Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of Ngāti Awa, a number of whom have joined us today in the galleries of this House.

The passage of this bill enables the people of Ngāti Awa to move forward beyond the historical grievances they have suffered at the hands of the Crown. The bill is equally significant for the Crown and for the people of this country, and it enables the restoration of the honour of the Crown. It represents a further step in the journey towards the reconciliation of the relationship between the peoples of this country and, importantly, between Ngāti Awa and the Crown.

This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngāti Awa, and settles all their historical treaty claims. The historical background to the claims of Ngāti Awa makes for sombre reading. It provides an account of New Zealand’s history wherein Ngāti Awa can be said to have been faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership, in seeking to build strong relationships with its treaty partner. But the Crown did not reciprocate that behaviour. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngāti Awa for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown.

Ngāti Awa commenced direct negotiations with the Crown in 1996. The main components of the settlement package were finalised in October 2000. A deed of settlement, the formal Crown offer to Ngāti Awa to settle the claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, was then developed by the Crown and Ngāti Awa negotiators. A significant majority of Ngāti Awa participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly, representatives of the Crown and Ngāti Awa signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 27 March 2003.

The passing of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill last night enables Ngāti Awa to reconstitute its existing entity in order to receive the settlement redress. The passage of this settlement bill is the final hurdle to enable the Crown to transfer the settlement redress to Ngāti Awa.

This Government is fully committed to progressing the settlement of valid historical treaty claims. That is a two-way process—a process that seeks to restore a set of relationships that have not been maintained or, in some cases, even activated, and a process that seeks to resolve all the historical treaty claims of respected Māori communities, and to resolve longstanding and deeply-felt grievances.

Over the course of a decade the Crown has developed and refined a process of settling historical treaty claims. That process is now leading to a steady stream of comprehensive settlements being reached. This Government has concluded four settlements in the past 2 years, and is currently in active negotiations with some 12 groups. We have also made some major inroads into progressing claims in the far north and streamlining the treaty settlement process.

The Crown has withstood challenges in the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts concerning its policy approach to settlements. Both the tribunal and the courts inquired into the Ngāti Awa settlement itself. I am pleased to note that those inquiries found in favour of the Ngāti Awa settlement process.

Now that the settlement process has been developed and has stood up to scrutiny, we are well placed to move forward, and this Government is committed to making positive progress in settling historical claims. We have continued, in the claims settled in this bill, and will continue in future settlements, to negotiate with the interests of all citizens of New Zealand in mind, so that as New Zealanders we can all be very proud that significant grievances are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law.

I am pleased to acknowledge all of those from Ngāti Awa and the Crown who, over so many long and arduous years, have given their all to enable us to get to this day. Their passion and commitment have greatly assisted the process. There are so many who deserve some acknowledgment. They know who they are, and they are entitled to feel great pride and satisfaction in their achievements.

In particular, I acknowledge Professor Hirini Mead, chief negotiator for the settlement of the historical claims of Ngāti Awa. I know that Professor Mead has worked extremely hard to bring about this day. His leadership and commitment have greatly assisted this settlement process.

I also acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of Ngāti Awa’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Finance, and the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement.

I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngāti Awa deed of settlement. Indeed, it outlines a tragic history, but it is a history that I think we all must know if we are to recognise our common heritage and learn from it in order to move forward in a unified way.

I acknowledge the ancestors of Ngāti Awa, and extend best wishes for the future to its elders, descendants, and negotiating team. Their journey ahead looks bright, and I wish them well in their endeavours. The dignity, wisdom, and judgment they showed in the settlement process will, I believe, stand them in good stead as they enter the next stage of their journey forward. I commend this bill to the House.

I stand on behalf of the National Party to indicate our support for the passing of this settlement bill today. We do so in an environment in which some of our political opponents would want to say that we do not have the right attitude towards settlement or, indeed, towards the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequences that flow from that. So I want to take a minute or two to discourage those views and to put very strongly on the record the reasons why the National Party strongly supports settlement of historical grievances.

We do not accept that the concept of the Treaty of Waitangi is about the partnership of two peoples. We see the treaty as being a point from which two peoples got together to become one nation. That might seem to be a very subtle point; nonetheless, it is a very important one. The genesis of our thinking might be best expressed in the Māori proverb, first brought prominently to the attention of the nation by Whina Cooper back in 1990—“He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.

In settling grievances like this, it is simply a grievance brought by New Zealanders, who are Māori, to the Government, which now stands as the Crown, and the discussions that result from that grievance being laid on the table coming to a point where there is settlement. We accept that the settlements can never fully compensate for the loss—the loss on many levels—or for the full amount of grievance that might be taken. We acknowledge the generosity of Ngāti Awa and other settlor groups who accept that the Government is doing this in good faith. We will continue to seek settlement of treaty grievances on that basis.

However, it does raise the issue of how a settlement is mandated by those who are the recipients of it. I have expressed, a number of times now, my concerns about the very low levels of the vote in favour of settlement. It worries us on this side of the House that only about 30 percent of those eligible to participate in the vote that ratified the settlement chose to do so, and of those a lesser number actually accepted it. Although the Office of Treaty Settlements might want to say to the Government: “Go ahead with this anyway, because the rest of the people are so happy they don’t feel the need to vote.”, it does leave the uncomfortable feeling that at some time in the future there may be successive generations or future generations who say: “Well, our people didn’t sign up to this. We weren’t happy at the time and we’re not happy now.” That potentially threatens the idea that settlements are full and final, that there is a leaving behind of the grievance in the moving forward to a new future. So I want to put it very clearly on the record that this Parliament understands and believes firmly that what is before us today is a full and final settlement, and that Ngāti Awa will not be back for more.

There are also another couple of issues that I should raise. There was in this House a considerable amount of kerfuffle over the preamble to this bill. It is the first bill, I understand, that has a full text in Māori. It was, therefore, very important for that text to be reflected in the English translation, and we took some time to insist that that was achieved. That should not be taken in any disparaging way by Ngāti Awa; rather, it should be accepted that it was the start of a new way of doing things. Our point simply was that as we have had so many years of disagreement about what was meant in the Treaty of Waitangi, surely we should not have a bill settling a grievance that flowed from that time also creating the possibility of difference in the two understandings. I think we have now got to a position where we can say that that is not the case and that this bill is well understood to mean, in both texts, what exactly each understands of the other.

