Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty are based around Kawerau and Matatā. Ngāti Tūwharetoa are of the Te Arawa waka and are descended from the ancestor, or tupuna, Tūwharetoa, who lived in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Ngāti Tūwharetoa located in the Bay of Plenty are distinct from their whanaunga based in Taupō, and although many of the descendants of Tūwharetoa migrated south and settled around Taupō, others stayed in Kawerau and Matatā, and have their separate and distinct identity. Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty are closely interlinked and have a shared history with their neighbours or whanaunga of Ngāti Awa.

The historical treaty claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa relate mainly to the confiscation of land in the Bay of Plenty in the 1860s, and the damaging effect the confiscation had on their welfare, economy, and development. The claims also relate to the loss of control of, and access to, geothermal energy, and the pollution of the Tarawera River. This settlement addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty. Prior to the 1860s Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty were prosperous and economically successful. However, the loss of Ngāti Tūwharetoa land and resources, through confiscation and other means, has hindered their development throughout the past 150 years.

In this bill, the Crown acknowledges that its actions had a prejudicial impact on Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The Crown acknowledges the strong sense of grievance felt by Ngāti Tūwharetoa at the loss of control of, and access to, the Kawerau geothermal system. The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for its unjust confiscation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa lands in the Bay of Plenty, and for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations, which have had a damaging effect on the welfare, economy, and development of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

As well as a formal apology to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and their ancestors and descendants, for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown, this settlement provides for, firstly, financial redress of $10.5 million, including the transfer of Crown-owned forest land in the Rotoehu West Forest; secondly, geothermal redress, which aims to recognise the importance of the geothermal resource as a taonga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa; and, thirdly, a variety of types of cultural redress, which aim to recognise and protect the interests of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in sites that are particularly significant to them, and to enhance their relationship with the Crown.

This bill makes it clear that this is a comprehensive and final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty. This bill is a hugely significant milestone for Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown. The bill addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew their relationship as treaty partners.

I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee that considered the bill. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with the proposed amendments. I would like to thank the other members of the committee for their thorough and timely consideration of the bill.

In conclusion, the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty are reaching the end of a long journey. They registered their raupatu claim with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1988. It was in March 1998 that the previous Government recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa negotiators. A deed of settlement was finalised and signed in June 2003. It is important that we now finalise the settlement to enable Ngāti Tūwharetoa to receive redress and begin the next phase of their history.

I would like to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa negotiators, the Ministers, and the officials, whose efforts have led us to this point today. Finally, I wish to acknowledge those of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who are no longer with us, whose passion and devotion are greatly missed by their descendants as they begin their new journey.

Nō reira, kei te poroporoaki ki a rātau kua whetūrangihia, ahakoa kāore rātau e tae ā-tinana mai, kua tae ā-wairua mai ki te whakatutuki i tēnei kaupapa hirahira. Mihi ake ana ahau ki a Ngāti Tūwharetoa, rātau kua tae mai ki te kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[And so I pay a farewell tribute to those who have passed on, and even though they are not present physically, they are here in spirit for the completion of this important matter. I acknowledge Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and in particular those of you who came to bring this matter here. Greetings to you, greetings.]

I commend this bill to the House.

The National Party will support the passage of this bill through the Committee stage and the third reading, and we do so wishing Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the goodwill we can as they go about the process of taking life forward post-settlement. I cannot help but reflect on some of the words that were discussed in the House today, those words being the words of the honourable John Tamihere, who was very influential in the House today. Certainly he was a centrepiece of the business.

In a recent article John Tamihere spoke about a number of things the Labour Government has said were trifling nonsense, that the Prime Minister has said were all rubbish, and that the Prime Minister has said New Zealanders should not believe. In that article John Tamihere spoke about the need for Māori to move on.

💬 Jill Pettis: What’s this got to do with Ngāti Tūwharetoa?

