Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill

E tika ake anō ki te mihi ake anō i a koutou ngā tū pakeke e tae ake anō i konei, mō te rā o te whakaotinga o te pire nei. Ki a koutou e mau kaha e Hirini, koutou ngā tū pakeke. Ahakoa ngā piki, ngā heke mō te mau kaha i te oti. Hoi ake anō tēnei tino tuku e tuku ake anō ngā tupuna ki a tātou.

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

[It is appropriate once again to greet you the elders who have arrived here once more on the day that brings a finality to this bill. To you the elders, Hirini, who have worked hard: despite the ups and downs, you have worked on to complete it. This indeed is a legacy from the ancestors to us.]

I move, That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a third time. This is a significant milestone that represents nearly 140 years of dedicated effort by Ngāti Awa to seek redress from the Crown for raupatu. Ngāti Awa is one of the principal iwi within the Eastern Bay of Plenty district. According to the traditions of Ngāti Awa, it is from their eponymous ancestor Awanuiārangi, son of the famous Toikairākau, that the name Ngāti Awa is derived. As happened then and is remembered now, Awanuiārangi settled here a long time ago, before the arrival of Pākehā, and he is a primary ancestor in both Ngāti Awa and Te Ātiawa history and genealogy. Another principal ancestor acknowledged within Ngāti Awa tradition is Awanuiārangi II, the great-grandson of Toroa, the captain of Mātaatua waka. Awanuiārangi is acknowledged by Ngāti Awa as the paramount and principal identifying ancestor of the iwi.

Ngāti Awa is a confederation of 22 hapū and all the whānau who are beneficiaries of that confederation, all of whom descend from Awanuiārangi. The hapū of Ngāti Awa first established Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa as a charitable trust in 1981. Te rūnanga was established as a representative body of all the hapū of Ngāti Awa and was charged with looking after the collective affairs of those hapū. Since its inception, te rūnanga has been consistent and dedicated in its efforts to negotiate settlement of the historic treaty claims.

In 1988 Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act was passed and te rūnanga became a Māori trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act. As a Māori trust board, the rūnanga became accountable to me in my capacity as the Minister of Maori Affairs.

Te rūnanga and the people of Ngāti Awa recognise that, in order to now receive and administer settlement redress for and on behalf of its members, the rūnanga will need to reconstitute itself as a body that is accountable to the members of Ngāti Awa. For that they need to be commended. They are people with tradition, they are people with tangata whenua rights, and they are people who are managing their way forward in contemporary times.

The need to reconstitute the rūnanga gave rise to the bill that is before us today. The enactment of this bill enables Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to receive and administer settlement redress for and on behalf of its members. The passage of the bill is a further significant step to bring to an end a long, long journey that Ngāti Awa has undertaken to reach settlement of its historic claims with the Crown.

However, as momentous as this bill is, together with the rūnanga charter it is more than preparation for receiving and administering settlement redress. It is about a significant expansion in the sense of Ngāti Awa’s responsibilities to its people—its mokopuna, its elders—who live in the region. The significance of the bill cannot be overstated. The bill and charter support the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Awa. Both provide a strong structural base for Ngāti Awa to be able to determine their own future development and operations. There is more than enough capability there for them to do what they want to do, where they want to do it, and how they want to do it.

Once the bill is enacted, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa will operate according to its own ratified processes, allowing assets to be applied for the benefit of the people it serves. Te rūnanga will rightly be accountable to the members of Ngāti Awa. It will be structured according to the wishes of Ngāti Awa, and it will be governed according to the rules, processes, and accountability requirements developed by Ngāti Awa. Ngāti Awa have stated how they wish their rūnanga to be governed, and that is reflected in the bill. The enactment of this bill will allow Ngāti Awa to participate and to realise their potential on their own terms—Ngāti Awa succeeding as Ngāti Awa.

I am honoured to have sponsored this bill on behalf of Ngāti Awa. I am more than confident that it will provide a solid framework for the future management and administration of Ngāti Awa interests, by Ngāti Awa for the benefit of members of Ngāti Awa. In this modern time, when the political testings are a whole lot of nonsense—[Interruption] This speech is worth more than four out of 10, I say to Mr Brownlee. It is more highly ranked than the mucking around that he does.

At its inception, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa adopted a whakatauākī that is as relevant today as it was at that time. I would ask Mr Brownlee to listen carefully. He manu hōu ahau, he pī ka rere.

[I am a new bird, a fledgling that flies.]

This proverb describes a new bird that is taking its first flight. The flight of the bird symbolises new directions, new initiatives, and new horizons—Māori people in contemporary times who are not losing sight of the tika and the reo that was tuku-ed to them by their tūpuna. To day, an adapted version of the whakatauākī applies: kua rere te manu. Kei ngā rangi o te ao e rere ana. The translation, for the benefit of my learned friend Mr Brownlee, is: the bird has flown its nest and it is free to fly the skies of the world. It is important that in the advent of globalisation, and with a young demographic of Māori people, this iwi is more than ready to manage its way forward.

I wish Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa and the members of Ngāti Awa all the best for their future development and success—kia kaha, there will be ups and downs in it, but good luck and all the best.

I will make a few comments about this bill. But first I would like to acknowledge, as the Minister did, the presence of Ngāti Awa and to say simply tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa e hoa mā. This is a big day and an important day; the first of two important days for Ngāti Awa that bring to a conclusion 140 years of hope and struggle to get recognition for grievance that was conferred in the past, and that bring a new beginning, as the Minister spoke of. I can only wish Ngāti Awa every success from this point on, and congratulate them on the structure that they have decided to take on for themselves. I acknowledge and assert that it is time for organisations like this to get out from underneath the shadow of the Government and take control of the destiny that is theirs. Although the Minister gave us the proverb that speaks of the new bird and the new vehicle, it is only the vehicle that is new. Everything about Ngāti Awa comes from the past and will continue through to the future. The value of that future will be seen in the way in which this bill allows those chosen people to administer the assets of the iwi.