A question was raised yesterday in the debate that established the rūnanga organisation that will receive the settlement assets. There was a suggestion in that debate that this new entity was being exempted from many of the encumbrances, one might say, that go with trusts, companies, and other entities that hold assets on behalf of other people. I have some sympathy for the view that was expressed by the Hon Richard Prebble—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh, come on!

—but in essence, I say to Mr Parekura Horomia, what we are doing today is handing to a group of people assets that are theirs. The choice as to how those assets are administered, nurtured, and managed in order for them to grow belongs to those people. For too long, I think, Māori have had an excessive amount of Government involvement in their governance. Trust boards, and such, over the years have had pretty onerous duties put on them by this House. So a freer structure is something we are not too concerned about. But I say again for the record that it would not be appropriate for future generations of Ngāti Awa to come back to this House and say that the structure the House gave them in 2005 failed them—because it is not this place’s structure; it is Ngāti Awa’s.

💬 Pita Paraone: The Act might be wrong.

Well, the Act is not wrong, of course, because it was Ngāti Awa’s Act that was brought here. It was a member’s bill, as the member will remember. It was not a Government bill, and that is the important thing.

I think I should conclude by saying to Ngāti Awa that the National Party wishes the iwi every success for the future. We are greatly encouraged by the way in which the plans for the future have been expressed to us, and we would want to support Ngāti Awa as New Zealanders as much as any others. We wish for them a governance structure that makes absolutely certain that the best of this asset will flow to the young people of Ngāti Awa in the future.

To those who took so many years to negotiate on behalf of the iwi, I say that they certainly have my respect. It is no easy thing to dedicate years of one’s life to a cause that at times must have seemed distant and lost. Today must give great joy to the heart as it comes to fruition. But its fullest fruition will be seen in the many years ahead when the benefits flow to the people of Ngāti Awa.

E tika ake anō, ki te mihi ake anō i a koutou ngā tū pakeke o Ngāti Awa. Hirini, koutou katoa. Ka nui te mihi. E tika ake anō, ki te mihi ake anō ki a rātou kāre i konei, ngā mea kua haere anake ki te wāhi mahana e mau ake anō ō tātou tupuna. Ki a koutou mō tō kaha rawa, e mihi kau ana. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

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

[It is apt that I acknowledge you once more, the elders of Ngāti Awa, Hirini, all of you. It is a huge privilege indeed. It is fitting as well to acknowledge those who are no longer here, the ones who have merely gone on to the place that comforts our ancestors. I acknowledge the enormous effort that you have all contributed. Well done, and greetings to you all.]

I stand here today in support of the third reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Awa regarding the final settlement of all Ngāti Awa historical claims. The preamble to the bill sets out an agreed historical background. It also includes an acknowledgment of treaty breaches and sets out the Crown apology for those breaches.

The history of the Ngāti Awa claim has already been well documented by my colleague the Hon Mark Burton, and I thank him for the effort he has put into his new role in the short time he has held it. I also acknowledge yourself, Madam Speaker, at this stage, just in case I forget, for the effort you have put in and for the steadfastness you have shown in coming through this. I acknowledge my colleague Mita Ririnui who is overseas and cannot be here today, and sends his best wishes. I acknowledge all those colleagues who supported the great achievements yesterday in this House, especially my Māori colleagues; I mihi to them.

In the bill the Crown acknowledges that the confiscation of approximately 250,000 acres of land rendered Ngāti Awa virtually landless. This constituted an injustice and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the 19th century in particular, the treaty was breached with monotonous regularity by New Zealand Governments. Not merely was there a failure to exercise protection; the Crown was at times at the forefront of the process of dispossessing Māori of their language, lands, culture, and much less.

This Government recognises that putting right these grievances, acknowledging wrongs, and providing redress is a necessary phase of our history and of moving forward. It is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Awa for all the prejudice and loss they suffered. Settlements must take account of other developments and commitments in our society today. It is to the credit of Ngāti Awa that they have negotiated with the Crown on the basis of those wider interests. Settlement in the bill includes financial redress of $42.39 million. In addition, it recognises that Ngāti Awa has traditional historical, cultural, and spiritual associations with particular places and sites. The bill enables Ngāti Awa therefore to exercise kaitiakitanga over those sites, and to also take advantage of any commercial management opportunities.

I would like to commend the Māori Affairs Committee for its thorough examination of the bill, and for its commitment to reporting the bill back to the House within a concise 5-month time frame, and I commend all of those officials who have supported this historic journey. I congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on reporting the bill back to this House through the medium of te reo Māori; a recognised language in this House that some people struggle with and get nervous about. I want to say that quite clearly, because Ngāti Awa people have held on to their language with no help from the Government or from anybody else, and the strength in it is recognised. It is as strong as the tenacity that they have shown in the journey towards finalising this settlement on behalf of all their people. This is a significant action, particularly when we consider that the Māori language itself was the subject of a landmark claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. That claim resulted in te reo Māori being recognised.

This bill is not solely about completing a treaty settlement; it is also about building and maintaining the capability of Ngāti Awa, and ensuring sustainable success in relation to contemporary times. The gathering at the Hui Taumata saw that, and I am amazed at times when people discuss the exemption or the ability in relation to governance and management of groups like Ngāti Awa. I can certainly assure people that they are more than able to look after their affairs by themselves, for themselves, and that the Government is sometimes nothing but a conduit to help move them forward, which is all it should be. But, certainly, when nonsense pervades this House in the sense of trying to say that we should study it through exemption because those people are incapable, let us wake up and smell the roses.

The bill strengthens the relationship that exists between the Crown and Ngāti Awa. The Ngāti Awa people have shown good faith. On this great day, which celebrates the great ancestor of people like Mr Brownlee—St Patrick’s Day; the spirit of the Irish— I say that it is fascinating when people say: “Make the Māoris behave themselves and let’s all live like Māori or New Zealanders.” That is right! But when I say to the Scots and the Irish: “Let you all be English.”, they get nervous and they stutter. They do not like it, and I wonder why. But it is about redress, it is about their history, and it is about their culture.

Being a Māori from a small place called Mangatuna, I recognise that the Irish will get drunk in the streets of this country and will drink green ale today, but they will also celebrate their eponymous ancestor, St Patrick. Toroa, who is these people’s ancestor, and the great people who brought their waka Mātaatua here, have a lot to celebrate this evening, and it is timely that it is on the same day as other people, in another country a long, long way from here, still celebrate their cultural connection, their roots, and their great ancestor.

