Ngti Awa Claims Settlement Bill

What I have in my hand here tonight are the deeds of settlement of three particular claims: the Pukaahu claim, the Waiōhau historical claim, and the Rangitaiki 60C historical claim, and they will be tabled later on. Those settlements were presented to the Māori Affairs Committee very late in the process. In fact, the date of the Waiōhau claim is 1 December 2004, the Pakaahu claim is 15 September 2004, and the other one was 15 December 2004. The concern is whether they went through a proper evaluation by the select committee process. At best, it would have had to have been an extremely limited one.

The second question, however, is rather more significant. Two of the claims look to be essentially hapū claims. They are the Waiōhau historical claim and the Rangitaiki 60C claim, covering literally up to thousands of owners. However, the Pukaahu claim looks like a whānau claim, and the reason I say that is this. It refers in the recitals, or in the background within the deed, to the transfer of land to Rōha Petera and Wīremu te Whatapapa. They were individuals who came to own quite small portions of land back in 1893 and 1881. In 1891 some land was surveyed out for a road. In 1914, 1 acre was taken for a pumice quarry, and subsequently 3 roods, or 27.8 perches, were returned to the descendants of those owners. In 1918 some 10 acres were taken for hot springs, and there are various other recitals of that nature. Because back in the 1890s the land was referred to as having a single owner, what we are settling upon now is not a transfer to Ngāti Awa in general but appears to be a transfer to, or a recognition of a settlement for, the specific descendants of those people. I have to ask whether it is appropriate that a settlement of this nature be included in a broad iwi settlement for Ngāti Awa, because it seems the Government is simply using the convenient device of this legislation being present in the Chamber today to wrap the settlement up, just like that. It is just a packaging exercise and nothing further.

That then raises a further issue. We have a practice in Parliament now that all settlements, and certainly iwi settlements, have to have their own specific legislation. Each iwi has to have its history recited before the tribunal, have it set out in the legislation, and gain specific recognition through this Parliament. Often, as we know, the settlements are accompanied in the third readings, in particular, by iwi members coming here, and there is a celebration that the settlement has taken place. I suspect that is a reasonable process when we are talking about issues of major historical significance. Those issues, after all, largely arise from the Land Wars: the grievances of Ngāti Awa, Tainui, and so forth. Surely that does not apply to the Pukaahu settlement, which is a family claim, in essence. Surely we should have a better system in place in this Parliament and with this Government, so that family settlements do not require specific legislation.

I ask the Minister, therefore, why the Government is packaging into an iwi settlement that is intended to rectify a major historical grievance, what is in essence a whānau claim—a family claim that talks literally of the taking of 1 acre for a pumice quarry and of things of that nature. That is not, I suggest, an appropriate use of parliamentary time. By all means let us settle those grievances, but should it require legislation to do so?

I stand briefly to respond to the member’s concern with regard to the smaller claims being incorporated into the wider Ngāti Awa claim. I advise the member that it was done upon a recommendation from the Waitangi Tribunal during its hearings on the Ngāti Awa claim. It also acknowledges that although the Ngāti Awa claim is separate, we are talking about the same people, hapū, and land area. Because the smaller claims progressed considerably more slowly than the Ngāti Awa claim, the Māori Affairs Committee decided to continue to support their inclusion in the wider Ngāti Awa claim.

My colleague is correct in the respect that the completion of the deeds of settlement of the three ancillary claims occurred pretty close to the end of the select committee process. In reality, I do not think that the Māori Affairs Committee really had the opportunity to explore those claims, so I guess it is inevitable that some questions will now arise.

I am advised by one of the claimant’s negotiators that these three settlements arise out of three separate claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. I remind the Committee that the Treaty of Waitangi Act makes it possible for a Māori or any descendent of a Māori to lodge a claim. If we think about the fact that Ngāti Awa lodged its claim years back—1988, I think—we can understand that it is not surprising that other ancillary-type claims had also been filed. I guess that in this case those claims were filed.

I think, with all due respect to my colleague Dr Mapp, that the process is not something the National Opposition would want to see happen too much. In other words, a select committee is having to deal with a major iwi claim when on the side other ancillary claims are still being tidied up. I suggest to the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, that that kind of thing should be avoided in the future, because in my view it just does not make for a neat and cohesive approach to that process.

However, I think it is proper to avoid the situation whereby major claims are settled but a whole lot of little ancillary claims have still to be done. That is a position we would not want to see, either.

On balance, although these three claims have been rolled in under the umbrella of the major one, we know that the claimants are all Ngāti Awa people. They are all descended from the same ancestors. It just so happens that those three sets of claimants saw fit to file separate claims. I guess in respect of the claim concerning Awakeri Springs, which seems to me to be a pretty neat and discrete claim, that is understandable.

The process leaves something to be desired in terms of the way that the Minister and the Office of Treaty Settlements have dealt with all this. I hope that in future, when a select committee holds hearings, all the information it needs will be before it. That is the only way it can properly do its job, which is basically to scrutinise the settlements and legislation before it. Maybe it is due to my background as a tribunal member, but I can certainly see the sense in bringing ancillary claims under one umbrella.

There was an issue about signing, though. I want the Minister to check that all three deeds of settlement are properly signed and dated.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: One’s got 1 December, which is odd.

Yes, it must be the fact that the date of 1 December 2004 came after the matter had been dealt with by the select committee. I think I am right about that; someone will no doubt correct me if I am not. So if that settlement were concluded after the select committee had wrapped up its hearings, then I again caution the Government against that sloppy kind of process. I think my colleague Dr Mapp would agree with me. I do not think there is any room for sloppiness in respect of a settlement that has attracted controversy in some quarters.

I stand to comment on one or two aspects of Part 7 of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill and the schedule relating to it. We heard from earlier speakers that the three ancillary claims are connected to Ngāti Awa, hence their inclusion in this bill. I would have thought that an explanation of that connection would be described somewhere in the bill. Anyone looking at the bill without any knowledge of that connection would have to ask why the three ancillary claims are included in it. That is my first point. My second point is that I can understand why the ancillary claimants agreed to have their claims included in this legislation. The reason would be purely a matter of convenience in order to have their claims dealt with.

Is it not strange that we are taking advice from the Waitangi Tribunal and accepting what it suggests we do, without giving due regard to the rangatiratanga—something that the tribunal and, dare I say, even this Government have often extolled the virtues of—being applied to these three claimant groups? I would have thought, given the tribunal’s support for the use of the word “rangatiratanga”—and I ought to add that the word is referred to in the Māori version of the treaty—that that concept would be given those three ancillary claimants.

I also want to express concern with regard to the Rangitaiki 60C claims. Clause 163(2)(b) makes reference to the acceptance of legal adoption. I know that during the select committee stage of this bill in particular, and in subsequent hearings, some concern was expressed about the acceptance of those who, although legally adopted, are not connected by way of genealogical ties. I am not quite sure whether that is something the claimants clearly wanted, or whether it is something the agents for the Crown suggested should be done.

I support the concerns expressed by Dr Mapp from the National Party, who outlined that all the claimants are clearly whānau or of a hapū group, and not of the iwi group. The fact has been mentioned that they can claim genealogical ties to Ngāti Awa. This leads me to ask whether they are therefore natural beneficiaries of Ngāti Awa. If so, then they seem to be able to have a bigger bite of the cherry. In fact, they have two bites: they have a bite by virtue of their ancillary claim, and also they are able to claim beneficial entitlements by way of their genealogical connections with Ngāti Awa.

I invite the Minister to take a call on these matters.