I wish that some of those sentiments might have been expressed by the Government in the recent fisheries settlement. I think it is appropriate that people who own assets should have hold of them and be able to determine exactly the way in which they are managed, and how the benefits will flow on to those who own them. I hope that the sentiments the Minister has expressed today may flow through to other aspects of Government involvement with Māori, because it seems to me that there is no group in the country that is as governed as Māori are at the present time. Without going into too much more detail on that—and holding the powder a little for the debate that will take place tomorrow afternoon—I simply say to Ngāti Awa that we hope the bill they have approved and that this House has been asked to ratify proves to be a vehicle for success for their future.

Ā, kua huri noa ki te whānau o Ngāti Awa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so I turn humbly to the family of Ngāti Awa. Greetings therefore to you and to us all.]

I take this opportunity to join my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs in acknowledging the Māori Affairs Committee members for their work and effort, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa for its continued support towards achieving the purpose of this bill, and for the overall implication that the bill represents another strand towards fostering positive relations and, as we evolve as a nation, settling historical grievances and striving for the resolution of the rights of tangata whenua. I am sure this can only be constructive. It leads to better understanding and, of course, an agreement that is designed to give strength to our communities and to New Zealand as a whole.

Although the bill provides for the repeal of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988, it does not effect the restoration of the character, mana, reputations, and pardon granted by section 11 of that Act in accordance with clause 14(2) and (3) in Part 3 and the schedule of the bill. I believe that not only is it necessary to revisit the words of section 11 of the original Act, it is mandatory to place on record the words used for this purpose, because when the words are uttered they are given life. I take this opportunity to read those words: “It is hereby declared that after the passing of this Part of this Act the character, mana, and reputation of the persons of Ngati Awa descent who were arrested, tried, and labelled as rebels in or about 1865 is restored to them and their whanau and to the iwi of Ngati Awa as a whole, and a full pardon is hereby granted to them in respect of all matters arising out of the land wars in 1865.” I believe it is necessary that we place that on the record, as part of this debate.

As a background to the bill, the select committee recommended that the definition of the term “customary rights” be amended to mean rights according to tikanga Māori. That is set out in Part 1, clause 3(1)(a): “customary rights means rights according to tikanga Maori (Maori customary values and practices);”. There are two reasons why I raise this issue. The first is the obvious one, which is to try to give some object to the clause itself. The second reason is that yet again it is an opportunity for us as Māori to extend our language within the laws of our land—the legislation. As we progress and are given the opportunity to manifest that option, then we are truly moving towards a nation of united people.

I also want to say that the process of healing and the process of dealing with grievances is most important for the purpose of moving onward. The main changes, as has been said by the Minister, are that the Māori Affairs Committee has recommended that the definition of “Ngati Awa” in clause 3 be amended to include the words “nga uri o nga hapu o Ngati Awa”—the descendants of the hapū. I did note the comment from the select committee that recommended this change, because it is preferable for the definition to revert to the wording that was agreed in the deed of settlement, and for the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill and the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill to be consistent. The proposed amendment will accommodate as much as possible the wish of the iwi to include the words “nga uri o nga hapu o Ngati Awa” in the definition of Ngāti Awa in the bill. An identical amendment was recommended by the Māori Affairs Committee in respect of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill.

Finally, I congratulate the iwi o Ngāti Awa on their observations and on their strength in seeking solutions to find a way forward. I do wish them the best of luck. Kia ora tātou.

Ā, tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Ā, tēnā hoki tātou o te Whare nei. Tātou hoki ngā māngai o ngā iwi katoa o Aotearoa. Ngā mihi hoki ki ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa mō Ngāti Awa, ngā uri o Toroa, arā, ngā tuakana o tēnei he uri o Puhi Moana Ariki. Ā, kia ahatia tēnā, engari nā tātou nō te waka o Mātaatua. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

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

[Greetings to you Mr Speaker, and greetings to those of us in this House as well. We are indeed the representatives of all the people of New Zealand. Greetings to those descendants of Toroa too, who took this matter up for Ngāti Awa, namely the elder brothers of this relative of yours of Puhi Moana Ariki. Regardless how that is taken, ultimately, it belongs to us all of the Mātaatua canoe. Greetings therefore to you.]

On behalf of New Zealand First—and I repeat that it is the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. This bill will essentially confer a new status to the corporate body known as Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa. It will, firstly, give effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngāti Awa concerning the reconstitution of the structure and operations of its rūnanga; secondly, remove its status as a Māori trust board under the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act and the Māori Trust Boards Act; thirdly, allow it to continue to assume governance responsibility for assets that currently belong to Ngāti Awa; and, finally, allow it to receive, hold, and administer the Ngāti Awa settlement redress for, and on behalf of, Ngāti Awa.