So, on behalf of all Māori, can I mihi to all the Irish and wish them well for today. I tell them to celebrate widely, and I ask the police not to lock them up just because they are merrymaking. I say to the Ngāti Awa people that they should remember that, on this day that the Irish celebrate, they have a lot more to celebrate. I thank my colleagues for supporting the bill. Kia ora.

Ā, e ngā rangatira, ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa mō Ngāti Awa, e kara mā, e kui mā, koutou i haere mai i te hau kāinga o Ngāti Awa, mai hoki i te maru o te maunga tapu a Pūtauaki, nā reira haere mai, haere mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki tēnei Whare. Ka kite mai i a koutou, te puāwaitanga o tērā o ngā kākano i tō mai i ērā o ngā mātua, ngā tūpuna nō tērā rau tau. Nā reira, tēnā hoki koutou.

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

[Welcome to you the chiefs, to those who negotiated this settlement on behalf of Ngāti Awa, and also to the elderly men and womenfolk. You have come from your home winds and from the sheltering mantle of the sacred mountain Pūtauaki. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to this House. To see you all means that you have brought to fruition one of those seeds that the elders and ancestors of the past sowed last century.]

On behalf of New Zealand First—and I reiterate the point that we are the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the third reading of this bill. This bill will see the culmination of what has been a long and arduous period of endeavour for the people of Ngāti Awa towards a satisfactory claims settlement. The bill records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Awa, the detail of which is articulated in the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003, and it gives effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Ngāti Awa. It also passes governance responsibility of the assets from this settlement to the entity that the majority of the people of Ngāti Awa have indicated support for. We note that the level of support was deemed sufficient by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to proceed with the signing of the deed. New Zealand First supports the timely and satisfactory settlement of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, whether by way of hearing or by way of direct negotiation. This bill is the outcome of an agreement reached by Ngāti Awa and the Crown.

Yesterday, when this House debated the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, a concern was expressed by a member for the ACT party with regard to the apparent absence of any list of rules that the new governance body would be required to follow. It was his view that, in the absence of such a document, there remained a real possibility that the legislation could lead to further claims, which would thus put into question the durability of the present settlement. I want to assure that member that the Māori Affairs Committee would not have allowed the bill to proceed to the stage it has reached today without first sighting the charter and being satisfied that Ngāti Awa themselves have resolved to adopt such a charter.

Although New Zealand First does not support the reason given by the ACT member to question the durability of this settlement, we also question its durability, but for different reasons. As a consequence, New Zealand First cannot lend its support to this bill in its present form. We have two reasons, notwithstanding the desire and consent of Ngāti Awa. The first reason is with regard to clause 13(3)(a), which defines the “hapū of Ngāti Awa”. In particular, I refer to those hapū identified in the bill as “Ngāti Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngāti Awa ki Poneke”. New Zealand First believes that the inclusion of those two entities as “hapū” for the purposes of this bill is outside the traditional concept of what establishes or creates a hapū. It is well known that the social structure of Māori is made up of whānau, hapū, which is a number of whānau, and iwi, which is an amalgam of hapū that have a common ancestor. In the case of both those hapū, we are advised that their members descend from both the other hapū and iwi ancestors of Ngāti Awa. Essentially, this Parliament is being asked to include them in this bill to ensure that those members of Ngāti Awa living in Tāmaki and Pōneke are assured access to the benefits that this settlement will bring to Ngāti Awa.

During the submission process, one submitter pointed out that every member registered to those two hapū held whakapapa links back to their traditional hapū within the Ngāti Awa tribal area, in the same way as do other Ngāti Awa descendents who are resident elsewhere in the world. Notwithstanding the rationale for including those two hapū in the bill, and, in particular, the wish of Ngāti Awa, it is important to remember the following points. Firstly, the establishment of those hapū can be regarded as a creation of expediency and convenience. Secondly, should Parliament be vested with the authority to create new hapū? Thirdly, what of other Ngāti Awa descendents living elsewhere in the world? Why should they be expected to connect with their hapū at home while residents in Tamaki Makaurau and Poneke have the convenience, and even the choice, to connect with either?

New Zealand First acknowledges the intent of Ngāti Awa to have a governance structure that ensures that their people can easily access the benefits of their settlement with the Crown, but we do not believe that what is proposed is a matter for this House, or, indeed, for the Crown. Of further concern to New Zealand First is our belief that to legislate for the creation of hapū, as proposed, will pose the question some time in the future as to whether the Crown can legislate for the creation of hapū over and above the traditional Māori social structure, as determined by tikanga Māori. If it cannot, why was this allowed to happen when so many Māori MPs are in Parliament at this time? The creation of hapū as proposed in this bill is not the responsibility of Parliament, nor should it be. Its inclusion in this bill is not essential, and if it were to be excluded, it would not affect the settlement or its durability. Furthermore, Ngāti Awa could still include those groups if they so wanted. It is their business, and theirs alone.

I want the record to show that the following Māori MPs, all members of the New Zealand First caucus, do not accept the right or authority of this House, and, indeed, the Crown and its bureaucracy, to legislate for the creation of hapū: the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Ron Mark, Jim Peters, Bill Gudgeon, Edwin Perry, and Pita Paraone. What is more concerning is that I know that a number of Māori MPs on the other side of the House agree with us but, for reasons known only to them, they have decided to remain silent.

The second reason that New Zealand First will not support this bill is the inclusion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Although I have articulated New Zealand First’s concerns on previous occasions, I think it is important to reiterate those, relevant to our doubt about the durability of the settlement. This settlement can still proceed without those words. We believe that their inclusion affects the possible durability of this settlement. I also point out to this House that it was suggested that those words—“the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—be included in the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and that it was at New Zealand First’s insistence that they were removed.

I need to ask where the principles of this Government were in relation to a bill that it perceived to be of such importance to this nation that it was quite happy to exclude those very words. Yet in this settlement it is quite happy to include them, which puts into question and doubt the possible durability of this settlement. We believe that the retention of those words will jeopardise the durability of this settlement.

In conclusion, I offer these words to the present and future leadership of Ngāti Awa: today they begin a new journey that will require them to lead their people to economic and social destinations, some of which they may never have been to before. I tell them never to forget to look behind them from time to time to ensure that the people they lead are still there.