There we have the outgoing member for Whanganui—the soon-to-be-retired-by-her-voters member for Whanganui, the senior Government whip formerly known as the wallpaper stripper—striking out across the House in a most unparliamentary manner, trying to interrupt my contribution. Well, I will tell that member exactly what John Tamihere’s article in Investigate magazine, where he described many of his colleagues in the most derogatory terms, has to do with this bill. It has lots to do with this bill, because he did not talk only about some of the undue influences that come to bear on the Prime Minister and make her remote from the rest of New Zealand, he did not only call the Minister of Finance devious and deceitful, he did not only call the Minister of Conservation a tosser, and he did not only say that the Minister for Social Development and Employment is an empty vessel—he also said a lot of other things. Among those things were comments he made—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should speak to the second reading of the bill.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was making a speech and I was getting to the point when I was rudely heckled by the senior Government whip. I needed to clarify to the House what my position was, and I will now come to the point of the speech.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will rule on the point of order. The member knows that he was taking a long time to come to the point of the speech, and I ask him to come to the bill.

I know that members of the Labour Government do not like being told what John Tamihere had to say in Investigate magazine—today the Prime Minister said that no one should believe anything that was in it. But one of the most important and relevant things in that article was John Tamihere’s view that it was time for Māori to move on and to take control of their destiny. In fact, he went further and said that through the settlement process Māori won, or were winning—and we agree with him. It is sad that the Prime Minister does not, and it is sad that the senior whip from the Labour Government does not and that the Deputy Prime Minister does not. They did not read the important things in that article about ordinary New Zealanders who want to make their lives better. They read the things that offended them—the truths about their inability to connect properly with ordinary New Zealanders.

We agree with John Tamihere on this one point: if we are to have a country where all people can say that they are participating, that they are looking forward, and that they are part of moving this country to a better future, then settling long-held grievances such as this one is important. No matter what anybody may have heard about the National Party’s views on the Treaty of Waitangi and on the grievance industry that has grown up around it, we do support proper settlements being concluded with appropriately mandated iwi authorities. I am interested in making a point about some of the material that has been removed from this bill.

💬 Jill Pettis: He wouldn’t know a principle if it hit him in the face.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want you running the House just for the sake of the Labour Government. I ask you to look at some of the discussion that is going on while I am trying to make my contribution. The Chair is always very quick to give me a hard time, but tonight I think that a little bit of fairness would be in order.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There have been interjections and, certainly, I ask the member to restrain herself in terms of the interjections.

That sort of banter, with the volume put up about 10 times, from the Opposition was the reason the Prime Minister had to ask to be heard in silence in the House today. I ask those who are engaging in some banter to do so on a reasonable basis.

The settlement bill originally carried a number of clauses that essentially put into law some of the stories, I suppose one would say, that are particularly important to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty—stories about their connection to their ancestors and the way in which their ancestors went about establishing them as an iwi. Although that may be fine for Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, in the wider context it is not appropriate to put that sort of thing into law, because the stories, the add-ons, I suppose one would say, to whakapapa that give particular credence to the story of any particular iwi are sacred to that iwi, and it would not be appropriate to put into this bill things that may offend some other group who may seek a settlement at another time.

I thank the negotiators from Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty for their willingness to understand the dilemma that Parliament was in and for their willingness to accept that their story would always be theirs, that no one could take that from them, and that there was no need to enshrine it in the law of this land—because it was always there before this sort of law was ever in place.

I conclude my remarks by saying that this is also a bill where there is a significant Māori commentary and, indeed, a parallel recital of the bill in Māori throughout. The process that was established just a few months ago has been repeated in this bill, so there can be no doubt that the two versions of the bill mean the same thing. I hope that my friend Mr Pita Paraone, who has been instrumental in having this approach taken, will agree with those comments. I also reserve my last few comments for the issue of the mandate that any group has to negotiate a settlement. Although we accept that this settlement is a genuine settlement, and that Parliament will pass it and it will become part of the settlement process, it does alarm me that some of the claimants coming to this Parliament asking to have their grievances settled do so with a very low number of their local iwi participants voting for them to have that role. As well as that, there is a is a very low turn-out in some of the polls that are conducted when it comes to ratifications of settlements.