This bill is part of the journey that Ngāti Awa has had to undertake in order to reach closure of its claims—a journey that started some 15 years ago when Ngāti Awa started negotiations on this matter. In reality, this journey started much earlier than that. It began in 1866, following the raupatu, or confiscation, of Ngāti Awa lands. For Ngāti Awa, a particular milestone of this journey was reached in the 1980s with the establishment of the Ngāti Awa Trust Board to progress issues on behalf of Ngāti Awa. I think it is appropriate that I acknowledge those responsible for that particular milestone. I say, in the presence of those of Ngāti Awa who are here in the gallery, and to those who undoubtedly will be listening to this debate: ko tēnei e hiahia ana au ki te mihi ki ngā kaumātua o aua wā i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi, arā, ko: Eruera Manuera, Hare Rēneti, Ahiheta Rātene, Matarena Rēneti, me ērā atu o aua wā. Nō reira e kara mā, e kui mā kua ngaro ki te ao wairua, whakangā koutou i roto i te mōhiotanga nā tēnei kaupapa e tata ana kua tau.

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

[I really want to pay a tribute to the elders back then who are no longer before us, namely: Eruera Manuera, Hare Rēneti, Ahiheta Rātene, Matarena Rēneti, and others. Therefore to you the elderly men and womenfolk who have departed to the spiritual world, rest there in the knowledge that this matter is about to be settled.]

This lengthy journey is clearly a commentary on the current process of negotiation of settlements. I acknowledge the Minister of Māori Affairs for the timely sponsorship of this bill, which will help to facilitate the establishment of a corporate structure that meets the requirements of Ngāti Awa in the governance of their assets and towards the ultimate settlement of their claim.

It is important that this bill is passed today, because another bill before the House affects Ngāti Awa. I refer to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which will finally see Ngāti Awa complete the journey that they started in 1866. This bill requires enactment in order to give effect to the terms of the claims settlement bill.

It ought to be noted that New Zealand First supports the timely settlement of claims and thinks that the settlements should be fair and durable. That should not be compromised for the sake of bureaucratic expediency. We believe this bill to be especially fair and durable, particularly in view of the absence of any reference to the words: “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Currently, those words can be found in almost 30 pieces of legislation, but they lack any definition in that legislation. Sadly, this Government has failed to give definition to those words. Their absence from this bill is evidence that this Government clearly recognises that their inclusion is not required, or even necessary, to provide fairness and durability to Māori and the Crown. If those words had been included, New Zealand First would certainly have opposed the passage of this bill. They are not included, therefore, on behalf of New Zealand First, I tender our support for this Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill in the knowledge that it will help to provide for the settlement of the claim made by Ngāti Awa to the Waitangi Tribunal.

Nō reira, koutou mā o Ngāti Awa, kei te tata atu iho te puāwaitanga o te kākano i hakatō ō rātou mā o ērā o ngā rau tau, te kākano hoki nā koutou i whāngai, hei oranga mō Ngāti Awa.

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

[And so to you of Ngāti Awa, the seed that they of a hundred years ago planted is about to bear fruit. You have nurtured it too as sustenance for Ngāti Awa.]

I just conclude by saying that reference was made by previous speakers to the whakatauāki adopted by Ngāti Awa in terms of birds taking flight. This bill does not actually give flight to the bird, but it allows the bird to take those first steps. Nō reira e tātou mā, kore kūmea roa ēnei tū engari tū ake tēnei ki te tautoko te kaupapa i waenganui i a tātou. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

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

[And so to us here, I will not prolong my address that supports the matter here in our midst. And so I greet you and wish us all good health.]

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to this bill. As members have accurately said, the reason it is being passed is because a Waitangi settlement is about to come into effect and the iwi does not have a legal structure to enable it to take the money. So it has asked for a private bill. A private bill, of course, is not a public bill. A private bill is one sponsored—in this case by the people themselves through their local member of Parliament—for the law to be written; a law just for them. It does not apply to any other New Zealanders, just to them.

Parliament is obviously going to approve this bill. Well, the ACT party will not vote for this bill. The reason for that is that we do not believe that the Māori Affairs Committee, or those who have promoted this bill—and I understand that the Minister was involved—are doing the people concerned any favours. Let me just draw the attention of the House to this extraordinary fact. Some very substantial amounts of assets will be passed over, and we are passing a law to say that the people who will be holding those assets in trust are not bound by the Trustee Act. That means they do not have the obligations that normally fall upon any citizen who is holding money, assets, or goods on behalf of other New Zealanders.

We will have all seen in the newspapers, in the media, and within Māoridom severe criticisms of a number of iwi for how they have handled the assets they have received under previous treaty settlements. I say that anyone who has spoken in this debate and is voting for this clause is morally unable to ever criticise if anything goes wrong with any of the money that the State is passing over. Because one of the obligations, which we would put on them, but for this bill, would be that they would have to follow the provisions of the Trustee Act, which means one has to hold money and assets for the benefit of beneficiaries. Well, we have waived that. In fact, we have gone further than that. If members read this bill they will see it states that all the people in charge have to do is follow a charter. The charter is not attached. Then we read further, and it states that the charter, which apparently was approved, can be amended any time in the future.

Why, I ask the House, should this group of New Zealand citizens be given a second-rate—in fact, I would describe it as third-rate—legal structure? Even shareholders in a company get more protection. There is no protection provided here. There is no obligation here for audits to be held. There is no provision set down for how people are to be elected. If there is a conflict within this iwi in the future—and I am not criticising this organisation; conflicts are part of human nature—how is it to be settled? We, in Parliament, are completely silent about that. Do we treat other New Zealanders like that? No, we do not. If one is in a cooperative, one is bound by the Co-operative Companies Act, which sets out how people are to account, and how they are to be elected. If there is a future row, or if there is an argument—and rows do occur within Māoridom occasionally—how are they to be settled?