Nō reira, e Ngāti Awa, haere i runga i te huarahi i whakapai hakapai ērā o ngā mātua tūpuna, i whakatīmata mai tēnei kaupapa. Kua puāwai te kākano i whakatōngia e rātou mō koutou me ngā tupuranga kei te heke mai. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

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

[So to you Ngāti Awa, go forth on the path that those ancestors, who began this settlement process, cleared for you. The seed that they planted for you and the coming generations has blossomed. Congratulations.]

May I say first that I am a bit of a stickler for the rules, so I find it rather difficult to see members making speeches to the galleries, which is against the rules. At the same time, I can see why members are doing so: this is a historic settlement. Perhaps I can skate round the rules and say that I, too, wish that Ngāti Awa will do well. This is a substantial settlement of, I think, over $40 million. Not only is that the case but it also includes some land, and the bill provides—for the first time, I think, in one of these settlements—a right to a marine quota, so the total value will rise in the future. As people tend to look back at these speeches in the Hansard, let me acknowledge—and in this respect make it unanimous in the Parliament—that what happened to Ngāti Awa was a disgrace. There is no doubt about that. For the Crown to have declared people to be rebels when they were not is one of those things that I guess one cannot apologise for often enough. The ACT party acknowledges that, although in fairness one has to point out that previous Parliaments have acknowledged that there was a grievous wrong and have made attempts—generous by the standards of those times; we should not measure them by today’s standards—at settlement.

At this point I say that I wish the people of Ngāti Awa well. They come from the Bay of Plenty. They are a people with considerable resources, and with the amount of money in this settlement I hope they will do well. There has been criticism of comments I made yesterday. I am afraid I still think those comments are accurate. Indeed, I have been informed since then that the reason this settlement came before us as a private bill rather than a public bill is that civil servants also pointed out that the legislative structure the Crown was putting in place for Ngāti Awa to administer this $40 million was woefully inadequate. We pass protections for beneficiaries, infants, and the like with regard to assets, yet in this area we have failed to do so. I do think that that is a possible future grievance, so I have some doubts as to whether this bill will turn out to be a permanent settlement.

I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the New Zealand First member Mr Paraone, who said things that I think have a great deal of merit. How on earth can this Parliament start to define different hapū in a bill of this sort? One becomes extremely suspicious about that. I was a Minister when this treaty process first started; in fact, I was the Minister who had to do some of the original negotiations. I started from a point of not having as much knowledge as one would like, and I remember asking the officials how many iwi the Government believed there were in New Zealand. The first answer I got was that it was the same as the number of canoes, plus one iwi that came down in a ball of fire. I was later told that there were 24 iwi. Then the number went up to 48, and by the time I finished as a Minister, the Crown was recognising 120 iwi. Now it seems that the inflation of the number of iwi will become an inflation of the number of hapū. That is not an area where the Crown ought to be going, and it is certainly not something we should put into statute law.

That raises an objection of the ACT party to this process—an objection we have made in relation to every claim settlement. This process is actually an abrogation of Parliament’s rights. The Crown puts forward these bills, and then says to the House that they cannot be amended in any way. As a parliamentarian I object to that. When we see in these bills measures that are contrary to public policy, we are prevented by that ruling from making amendments. If New Zealand First had been able to put forward the amendment it suggested, I certainly would have supported it, and perhaps a majority of the members of the House would have realised that there was a mistake. But instead we have bills put forward in this way. I say with the greatest of respect to Mr Brownlee that National and Labour, the two old parties, have formed a club on these settlements. The speeches we are hearing today are no different from the speeches we heard when National was in charge. I objected to the process when National was putting such settlements forward, and I still object to it now that Labour is putting them forward.

I now turn to another criticism that New Zealand First and the ACT party have in common. I point out that the ACT party has actually raised this objection for longer than New Zealand First has, but I am glad to have the support of Mr Peters. We object to the phrase “principles of the treaty”. It is a meaningless phrase. It has caused enormous difficulty to the courts, which are unable to interpret it. There is now a growing body of academic literature that criticises this House for passing bills containing that phrase, undefined, and turning over to the courts a matter that is for Parliament to determine. That is why the ACT party has never voted for a bill that contains the phrase “principles of the treaty”. We have two members’ bills—and I think Mr Peters has one—to try to define clauses that contain that phrase. I have listened to Mr Peters and other members asking in vain for Government members to define what those clauses mean.They have refused to do so and we, as legislators, should not pass a clause when no member of the Government is able to tell us what it means. That is a further reason why we will not be able to vote for this bill.

I come now to another matter, which Mr Stephen Franks drew to the attention of members at the Committee stage. Again, it is very bad lawmaking. Part 4 of the bill requires the Environment Court and other Government agencies to give recognition to spiritual values. We do not know what they are; no one knows what they are. The Environment Court then gets claims regarding taniwha and the like. In a secular State, even one that respects religion, those sorts of phrases should not be contained in legislation. For that reason we will vote against this bill.

Having said all that, I still wish the people of Ngāti Awa all the best with regard to their claim—and that does not come from a desire to get a new job. I just want them to do well. I hope that they will be able to manage the settlement well, that it will enable the grievances of the past to be put behind us, and that it will turn out to be a very good thing for Ngāti Awa and the people of the Bay of Plenty.

He mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa, Ngāti Awa.

[A fond greeting to all of you, Ngāti Awa.]

The direct negotiations, or deals, for Ngāti Awa are just about over. With the passing of this bill, Ngāti Awa will complete their settlement and, with the establishment of the rūnanga yesterday, will be able to pursue their interests independently without any further interference from the Government.

The Greens understand that there was little negotiation with the Crown over the amount of financial compensation eventually provided for in the settlement. Ngāti Awa presented its views, and the Crown came back with its own non-negotiable quantum. It is worth noting for the nation as a whole that Ngāti Awa are owed about 68,000 hectares of land, a situation arising from the historical confiscations and wrongful takings of the past. Under this settlement, Ngāti Awa will be returned only about 64 hectares of that 68,000 hectares still owed. That is less than 0.1 percent of what was taken from them. All New Zealanders should be filled with immense gratitude at the considerable generosity of Ngāti Awa in that respect.