We are not happy that the Office of Treaty Settlements continues to tell the Government that very low turn-outs in ratification ballots are acceptable and OK to progress with. I do want to put it on the parliamentary record that from the National Party’s perspective this is a full and final settlement because Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty have come to Parliament to ask for it. It has not been pushed upon them; it is the result of negotiations. Although the acceptance of the position may well be generous from Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty—and I acknowledge that it is—it is, nonetheless, full and final.

Ā, mārūrū, tēnā tātau. Ko tēnei mihi tuatahi ki a koutou i haere maomao mai ki konei, koutou mai i Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, e noho mai nei ki te wakarongo ki ngā kōrero e wakaputa mai i ētehi o ngā mema Pāremata, e tautoko mai i te pira.

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

[Keep cool, and salutations to us. In the first instance, I make this acknowledgment to those of you of Tūwharetoa at Kawerau who travelled far and are seated here listening to what some of the members of Parliament supporting the bill are saying.]

I was somewhat bemused by the anthropological sociologist and economist, and shadow Minister of Māori Affairs, and his totally irrelevant, in the main, presentation with regard to the Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau bill. I fail to understand how in any way the debate on the John Tamihere articulation to the media has anything to do with the mana of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau. It has absolutely no relationship, whatsoever. It breeds the suspicion that maybe that member has overindulged somewhere, because I thought that he might have been struggling to have any context to his kōrero. I would be embarrassed if it were me, because I would be saying to myself: “Beam me up, Scotty.”

💬 Hon Mita Ririnui: It would be heavy.

I know it is heavy, but I would say: “Beam me up, Scotty.”, in terms of the embarrassment that that would occasion on the Government side of the House.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: We’re just worried they have been duped by the change of just one word.

That member has never been known for saying just one word!

The Māori members on the Government side of the House have a principle that has been agreed to, and is often stated—that no Māori member on this side of the House would ever vote against claims legislation that is put forward by another iwi. So I hope that my colleague opposite from New Zealand First does not repeat the embarrassment of not voting for this bill at its third reading.

💬 Pita Paraone: Who was embarrassed?

We were not embarrassed, but I think that that member was. No Māori member has the right to takahia te mana a tīpuna of another tribe, because—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Ha, ha, ha!

MAHARA OKEROA:—that member is making more noise than he did when making a speech—it is not acceptable. No iwi that comes before this House and that goes through a whole process of not less than 9 years of jumping through hoops, seeking a mandate, seeking ratification, and joining its people together and taking a very difficult path in its interfacing with the Crown, should ever be denied the full support of every Māori member of this House—irrespective of whatever political party the members belong to. I felt that I needed to say that, because the member opposite—

💬 Pita Paraone: Do you feel good?

Mr Paraone understands that, because he was brought up under the old rules. It is not that I feel good about it. That is not the question I should be asking myself; it is actually the question he should ask himself. We just make the assumption that a person who has been brought up in a traditional way, with due respect for every other iwi, would support it. It is no less the reason why the Māori members and others members of the Māori Affairs Committee, in debating the issues surrounding fishing allocation, took it upon themselves to represent the case on behalf of Ngāti Hine. It is because we understood the tikanga.

💬 Pita Paraone: Don’t use that argument, brother.

No, no. We understood the tikanga that that implied. It implied that we should have equal rights. Any Māori member, may I repeat, who votes against this bill needs to ask himself or herself key questions.

Having said that—and it is totally irrelevant—I want to commend Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, as a relatively small group of people, for managing to overcome, with due regard and respect, all those obstacles that could have served as an impediment to the claims process. It takes, first, a helluva lot of self-belief; second, a helluva lot of self-commitment; and, third, a belief that eventually a goal can be reached from which people can move on to other challenges. The reason, in my view, why Māori have not moved on, to a large extent, was that we had not first really settled the issues that have a historical basis, before moving on to address what we have now, in a contemporary sense—before moving on to our future.