I say to the House that there will be some future Waitangi claim because somebody from this iwi will be able to get up and say: “The Government did not carry out its duty towards us. It actually treated us like third-rate citizens, and it passed a special law exempting us from the Trustee Act and exempting us from the requirements that private enterprise is required to follow.” A soccer club and a rugby club has to actually obey those requirements. The Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act sets out a whole set of regulations that an organisation should have. The Minister promoting this bill at no time told us why he thought money should be handed over and we should not actually extend the 150 years of statutory experience that this House has with regard to public money, and with regard to private money. [Interruption] Has that member got an interjection? Is she going to tell me that these people do not need that help?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Are you going to vote for the bill?

No, I am not. The reason I am not going to vote for the bill is that I think this bill is itself, under the present definitions, a violation of the treaty. The Crown is in no way meeting its obligations. I am not interested in the fact that there may be some leaders within this iwi who have come forward and said: “We would rather like to be exempt from all the obligations that we would have to meet for holding money.”

💬 Pita Paraone: They have not done that.

Well, this is a private bill, so the Minister is telling us that the organisation concerned is asking for it. Now if the committee is saying that they are not, then what on earth is it doing coming through this House?

I do say—and this is a criticism I have made of private bills before—that I think this Parliament passes private bills that are creating a special law for just one group of New Zealanders, and that it does so far too easily. We have not been told why the models of the Companies Act, the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, the Charitable Trusts Act, or the Co-operative Companies Act were not looked at. Now, they are models that have stood the test of time. This model has not. We have actually been told that is a replacement for a previous model that has already turned out to be defective. We are actually being asked to give a rubber-stamp to a charter that none of us have seen. Even those who have seen it agree that it can be amended.

I hope this turns out to be a wonderful settlement. I hope that this asset turns out to be great for the iwi. But is it supposed to last forever? It will be most extraordinary if this human organisation turns out to have this inhuman ability never to have any future problems. When it does have future problems people will look back and say: “What were the New Zealand members of Parliament doing? Why were they not prepared to apply the same safeguards that they applied to any other New Zealand organisation?”. That is one of the reasons—and I have some others—that I have grave doubts as to whether the present round of treaty settlements will turn out to be full, fair, and final. Indeed, one can see that this Parliament is already setting itself up for a future grievance claim.

It appears to me that the Crown actually does have an obligation to Māori to make sure that the iwi organisations do have a proper, robust structure that ensures that all beneficiaries are properly treated, that looks at issues such as conflicts of interest, looks into how the people are going to be elected, and covers all the sorts of things that one would normally expect. When one sees a statute going through that starts off by telling us that the Trustee Act is no longer going to apply, I think that throws out all the warning signs. Accordingly, the ACT party will vote against this third reading.

The Green Party is very pleased to be supporting this bill. We congratulate Ngāti Awa on their achievement and, in particular, on their tenacity in getting to this part of the settlement and getting it through the legislative process.

The bill sets out the mechanisms for the organisation that will manage the iwi’s settlement assets. I must say that the Greens still consider it extraordinarily rude that the Government did not consider this bill fit to be a Government bill and taking up Government legislative time, especially as it was only because of Government policy, through the Office of Treaty Settlements, that the bill was needed in the first place. Mr Prebble is quite wrong in his analysis that this legislation was sought by Ngāti Awa. Ngāti Awa was forced to have this structure, and forced to have the legislation go through the House in this way, because their views about the way they wanted to manage their assets were considered inappropriate owing to Office of Treaty Settlements policy.

The Greens have continually criticised the Office of Treaty Settlements for its obstructive approach to Ngāti Awa in the development of a structure that meets their needs and their requirements. The failure of the Office of Treaty Settlements to prioritise the needs of iwi does not come as much of a surprise; instead, prioritising their own views has meant that the final structure is not the optimum one that it might otherwise have been. It has also meant that the settlement has been significantly delayed, due entirely to the intransigence of the Office of Treaty Settlements, and those delays have been incredibly costly. The Greens believe that in matters relating to the entity that manages an iwi’s settlement assets—assets that belong to the iwi, that have been achieved because of the wrongs committed in the name of the Government and New Zealanders in the past, and that are theirs, and theirs alone, to control—it is the iwi that should decide how that management happens. The Office of Treaty Settlements and the Government in general should be charged only with facilitating their views and not holding things up.

It must be remembered that iwi pay the costs of these settlement negotiations. Many of them must borrow against their future settlement restitution assets in order to pay for, and fund, what can be very lengthy settlement negotiations. Ten years is not unusual, so any delays, especially those caused by the Government itself and Government agencies, are an erosion of the restitution that the negotiation process is supposed to, and is designed to, provide. The Greens are completely opposed to this sort of approach. We want to see a process that is just and does not pauperise iwi in the process of providing restitution to them. That is what we think about this.

For Ngāti Awa, this part of the process of settlement is now over. Ngāti Awa will soon have the rūnanga to manage their own assets. Very soon Ngāti Awa will also have the settlement legislation passed, and the restitution and those assets returned to them—assets that in some cases were wrongly taken, and other assets in compensation. The Green Party sincerely hopes that these resources will assist Ngāti Awa in achieving greater self-determination economically, socially, and politically. We sincerely hope that the Opposition parties listen to their own rhetoric and fix their own mistaken perceptions, and leave Ngāti Awa alone to manage their assets without a continual barrage of unnecessary and destructive interference in their affairs. Such interference is a perpetual barrier to iwi, hapū, and individual Māori success in our country. Kia ora, katoa.