For that the Greens sincerely congratulate Ngāti Awa. Ngāti Awa have been in negotiations with various Governments of various flavours since 1980. It is a settlement that has been 25 years in the making, with 10 of those years spent in the direct negotiations process. On reflection, the constant calls by some political factions on both sides of this House that the settlement process should be sped up and capped is entirely bizarre. Of course, it should not take an iwi 25 years to negotiate a settlement, especially one that does not return much more than the smallest possible fraction of the massive quantity of property and taonga that was illegally taken. Of course, restitution to iwi for the loss of life, hardship, and injustice suffered by them at the hands of the State should occur swiftly, without delay, and without undue cost to them, the aggrieved party. Perhaps if the negotiations process was a just process, whereby iwi and hapū determined and actively agreed to the restitution process, it would never have taken 25 years for Ngāti Awa to achieve their compensation.

We have to remember that it is the Government’s unilateral process that holds up settlements. It is the agonising pauperising of the iwi, whose funding is contestable and too hard fought for and who have to borrow against their meagre restitution, that holds up settlements. It is the unreasonable demands of the Office of Treaty Settlements, which puts its policies before the interests of iwi, that hold up the settlement process. On no account should any iwi or hapū be undermined by, let alone held responsible for, the failure of the direct negotiations process to operate swiftly and effectively. That responsibility lies directly within the sphere of the successive Labour and National Governments that devised it.

I will also talk very briefly about independence. Yesterday Mr Prebble criticised the rūnanga structure for not fitting his view of having appropriate trust accountability. He is entitled to his view, but it is a shame he holds it because he is wrong. He and others in this House forget that this restitution—the lands, rights, properties, and money that will be returned to Ngāti Awa—belongs to them collectively as their collective property. Frankly, they can do with it what they want. They do not owe anyone but each other. They are not accountable to the country or the public—only to themselves and their mokopuna. Their lands and taonga were stripped off them in the name of New Zealand as a whole. Restitution has now been made on behalf of New Zealand as a whole. Any interest by New Zealanders in Ngāti Awa’s financial affairs now ends. We now owe it to Ngāti Awa to leave them alone to pursue their interests and needs.

The Greens are highly critical of the settlement process—that will come as no surprise to anyone—when iwi have no authority over it. 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 has simply not been the case. The Government has set its policy with a “take it or leave it” approach. In our view, it is not fair negotiation but unmanaged bullying. The principles of fairness and justice that supposedly guide the settlement process are not a true reflection of it. It is a political process in which the Crown sets the framework and Māori are continually expected to compromise.

We are very pleased that Ngāti Awa have, as part of their settlement, a number of statutory acknowledgements, deeds of recognition, protocols, place name changes, and transferred sites. But the cultural redress package, and its protocols and advisory committees, is a poor substitute for the recognition of the treaty relationship, which, in the end, is the only means by which true restoration for the breaches of te tiriti can ever be restored. Providing for Ngāti Awa to express its views to Ministers on various issues gives very little practical effect to te tiriti and simply waters it down. The breaches of te tiriti involve the stripping from Māori of any real self-determination. Nothing has been done in this country to resolve that, and, in fact, the opposite continues to occur.

At the first reading of this bill, some months ago, the House was considering the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. At the same time that we were considering the Ngāti Awa legislation and the compensation being offered to Ngāti Awa for the unlawful taking of their lands, other legislation was proceeding that I signalled would again wrongfully confiscate land within the rohe of Ngāti Awa. Politicians on both sides of the House who argue for a time limit on the settlement process, or who either directly or indirectly blame iwi or hapū for their struggle in trying to achieve some compensation for the crimes committed against them, surely see the absurdity of their position. If they do not want the settlement of grievances to continue, they should stop stealing Māori land and thereby creating those exact grievances for the future. It is not exactly rocket science.

The Greens acknowledge that this settlement is the best that Ngāti Awa could have secured under the current settlement policy, and we sincerely congratulate Ngāti Awa on pursuing that restitution through a demanding and unjust process. We acknowledge that the settlement provides a measure of independence for Ngāti Awa, and we are very grateful for their tenacity and generosity to our country. The Green Party wishes Ngāti Awa the very best for the future.

I rise on behalf of United Future to greet the Ngāti Awa representatives who have joined us here this afternoon, and to support the third reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. The bill records the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Awa, and it mandates the settlement of historical claims as agreed by the Crown and Ngāti Awa.

After reading the agreed-upon historical account, I have to say that what I found most devastating was the fact that generations have missed out on the use of substantial resources because of a death that was severely dealt with at the time, with multiple arrests, two trials, imprisonment, and execution. Therefore, setting the record straight and cultural redress are as important as the financial and commercial issues. The responsibility of the rūnanga to manage the resources from the settlement, which we do need to acknowledge can never be truly full, on behalf of all Ngāti Awa is an awesome challenge.

I hope and pray that those charged with this opportunity do so mindful of those who looked forward to this day, but never lived to realise it. The real challenge is not just what happens in the next few years, but to invest in such a way as to have the effects of the decisions felt by grateful lives in two to three generations from now. Thinking and acting with an intergenerational mindset takes a lot more courage than any quick-fix, short-term approach would require. However, on that matter, United Future feels confident that the intergenerational journey that brought Ngāti Awa to this point today will continue to serve them as they plot a way forward.

We congratulate Ngāti Awa today on their determination, their patience, their hard work, and their graciousness regarding this settlement. It is with great pleasure that we support the third reading of this bill.

Before I start, I crave your indulgence. I understand that under the Standing Orders the use of “you” relates to speaking directly to the Chair, but we do have a customary practice of acknowledging the people; otherwise, if we speak with our back to them they are reduced to the mere presence of kēhua [spirits], which they are not. Thank you.

Ā, tēnā anō tātau te iti me te rahi me te katoa. Koutou e kopekope anō mai kai roto i tēnei Whare i raro i te tāhu kōrero, mai rā anō i runga i te tikanga e whakapuaki mai i te taha a rātau me te taha o tātau nei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[And greetings once again to us all and everyone else in our various roles. Regardless of our Standing Orders about addressing each other, I seek your indulgence to address the people directly. Greetings.]

I do not want to make you hōhā, because we did have a go at doing that yesterday, but I do want to look at some of the ingredients that relate to you being here. Firstly, I think we need to pay proper homage to those people who are not here. A rātau rā kua tīmata ai o rātau nā pikitanga i runga i ngā taumata ki te mātōtoru me te nuinga o tātau nei.

