entities, or hapū: one is Ngāti Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau, and another is Ngāti Awa ki Poneke in Wellington. It seems extraordinary that we in this Parliament would say that that is how Ngāti Awa is now constituted, and I wonder whether Ngāti Awa is actually constituted that way, at all. So we do take an enormous presumption on that.

The final point I will turn to is this. There are references in this agreement to the interests of Ngāti Awa in various harbours, waterways, and rivers. Just last year this Parliament spent a great deal of time on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, which is now an Act. The great problem with that is it essentially provides special consultation rights; special rights of governance by some people in relation to the common property of New Zealanders at large, which other people do not have. That is a distinction from property rights. The Government has confused, in short, the difference between property rights, which should be properly restored when taken, and transcribed them into a form of consultation rights derived from the treaty principles. That will continue to get us into error until this Government says that the former Prime Minister and the Court of Appeal were wrong and that we should be sticking with the terms of the treaty itself.

E ngā rau rangatira mā, e kui mā, tuahine mā, tuakana mā i raro i te maru o te tipuna rongonui a Awanuiārangi i Ngāti Awa. Kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kāre e wareware ki a mātou te mahi kaha mō ngā tīpuna ki a koutou. Kei te mihi nunui mō ngā tīpuna. Te mahi kaha ki te awhi, ki te hari i te manaaki mō ngā iwi kotahi tātou a Ngāti Awa. Haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[To the chiefs of a hundredfold, to the elder womenfolk, sisters, elder siblings and cousins under the jurisdiction of Awanuiārangi, the famous ancestor of Ngāti Awa, I greet and acknowledge you and extend a huge greeting to you. We will never forget the great work carried out by the ancestors for you. We cannot thank them enough. They worked hard to embrace and carry the welfare of the people and to make us of Ngāti Awa one. Depart the ancestors, depart and farewell.]

I was just making an acknowledgment of the leadership of Ngāti Awa, who are here in the House today, and also acknowledging the fact that they whakapapa back to a great ancestor in Awanuiārangi, and finally acknowledging the work of a number of their ancestors who have passed on.

The only person who ever becomes confused on treaty settlement legislation that comes before this House is Dr Wayne Mapp. He is aptly named “Mapp” because he is always looking for somewhere to go, but he can never find the right sorts of coordinates! I did want to say that I am grateful to Ngāti Awa, because—unlike the mean-spirited comments made by members of the National Party and particularly the ACT party—there is a generosity of spirit in which Māori entertain those settlements and agreements. It is not about compensation, but the amount of compensation that they are willing to settle for to bring closure, certainty, and sustainability to their people has to be acknowledged.

So to that extent, as a member of the Government, on behalf of those bringing closure to these people in terms of the Crown, I wanted to acknowledge the dignity, humility, and the integrity of the treaty partner called Ngāti Awa.

Finally, there are two other points that I did want to make. I commend the Governor-General’s speech made on Waitangi Day, when she directed all her comments to the National Party, and particularly to its leader, with regard to the cultural custom that the National Party now has, of driving all its women to the back seat. Georgina te Heuheu used to be on the front bench, but she is no longer on the front bench. Katherine Rich used to be on the front bench, but is no longer on the front bench. To be a member of the National Party front bench, one cannot be a female. So I just wanted to commend the Governor-General for bringing that to the attention of a once-great party.

Coming back to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, precedents have been set from Tainui all the way through in terms of the poll and the way in which it is conducted. Quite contrary to popular belief, the rate of non-participation in it can also be seen as a participatory contribution, because often our people are the first to stand up in terms of what they are against. So when they do turn up, they will vote against things, and they will vote in big numbers.

I also wanted to acknowledge the fact of the ACT member’s contribution, mean-spirited though he is—1.6 percent in the polls—and I have to say that the new, wonderful, telegenic leader whom ACT members elected just before Christmas cannot even pass muster to get 1 percentage point in the preferred Prime Minister poll. So I just say to the National and ACT members that I regret their not wanting to support this bill, and I do want to acknowledge Ngāti Awa.

Bill read a second time.