I would like to take a moment to greet the kaumātua and iwi representatives present in the gallery. I apologise for not being able to greet them in their own tongue. However, let me state that as a long-term resident of Whakatāne I am particularly thrilled to be here, speaking for United Future on the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa is a legal entity already. It was established in 1988 to facilitate settlement negotiations with the Crown, in relation to Ngāti Awa’s historical treaty claims. A condition of the settlement is that Ngāti Awa establish a governance entity to receive and administer redress. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, as presently constituted as a Māori trust board, is not regarded as a suitable entity to undertake this function. However, I would like to congratulate Ngāti Awa. I recognise that the work they have done to date and the cooperation they have enjoyed amongst themselves means that this bill is passing today.

The negotiations that have resulted in an agreement as to the nature of the governance entity that this bill gives effect to received 88.9 percent support from those eligible voters who chose to do so. It will reconstitute Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, which will cease to be a Māori trust board under the 1955 Act. Instead, it will be a stand-alone body corporate, to be administered under this bill and the rūnanga charter.

I noted that the Minister sponsoring and supporting this bill said that there was a high level of beneficiary registration, that there was no opposition to the proposals that were actively voiced during the process, and that there was a high level of support for the proposal. Therefore, not wanting to waste any more of the iwi’s time, I congratulate Ngāti Awa on managing the settlement process successfully thus far, and in supporting the third reading we hope to demonstrate our confidence in this governance structure.

E ngā uri i raro i te maru o ngā rangatira rongonui me Awanuiārangi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kāore e wareware ki a au nei me mātau ō tīpuna ki a koutou, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Nō reira e ngā tuāhine, tuākana i roto o te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai rā tātau katoa.

[And so to you the descendants under the care of the great chiefs and Awanuiārangi, I humbly greet and acknowledge you immensely. I acknowledge your ancestors; indeed we all do, and bid them a fond farewell. Depart, go. And so greetings to my sister and brother colleagues in the House. Greetings to you and to all of us gathered here.]

I acknowledged the people of Ngāti Awa, under their eponymous ancestor, Awanuiārangi. I acknowledged the ones who have passed on and are not in the House today, and I also acknowledged our brothers and sisters who are here today.

I rise to support the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill and, in doing so, I want to correct a few statements that have been made by colleagues opposite. As usual, when members of the ACT party stand in this House we regularly hear mean-spirited comments, and that is just taken for granted these days. I do not think they will change their tune, notwithstanding the fact that none of them will be returned to the House in 6 months. Having stated that, I believe that there is no doubt that there is a range of protection mechanisms in place for beneficiaries. The fact that they do not necessarily fit the mind of the Hon Richard Prebble is neither here nor there to us.

Furthermore, the sustainability of Ngāti Awa in regard to its governance entity has undergone a tortuous period in the negotiation process. That entity did not fall off the back of a truck. It will be a sustainable organisation, and the people of the Whakātane area in particular should be gratified with regard to the quality, integrity, and credibility of their leadership that has steered that particular process.

I comment now in relation to my colleague in the Green Party. There is no doubt that, in terms of time in this House, one of the best instruments available is a member’s bill. It is not a disingenuous approach on the part of Government. Quite to the contrary, I want to support my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, who championed the bill to go through as a member’s bill in order to give Ngāti Awa space to get this bill passed, consequent upon settlement legislation. It is not a disingenuous approach. I say to Metiria Turei that I think she has been sitting too closely for too long to ACT party members on that side of the House.

Having said that, I say that there are now enough people, and there has been enough talk. Ngāti Awa want to get on with the job, and I want to stop there.

I thank Georgina te Heuheu for her very good contribution on the Māori Affairs Committee. It is unusual to commend an Opposition member, but she should be commended for her work. I am just trying to get in first, so that she does not say anything mean-spirited in return. I say thanks very much to Georgina te Heuheu, and to the other members of the committee, which has been ably chaired by Nanaia Mahuta and, prior to his—

💬 Mahara Okeroa: Elevation.

JOHN TAMIHERE:—elevation, as he puts it, to better things, by Mahara Okeroa.

To the people of Ngāti Awa who are here today, I say that once again a Labour-led Government, with Māori members, is on the road to deliver. It might not have delivered in the time Ngāti Awa wanted, but at least the cheque is in the mail. Kia ora.

Tēnā tātou katoa. Ā, tēnā koutou tōku whānau kua tae mai. He mihi aroha mai i te whare o te Heuheu i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Nō reira, tēnā tātau katoa.

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

[Greetings to us all. And greetings to you as well, my family who have arrived here. A fond and loving greeting from the house of te Heuheu on this special day. And so greetings once again to all of us here.]

Before I comment on the bill before us, I must accept the compliments of John Tamihere. I certainly had no intention of making any mean remarks about him. In this place if someone says something good about one, then, of course, one must accept it.

The third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill is the second-to-last step that Parliament must take to bring to a timely conclusion Ngāti Awa’s efforts to achieve resolution of their historic claims against the Crown. Tomorrow this House moves to the third reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which arises out of the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003, and which itself took up to 15 years to manage and to negotiate, but which again followed upon the efforts of generations of Ngāti Awa to have their mana acknowledged by the Crown and for themselves to witness the honour of the Crown in action, as, indeed, it moves to make amends for past injustice perpetrated upon Ngāti Awa.

Despite the generations of effort, Ngāti Awa have never lost their mana, despite suffering dispossession and alienation. As my colleague Gerry Brownlee said, we will have more to say on that matter, the actual settlement, tomorrow, but for today this House must legislate for the entity that will receive the settlement assets and manage those assets. National is pleased to support the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, as it will also do tomorrow for the settlement bill.