[A vast number and a majority of us have begun the climb to the tops.]

So I think we need to do that in a way that remembers their contribution—not just to state that they are not here but to say also that they probably, like other members of other iwis who have been before us, will celebrate the whakatūtukitanga o tātau nei hiahiatanga kei roto i te Whare Pāremata, ahakoa ngā kōrero whakapuaki mai e ētehi o ngā mema ki te whakahē mai i ō koutou nei whakaaro kei roto i te pire nei.

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

[and to express what we want ourselves in Parliament, regardless of the views expressed by some members who oppose your thoughts in this bill.]

So to all the people who were originally part of the Ngāti Awa whānui, [greater Ngāti Awa,] who are not here, a mihi atu. [I acknowledge you.] We all have those pou tangata, pou wāhine, [mighty men and women,] who over time are no longer with us, and we need to pay that respect because they constituted the generation before you all who sit here, and they probably, in their own way, burnt the most kei roto ō rātau nei wairua. [of what was inside of them spiritually.]

I now want to talk about the statements about this journey that is taking place. Kei roto i te reo Māori, kua tīmata ngā hīkoitanga i runga i te ara e kore e mutu.

[To say it in Māori, the walk upon the road that has no ending has started.]

This is not about an ending. It is not even about a beginning, I suppose, in terms of te ao hōu, [the modern world,] it is about the continuation of the aspirations of your people with respect to what is happening today.

I do also, seeing I am a keen student of history, take issue with my honourable colleague Parekura Horomia. He mentioned that we are celebrating St Patrick’s day, and said that St Patrick himself was an Irish eponymous ancestor. Well, he was not. He was actually a Scotsman. I am very, very aware of who the eponymous ancestor of Ngāti Awa is, however, as there is a certain relationship between our ancestor Awanuiāorangi.

So having set that aside, I want to address another dimension, which I do not think has been addressed with any fullness so far. Given everything that has happened, both in the past and in the present, is it nothing less than a minor miracle that Ngāti Awa representatives are here at all. Because when we talk about the treaty partnership, that in itself, on one level, tends to disguise a whole range of other essential qualities that are missing. Let me first of all visit the word “trust”. It is an extraordinarily difficult challenge for the tribe, hapū, and whānau who suffered a huge consequence of a historical misdeed or breach, to then be able to, and be expected to, demonstrate trust in the Crown. I find that to be, as a claimant, an almost insurmountable hurdle. Because in order to establish that trust between two, at some times, adversarial groups, there must be some demonstration of goodwill. So to arrive at the stage where we are now, kei te noho koutou kei konei, [you are here,] would have required the group that was appointed as negotiators to get above and beyond that which caused the haehaetanga o te whatumana, [feelings to be divided,] in order to engage in a process that could be seen to be extraordinarily difficult, and at times overwhelming. So from that point of view I congratulate the representatives, on being able to get to a stage where, in spite of the piki me ngā heke, [ups and downs,] they can, at last, engage with regard to the resolution of a historical grievance.

I listened with some intent to a speaker who said we have some difficulty with the expanding number of iwi and hapū. There were different numbers when he initially had charge of the process, and I am thankful it is not current any more. Now, the state of that knowledge is not actually our fault, because we are very sure about how many hapū we have, how many iwi we have, and how many waka we have, which is not just seven. So that becomes part of an accepted mythology, if one likes, about the reality that other people paint for us. So this journey highlights that it is not about conforming to the edict “go forth and multiply”, but, rather, that some credence should be paid to the fact that we do have what we say we do have. In that regard, the fact that we have packets of settlements that apply to Ngāti Awa, kia ora koutou, [well done,] whether it is above the sea, below the sea, or on the land—it is just a little part of the original estate that was confiscated.

I wish Ngāti Awa well. I totally support the idea that you are going to be the navigators of your own destiny, unfettered and untrammelled. As I have found out in my experience, there is nothing like being totally responsible to Māori beneficiaries. It is not by any means of the imagination an enviable task. So those people who find themselves at the helm, kei te kei o te waka, [at the helm of the canoe,] the responsibility that is inherent in that is absolutely awesome and absolutely demanding, and sometimes one thinks: “Is it worthwhile doing?”. So Ngāti Awa, nā koutou katoa, tēnā koutou. [it is all yours, congratulations.] I shall leave the closing address from our party to the eloquence of John Tamihere. I wish Ngāti Awa well in their ongoing journey. Kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[Good health to all of us.]

E Pūtauaki e mihi nei ki a koe me tou ake mana, mai i te maunga o Tongariro. Ngā mihi whānui ki a koutou e Ngāti Awa huri noa ki a rātou kua ngaro atu me koutou e noho mai nei i tēnei Whare. E mihi nei ki a koutou, ki a tātou katoa.

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

[Pūtauaki, I, Tongariro, greet you and your very own mana. Greetings to you Ngāti Awa, to those of you present in this House, including those who have gone from us. I greet you and all of us as well.]

I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. It is a very important thing that we in this Parliament do today. With the passing into law of this bill we will put the legislative stamp on the settlement that Ngāti Awa have negotiated with the Government in satisfaction of their claims under the Treaty of Waitangi.

This is an important act in itself by this Parliament, but more important is the significance of the action. With the passage of the bill into law this Parliament gives vindication to those grievances that Ngāti Awa have sought to set right for generations—indeed, since 1866—when, wrongly, they suffered raupatu at the hands of the then Government, who declared them also to be rebels in their own lands, and when they consequently suffered the alienating circumstances that flowed from that action.

This Parliament salutes Ngāti Awa for their fortitude, doggedness, application to principle, and what was tika, despite rejection by successive Governments. I trust that by this action today a sense of justice is restored to Ngāti Awa—a feeling that the might of the institutions of the law and the Government can be extended to them when it is right and proper to do so. That is a legitimate right of every New Zealander, not least of Ngāti Awa.

The other side of the equation is that we, the current parliamentarians, by our action today go some way to restoring the honour of the Crown, and that is important. We can speak of the mana of Ngāti Awa and their status in this place and this land, but we must also be mindful that by the steps we take today we also restore the honour of the Crown.

New Zealand is a country that prides itself on having one standard of citizenship. The injustices suffered by Ngāti Awa fly in the face of that principle, and that is why it is so important that we as a nation commit and devote our energy and resources to bringing forward the truth of that principle: equality before the law for all New Zealanders, not least Māori, and not least Ngāti Awa.

I want to comment on an issue that was raised by an earlier speaker. Although Ngāti Awa are entitled to formulate the settlement according to their preference and on their own terms, we recognise that that is their right and that that is an exercise of their rangatiratanga. But in this respect I do, to a degree, support the issue raised by the member Pita Paraone, so I just ask the question—and it is not to be answered today—of whether Parliament should be asked to legislate for new hapū. If Ngāti Awa wish to recognise their own, because that is their right to do so, why then should Parliament be asked to put a legal stamp on that, if indeed there is some other way of allowing them to recognise their own without this Parliament having to put it into the law?

The other matter I will comment on is an issue raised by the Hon Richard Prebble, who talked about the insertion into legislation of the notion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. He might reflect on the fact that it was a Labour Government in 1975 that first introduced that notion into legislation, with the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. I am not sure whether he, indeed, was a member of that Government at that time. Be that as it may, it is a fact today that that notion, that principle, that statement—that is, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—has come into much disrepute.

It may be the fact that New Zealand First has today, for the very first time, voted against a settlement bill that might prompt the Minister to give some thought as to whether future settlement entities wishing to use that statement will perhaps find another way to do it, rather than to have it inserted into an Act of Parliament. It is the case that settlements really do need the almost universal support of this Parliament. So it is a disappointment, given that the ACT party, as far as I am aware, has never supported a settlement bill, that now another of the political parties is doing the same thing.

Having said all that, though, I affirm that this is Ngāti Awa’s day. It is good to see them in full force sitting in the gallery. Indeed, it fills a person with much arohanui for their 14 years of negotiation and, especially, for those who have passed on in the hope of seeing this day come. Again, I congratulate Ngāti Awa.

I think that we in New Zealand are very fortunate that we have found a way to resolve matters of this nature. We look across the Tasman to our Australian cousins. They clearly have some difficulties with issues concerning the first people of that land. Here in New Zealand we have devised a process, a framework, that is not perfect by any means but by which we can steadily work our way through these matters, with a certain amount of dignity and certainly with a lot of good faith.

It takes a bold and courageous step for a tribe finally to settle its grievances and look forward to the future. Slowly but surely, and hopefully in a more timely fashion under the new Minister, we will see more of these settlements occurring. Fortunately, they are occurring against the backdrop of a great renaissance of Māori pride, Māori culture, and Māori entrepreneurship. We should all be very pleased about that.

Madam Speaker, of course, has had a part to play in this process. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Doug Graham, although when I salute him, and the efforts he put into this settlement, the issue is again highlighted that the Ngāti Awa settlement has indeed been under negotiation for quite some time.

I give my congratulations to Ngāti Awa. I wish them all the best—and I wish us all the best—for the future. Ngāti Awa has already started to move forward; they have not just been waiting for this settlement, which is good. Clearly, this settlement will add to the initiatives they already have in place, and we can look forward to a better future for them.

E te rangatira rongonui, a Hirini, me te whānui o koutou a Ngāti Awa, kai te mihi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi i mihia e Parekura rāua ko Mahara mō ō koutou tūpuna, ā, moe mai, moe mai i te moenga roa.

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

[To you Hirini, the well-respected chief, and to you the multitude of Ngāti Awa, greetings, greetings, and important greetings to you. I endorse the tributes accorded to your ancestors by Parekura Horomia and Mahara Okeroa. Rest there the ancestors. Slumber on and sleep the long sleep.]

I want to commend the last speaker. It is most regrettable that Georgina te Heuheu is no longer the Opposition spokesperson on Māori Affairs. Her contribution was a marvellous contribution, unlike the one made by her colleague.

Before I turn to the bill and commend it to the House, I want to comment on some of the gratuitous contributions that have been made by colleagues opposite. I tried as hard as I could to be awfully commending of the contribution made by the National Party’s spokesperson on Māori Affairs in the House today. However, if I were to commend him for it, I would be breaching the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings, and I do not want to mislead the House. The reality is, try as hard as I might to defend the terrible comments made about him by the president of the ACT party, I do think that he is a bright bulb on a very dim tree. So, to that extent, I want to acknowledge him. I also want to note very carefully that his knowledge of treaty jurisprudence is somewhat strange, if not interesting. I strongly commend to him a seminar to be conducted by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu so he can be upgraded in his knowledge of the principle of partnership that has been clearly asserted with regard to treaty relationships by the Hon Doug Graham, leading directly on to the evolution of treaty jurisprudence.

I now turn to the position that New Zealand First has taken. Its approach is absolutely shameful, and I can say only that it is an election year stunt. The reality is that Pita Paraone has made much ado out of chairing the Treaty of Waitangi commemoration committee in Waitangi. Today he stood up in this House and said—and I am sure Kawiti, a signatory of the treaty, must be turning in his grave to hear one of his uri say this—that he would not support the principles of the treaty. It is an outrage. Furthermore, I say to Mr Paraone that it is not for Ngā Puhi to stand up here and to tell Ngāti Awa what to do. I can assure members that when Ngā Puhi’s treaty settlement comes into this House, Ngāti Awa will not be in here banging away. The reality is that they will determine their hapū and their destiny. It will not be that member, or any other person from the north, who will do so—notwithstanding that rumour has it the member is somewhat related. As for the contribution from the ACT party—well, that is a 1-minute silence. That party will be gone in 6 months.

I now want to acknowledge the contribution made by Metiria Turei in the Māori Affairs Committee, when she is here. It is always good to know that there is somebody who lives in a perfect world and who has a total perfect world view of how things should be. She is wonderful at making those sorts of contributions, but I regret to say that the world does not work in that way.

I commend, first, you, Madam Speaker—prior to this incarnation that we see today—and acknowledge the significant work you have put in over the last 4½ to 5 years to a huge number of treaty settlements that are nearing closure. I also acknowledge the fine work done by the Hon Mark Burton in taking over and filling some rather big shoes. Georgina te Heuheu acknowledged that work, and I support that.

Of course, I must make a comment about the Māori Party—

💬 Pita Paraone: Why? She’s not here!