Comments have been made by the ACT party today that John Tamihere characterised as mean-spirited. I guess I would probably support those comments, as well. The points that the member Richard Prebble made may or may not have merit, but in my 8½ years in Parliament I have never yet seen that party offer some alternatives in a constructive way that might have allowed it to vote for a settlement bill—because, of course, it has never done that. That party never voted for settlement entities, either. I am not sure how a party can sit in this House, stand for the rule of law, but not wish to see the rule of law exercised in favour of iwi who have sometimes been the recipients of actions by successive Governments that we today would rather have not had to deal with. But we have dealt with them. That is what we are doing now. The process that we have may not be perfect, but it is the best one we have been able to devise up to this point. Since there are still some settlements to come, it would be rather more constructive of ACT to put forward some of its suggestions in a constructive way so that they may be considered in a proper manner.

I would like to make some comments about this particular bill. I am told that Ngāti Awa has spent the best part of the last 3, maybe 4, years seeking from the Government their own legislation for their governance entity. It does not, I think, say much for us that, after making them wait for so long—generations, in fact—to have injustice recognised and made reparation for, in the last 3 or 4 years they have had to wind down another tortuous path to get their governance entity in place. It may be that the Government might take the current trust board legislation, from which this bill arises, and perhaps see that that legislation, with appropriate adjustments, can be made to fit the requirements of a governance entity that is to receive settlement assets and be a proper representative body for the people concerned. That way we might save a lot of time, effort, and cost, because, as Metiria Turei rightly pointed out, delay adds to the cost all the time, and, as she also rightly pointed out, a lot of that cost is being borne by the iwi either directly or as a bill on their settlement quantum. Perhaps the new Minister, the Hon Mark Burton, might give consideration, along with the Minister of Māori Affairs, to seeing at least the good in the basis of the trust board legislation and use that as a template with adjustments for new governance entities if that is what tribes who are settling want.

In closing, I want to make some comments about the Hui Taumata that some of us were present at 2 weeks ago. The Hui Taumata and the presence of 400 Māori people there showed clearly that there is a flowering of Māori pride, aspiration, and entrepreneurship. It is against that background that these settlements are being negotiated and concluded. The turn-round of Tainui’s fortunes in the last 2 or 3 years, after a slightly rocky start—which is probably understandable in all respects; theirs was the first major settlement—together with the achievements of Ngāi Tahu, show exactly why it is important that this Parliament moves to settle these historic injustices in a timely fashion, and why this Parliament should gladly wish the iwi the very best for their future. What this bill represents today, and what the bill tomorrow will represent, is a moment in time for Ngāti Awa, hopefully, to put behind them that burden that they have carried for so long, and look forward to the future. Indeed, this tribe already has some very exciting initiatives in their area, and this settlement will add to those initiatives.

I want to say to my relatives in the gallery, if I can say it without seeming to be—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is against the Standing Orders.

Well, sorry; I am going to say it anyway. I offer them my congratulations, particularly for their fortitude and their unending patience with the officials and Ministers. I mean that not just for this current Government but for the last one, as well. This legislation shows that if people want to stick to their principles, which they always did, in the end, right will prevail. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ā, tēnā koutou mai i raro i ō koutou nei maunga a Pūtauaki. Ka mihi atu tēnei mai i Te Ati Awa ki a koutou a Ngāti Awa, ahakoa, kei te haere tonu te pātai, ko wai te tuakana, ko wai te taina? Nā, ka mihi atu ki a koutou i haere mai nei ki tēnei wāhanga o te pira, te wāhanga tata atu ki te mutu. Ka mihi mai tēnā nā mai i Tūwharetoa ki a koutou i runga i ō koutou nei māia, kaha, ahakoa te piki me ngā heke o ngā ngaru papaki mai ki uta.

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

[Greetings to you from beneath your mountain Pūtauaki. I of Te Ati Awa acknowledge you of Ngāti Awa, even if the question between us remains unanswered as to who is senior and who is junior. Indeed, I acknowledge you who came here for this part of the bill, the part that is about to end. That member from Tūwharetoa acknowledged your boldness and efforts despite the waves going up and down on their way to crash upon the shores.]

One of the abiding experiences that I have had is either chairing the Māori Affairs Committee or being a participant. With regard to the Ngāti Awa claim, one of the issues that was exposed—and I think the story needed to be told—was the nature of the claim, the nature of the historical antecedence that preceded the claim, and the way in which certain hapū were treated, in spite of the fact that some of those hapū were instrumental in assisting others who were less fortunate than themselves without due regard or due compensation.

I was also privileged to hear an oral history at someone else’s settlement, which was Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau. Some Ngāti Awa spokespersons presented a whole history of ngā tikanga o ngā wāhi katoa. It then made me realise, of course, that Ngāti Awa were not only subjected to the ravaging forces of colonialism but might have been doubly disadvantaged, as well, by what eventuated from that with regard to the loss of their land. So I can understand in a way that amongst Ngāti Awa there is one person with whom I have had a long and fruitful relationship, in the best way possible. She identified with our issues at Parihaka, because in lots of ways they parallel those of Ngāti Awa.

If we take the contemporary context, the Hui Taumata, I think one of the very strong messages that was put out amongst the people was: “Hey, it’s about time we were responsible for what we do. We need to be responsible for what we do. We need to grasp the responsibility on the go-forward.” So why does Ngāti Awa have to be constrained by ngā ture Pākehā—to constraints that apply to incorporations and other such entities—in contrast with what the honourable member from ACT said with regard to their claim? Let me then quote the Hon Richard Prebble, who says, and has said, first, that the treaty claims were “paralysing the Government and preventing it from using its own assets”; second, that “the treaty industry is spiralling out of control into all aspects of life”; and, thirdly, that “the treaty created two classes of New Zealanders—Māori and the rest of us”. Hey, history then tells us exactly where in the social indicators Māori have been for the last 150 years. I congratulate Ngāti Awa on having to get a bill through this House that requires them to take responsibility for their way forward.

The other example I want to use relates to a whare whakairo, ko te ingoa tēnā ko Mātaatua. [a carved house, the name of which is Mātaatua.] If we follow the history of Mātaatua, we see that the construction of te kuhunga whare a Mātaatua [the house entrance of Mātaatua] was completed at the beginning of 1875. In 1996 you managed to get it back. It is almost synonymous with your claim. The two things seem to have travelled parallel. That is really interesting, because it demonstrates where this whare went. It went to an inter-colonial exhibition. I do not know what the Aborigines put up at the show. However, it went to an inter-colonial exhibition, starting in Sydney, Australia. It then went to Melbourne, then to London. It reminds me of our old people travelling the oceans looking for justice by going to Kuini Wikitōria. In 1924 the whare came back to New Zealand for the South Seas exhibition in Dunedin, and the Crown agreed to allow the university museum in Otago to exhibit the meeting house on permanent loan.

Ngāti Awa have always maintained that they did not transfer title to the whare, just as they have always maintained they did not transfer their land and estates to the Crown. So there are interesting parallels, and I congratulate you—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to debate the issues through the Chair, rather than to the gallery.

It is a Māori custom to look at the people.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have the people in the debating chamber.

Koi nā te tikanga ō tātou. [That is our custom.] This settlement is a very good initiative, and although it does not go to the full extent of total compensation, we look forward to what Ngāti Awa will do on behalf of all their people, e noho mai rā i raro o te maunga a Pūtauaki, te tahataha o koutou nei takutai moana. Me ērā atu o ngā āhuatanga katoa e pā ana ki ō koutou nei waiata, haka, me ērā atu o ngā āhuatanga a koro, a kui mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa.

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

[… living there beneath Mount Pūtauaki and by the shores of your coastal lands. I acknowledge those things as well as these ones about your songs, haka, and the ancient traditions of the elderly men and womenfolk. Greetings, greetings, and a loving greeting to you all.]

It is appropriate when speaking on a member’s bill—interestingly enough, introduced by the Minister of Māori Affairs—to acknowledge Ngāti Awa in the House today and acknowledge that this is part of the settlement. I guess the major part of it will actually be tomorrow, but today we are establishing a new entity that is designed to facilitate and administer the settlement. For those reasons, primarily, National is supporting this legislation.

I want to note that we are required to pass this law because of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988, which established the rūnanga as a trust. Today we are giving it full powers as a body corporate. All of that might seem straightforward and simple enough, but the problem is this—and I think the previous speaker Mahara Okeroa illustrated the very concern: it is a serious question, I believe, that we are required in the 21st century to pass specific legislation for a specific iwi, giving them not a general status but a special status in legislation. The fact that the previous speaker Mahara Okeroa essentially had what was almost a private conversation with Ngāti Awa demonstrates the problem we get into with this pattern of doing things for the future, because today we are using the Parliament of New Zealand, the supreme lawmaking entity embracing the whole nation, to pass private legislation. So I guess it was not surprising that Mahara Okeroa saw it as a private conversation. But it is not. We are making the law of the land. Certainly it is for the benefit of Ngāti Awa and certainly it is to facilitate the settlement, but in principle it is wrong. I know we have to do it, because there is existing legislation that has to be dealt with. What I would say to the Government—and I guess it is something that National will be addressing over time—is that we need a different way to deal with these kinds of issues.

Clearly, the legislation applying to Ngāti Awa, and indeed to many other iwi that have their own legislation, needs to be modernised. It would be better to have a general piece of legislation that applied to all iwi and that brought their administrative structures into the contemporary world, ensuring that the structures complied in a general way with trusts legislation, companies legislation, charitable trusts legislation, societies, and so on and so forth. In fact, it would be the choice of each individual iwi as to exactly which option it would choose to administer its settlements.

Clearly, the issue of settlements is of huge public concern and, clearly, this Parliament is charged with passing specific legislation in each case. I would prefer it if in time we could move past that, but at least for the meantime that is a public duty. I say to ACT members that it is not credible for them to keep coming here and saying that they want to conclude the settlement process, but on virtually no occasion have they actually voted for a settlement. I say “on virtually no occasion” because I know that there has been at least one occasion when ACT did vote for a settlement, but, as a general proposition, that does not occur. As a general rule, National does vote for settlements—whether they are the Labour Government’s or ours—and we do that for a very deliberate reason. We do so because we think it is important for this nation, and we will be talking further about that tomorrow.

There may be occasions when, from time to time, we might want to record a particular objection to particular settlements, and that would be recorded through the way that we vote. But as a general principle, we acknowledge the need to deal with these issues. The problem with special legislation is this: it leads to a view that people acquire special rights. We can see that in all the consultation provisions that this Government has been introducing into a wide variety of legislation. On issues that obviously affect individual iwi, consultation is relevant and appropriate. But where it is not appropriate is with the creeping participation that separates our country into two groups of people, giving one group general consultation rights and another group special consultation rights, not just on the things of specific relevance to the iwi, but on the broad issues relating to local government, health, and education. In other words, they are rights to do with the general administration of the law and policy in our country.