The reason I have to is that I do not know what the policy of the Māori Party is. At least I know New Zealand First will vote against the bill. That party has six Māori members, but normally only Winston Peters is allowed to talk. But we do not know what the policy of the Māori Party is on treaty settlements. We do not know anything about the Māori Party. However, we do know that a Labour Government delivers, and continues to deliver, to Māori communities, whether in education, in health, or in here with our fingerprints all over this closure. Was it tortuous? Was it difficult? Yes, it was. Is it hitting closure today? Yes, it is. It is another delivery mechanism. As a consequence, I want to commend Parekura Horomia for championing the entity bill for Ngāti Awa.

I commend the bill, and I now pay a special tribute of acknowledgment to Ngāti Awa. On a number of occasions I had the opportunity to hear some of the submissions they made at the tribunal. I regret that a lot of their leaders and elders are not here today to witness this closure. We acknowledge them and remember them. However, I do say that they are one of the iwi, contrary to what Mr Richard Prebble might say, that are led by people of significant integrity and credibility. They will be sustainable, and they will go forth and, as Mahara Okeroa said, multiply. I commend the bill to the House.

I first of all want to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Awa today. I realise this is a historic day for them and that they have fought hard over literally decades to achieve this settlement. But I also want to express my surprise at that bitter speech made by a former Minister of Māori Affairs. I have to say that speeches like that will keep him “ex” for a very long, long time. That was just an extraordinarily wasted opportunity, when he could have lifted aspirations and tones but instead lost that opportunity. I think that is fundamentally why Labour will lose the confidence of Māori voters up and down this country. In fact, the risk is that the member will not be just a former Minister but will be a former member of Parliament, as he gets booted out by the Māori voters in his electorate.

I would like to turn my attention to, firstly, the fundamental goals of settlement. What are they? Why do we do this, as a nation? It is hugely important that we recognise that we are doing these settlements as a nation, and that it is no accident that when Governments, either Labour or National, enter into settlements, we refer to the “Crown”. It is done quite deliberately, because the settlements are intended to endure across generations. The integrity and honour of the Crown is placed on the record as a commitment by the people of this nation—both Māori and Pākehā—that these are solemn testaments to be honoured not just by the Crown but also by the Māori claimants, and that they are enduring, permanent, and final settlements. The words are not just put in there as a kind of cosmetic dressing. When it is said that the settlements are final, and when the claimants go through a very considered process of ratification, consultation, and so forth, that is intended to be an enduring commitment not just for the current generation but also for future generations. We are settling our history in these claims; we are settling our past. We do that by recording the history. There will always be some disputes, I acknowledge, as to what happened, who did what, and whether something is a true and an accurate reflection of what occurred. Perhaps we should not get too bound up in such detail when deciding whether we support a settlement, because what we are supposed to be doing is looking forward.

I do want to note the comment made by Mr Shane Jones, who I am sure will be a member of Parliament within a few months—[Interruption] Mr Dave Hereora and a number of other members on the Labour side will be displaced. The Labour Government will promote Mr Shane Jones, and a number of current Labour members of Parliament should be looking in the “Situations Vacant” column. Mr Shane Jones made it very clear that these settlements are actually a 20th century business, and that for the 21st century the aspirations of our country and of all the peoples in it should be to look forward. I thought the whole process of the Hui Taumata was very significant, because of the way in which, unlike the situation in 1984, there was much less focus on the problems of the past and much more focus on self-autonomy going into the future. Labour does not really understand what happened there, ironically. Labour does not quite get it, because Māori have signalled to Labour that they want to escape the clutches of dependency. They want to escape the clutches of the State and of social welfare, and to build autonomy and independence—

💬 Ron Mark: And self-respect.

—and self-respect, because progress does depend on self-respect, both as a people and as individuals.

I also want to say some other things about the nature of these settlements. This issue is not quite as evident in this bill as it is in the upcoming Ngāti Tūwharetoa bill, and it is the issue about how we cast our legislation. I have looked at the legislation for Tainui, for Ngāi Tahu, and for a number of other settlements, and what I see is a creeping insertion into our legislation of reference, initially just to the words “spiritual values”—nothing more than that. It does not go much further than that in this bill. But I have to note, by reference to the Ngāti Tūwharetoa bill, that there is a complete recitation there of the myths and legends of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Now, I do not deny that those are important to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, but there is a reason why I am referring to that bill here today. I do not deny that those legends are important. They are important not just to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Every young New Zealander needs to understand the myths about the volcanoes coming from Hawaiki and the legends around Ngāuruhoe. But we would not expect to see that kind of reference then recorded in legislation. The reason I say that is that it is not the business of this House when passing public legislation, the law of the land, to put mythology into statute. They exist by their own force of creation and by the commitment in the hearts and the aroha of the people.

We are going into dangerous territory, I believe, when we start inserting into our legislation reference to those kinds of myths and legends.

Why do I make that point? I make it because this nation is founded on the basis that we are all equal under the law and that we are a secular society. That does not mean to say that we are an irreligious society, and it does not mean to say that we have no respect for religion. Obviously, we do—this House starts each and every day with a prayer. What it does do, however, is to say that that belongs in the public domain—in the civil society. Each person and each group is free to practise their religion, their beliefs, and their fundamental driving forces. Those things are part of civil society, and we have very deliberately kept that aspect out of our public laws. That is what it means to be a secular society. It is rooted in the idea of equality—that we will all be treated equally, that we are all free to practise our religions and our beliefs, and that the State does not prefer any particular religion or belief. That is what a secular society means; it does not mean that we are an irreligious society. I give notice to Government members that if they keep putting that kind of reference into legislation, they will break the consensus that rests around settlements.

I want to conclude on this point. These settlements are crucially dependent on consensus. They endure because they have a consensus on them, both from Māori and the general community alike. When we make reference to the Crown in the settlements, it signifies that we want them to endure, and that they are intended to record our past and allow people to build for the future. I want to acknowledge that I wish the people of Ngāti Awa well in the use of their settlement. I am sure it will build confidence in the iwi, and will allow people to move past the events of the past and into development for the future.

I want to say very briefly that the aim of this bill is to record the acknowledgments and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Awa in the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003 between the Crown and Ngāti Awa, and to give effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed by the Crown and Ngāti Awa in that deed. In all the time I have sat in this House, I must say that this is a particularly proud moment for Ngāti Awa and for the Minister the Hon Parekura Horomia, and for those people involved in this bill. I wish everybody all the best for the future.