I believe that when special legislation for particular iwi leads to that outcome, we are not going down the correct path. So I would say to the Government that while it continues to do settlements—and over the next few months I guess that we may be having a few more—it needs to be thinking also about whether there is a better way of dealing with these administrative issues: the creation of the entities of the iwi to administer the settlements. I would much prefer, and I believe that over time the House will see the logic of this, to have a general, empowering piece of legislation to deal with all iwi in relation to their governance bodies, and then each iwi would choose the particular model that will suit its particular purposes. It is no business of this Parliament to have any role in that process. After all, when the settlements are made, they become the property of the iwi to deal with as the iwi feels fit. Naturally, all of us would wish that each iwi will do the best in that regard, but, at the end of the day, if that does not work out, then it is the responsibility of the particular iwi.

I just want to finish with this point. As I intend to say tomorrow, I do wish Ngāti Awa well in the administration of its claim. I do wish that it will be able to empower the people of Ngāti Awa, wherever they are in New Zealand, in the process of the claim. I understand that in doing so it is less about money and more about pride as a people. Ultimately, as the Hui Taumata demonstrated, the prosperity of Māori will depend on individual endeavours through education, not through iwi claims. But part of empowerment and part of pride is recognising historic grievances, settling them, and then moving on as a nation.

I want to conclude by saying that National members support this bill but we do raise this general issue, which I believe this country will have to deal with for the good of the nation.

E ngā rangatira me ō tūpuna e maiangi ana hei kanohi mō rātou kua huri atu, tēnā koutou. He mihi ki ō maunga, ō awa, ō whenua, anā, ngā whakatupuranga. Tēnā koutou.

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

[To you the chiefs rising up as the face of your ancestors who have turned beyond the veil, greetings to you. An acknowledgment to your mountains, rivers, lands, and, therefore, the generations. Greetings to you.]

My humble contribution to this process has been as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and, in taking on that task, it has been an opportunity to help navigate this legislation, as well as the settlement legislation, through the processes of Parliament. I would like to thank the advisers, the clerks of the select committee, and parliamentary counsel who have all helped to support this process, and I recognise that the efforts of Ngāti Awa have been significant over time to bring us to this point.

So here we have it—the evolution of an entity to represent the interests of Ngāti Awa. In 1981, having established itself as a charitable trust to represent the interests of Ngāti Awa because it did not secure Māori trust board status to progress its legitimate historical treaty settlement claims, we had the first entity to represent interests in that area. In 1988 the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act was passed, under which, as an entity, it was formally constituted as a trust board under the 1955 Maori Trust Boards Act to help pursue and progress its historical treaty settlements claims. And now the Minister is introducing this bill, as a member’s bill, to release the shackles of ministerial accountability and to recognise that we have an entity that is set to take a new generation of Ngāti Awa forward into the future—which is as it should be—in readiness for the transfer of ancestral lands and taonga back to Ngāti Awa, to be returned to Ngāti Awa under its claims settlement legislation.

The key intent of this bill is to restore and uphold accountability to Ngāti Awa, for Ngāti Awa, by Ngāti Awa. There have been comments in this House that the charter should be in the bill. The committee considered that matter. It recognised that the restoration of rights includes responsibility and that the charter should stand outside the entity legislation so that Ngāti Awa have the flexibility to grow and evolve. Again, that is as it should be. I hesitate to defend the choices that Ngāti Awa has made, as I know that its challenge is organic, and it is progressive and responsive to its needs at this point in time.

The Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill—its construction, the charter by which it abides—is for today’s generation, holding tomorrow’s aspiration in view. The entity may change, and the charter may change, at some time in the future. We, as parliamentarians, should expect that from a modern, progressive people—iwi, who, in this instance, are known as Ngāti Awa—in reaching a settlement of their historical claims. I regret that not all political parties or politicians will endorse the choices that Ngāti Awa have made in reaching these agreements. A dispute resolution process is set out in the charter and, with the exception of the terms of the settlement, it is clear that it does not remove any right that a member of Ngāti Awa may have to access the courts in respect of disputes with te rūnanga concerning the settlement, assets, and other matters. I make mention of this as it has been an issue that has been raised in the House at this point in time.

There is not too much to say here, except that I commend the Minister of Māori Affairs for knowing when to let go. That is as it should be, too. If we are serious about entrusting the challenge of Māori development, we should know that it does not rest in this Parliament; it rests out amongst the people who have the tenacity to make things happen for themselves. Again, that is as it should be.

So I say to the Minister and to this House that I commend the bill, and I urge support from all parliamentarians to meet the challenge of assisting to advance Māori aspirations, as can be achieved in treaty settlements and in empowering legislation such as this. It is no easy task. We have spent many years during the time I have been in this House arguing over what could have been and should have been. But, at the end of the day, we have seen the tenacity of a group of people who have willing to sit down at the table with the Government and reach an agreement—with all its warts, with all its challenges. That is no easy feat. So I urge parliamentarians, when they debate issues such as this, to consider the journey ahead. The past has been long and tumultuous for many iwi, especially Ngāti Awa. They will not tell that story in this House. Yet we in this House stand and speak as though we understand every part of their walk and their history. We criticise the decisions they make for themselves, and then we have the audacity to say that they may not be durable. How can they be if there is no commitment in this House to help iwi achieve their aims and aspirations?

I look forward to tomorrow’s debate, first, because it will be one of substance and, I think, one that will enable a group of people to get on with it, and, secondly, because it will enable ancestral lands and taonga to be returned to the Ngāati Awa people so that they can do the things their ancestors taught them to do but have not been in a position to do until now. I also look forward to seeing the growth of real potential of people in Ngāti Awa to move forward for future generations. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.