So on behalf of the Māori Labour caucus, on behalf of the Māori Affairs Committee that considered the bill, and in spite of the constant communications made from issues that raised themselves within the select committee process, via the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, to Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau in order to progress this bill to where it is now, I thank all its people for their ability to continue to make those adjustments that have helped this bill into its second reading. Of course, in the future, it will no doubt culminate—hopefully in May, when the people will come back, te hokitanga mai ki te whenua [back to the land]—in their joining together with this House in rejoicing and celebrating what is, without doubt, a unique experience for those people, who constitute a specific claimant group.

Nō reira, koutou rā Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau me te ope e hara mai nei nā ki te tautoko i tēnei wāhanga tuarua,

[And so to those of you indeed of Tūwharetoa at Kawerau, and the group that came in support of this second part,]

I wish the group the best in the future, and even though it has been difficult, especially surrounding the issues dealing with geothermal power, I say that we have been able to progress this bill to its present state. Nō reira, tēnā tātau, tēnā tātau, ā, ka noho tēnei ki raro.

[So, greetings to us, greetings to us, I resume my seat.]

Ā, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou o te Whare nei. Tēnā hoki koutou Ngāti Tūwharetoa, ahakoa i te wā i puta mai tēnei pire, ko te ingoa ko Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, engari kua rerekē te ingoa iāianei nā, ko Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty.

[Thank you, and greetings to you of this House, and also to you of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, despite the fact that when this bill came out, it referred to “Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau”. But the name of the bill has now been altered to the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill.]

On behalf of New Zealand First—and can I reiterate the point that we are the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I want to note that when speaking of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in this bill, we are referring to those of Tūwharetoa based in the Bay of Plenty. I mention that specifically, so as to differentiate this iwi from that of its kith and kin, Tūwharetoa ki Taupō.

It is the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Before I go any further, I want to remind the member who spoke before me that it is Parliament that makes the laws, and not iwi. I wanted to remind him of that, even though he took some time to make reference to the decision made by New Zealand First regarding the last settlement bill that this House dealt with.

I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, together with members of the claims negotiating team. They have arrived at this point after a journey that has taken them almost 16 years. I might add, though, that this journey had its genesis back in 1865, following the death of a Crown official at the hands of some local Māori. Unlike the response by present-day police, the Crown at the time almost immediately mounted a 500-man expedition to apprehend those responsible. In September 1865 the Crown issued a proclamation of peace in spite of not being able to apprehend those sought. So the Crown felt that it was going to war.

The point I make is that the journey taken to reach this stage has been long and arduous. In New Zealand First’s view this is clearly unacceptable. Like many other claims already made to the Waitangi Tribunal, this claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and in particular to the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe, inadequacies in the compensation court process, and subsequent alienation of the remaining lands that were subject to the native land laws and Crown purchasing.

In 1988 Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty registered their claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. The hearings were held during 1994 and 1995, followed by the release of the tribunal’s findings in 1999 and the commencement of negotiations in 1998. All this has culminated in the signing of the deed of settlement between the iwi and the Crown.

It is unfair to claimants and detrimental to us moving on as a nation when such claims have to take such a long time to reach this stage. We in New Zealand First have already signalled our proposals for addressing the issue of the time it takes to complete claims. We would hasten the settlement process from the pre-negotiating stage through to the passage of settlement legislation. Time savings could be made at several stages by giving more adequate funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements and adequate resourcing to aid claimant groups. But given the lack of support from other parties in this House to advancing these proposals, other claimants under this process will unfortunately have to endure similar waiting times. Having said that, I note that the Prime Minister recently indicated that the Government will be proposing something similar. Like a certain other party on this side of the House, we feel quite happy to share our policies with the Government.

New Zealand First supports the settlement of genuine historical grievances. However, the lack of progress in addressing such historical grievances has diverted attention from key areas where real social and economic progress for Māori could be made through sound education, well-paid employment, adequate health, and improved housing. Under this bill the settlement provides financial and commercial redress of millions of dollars aimed at assisting Ngāti Tūwharetoa with their economic and social development. Whether or not this amount can ever be considered fair compensation, the key elements of the bill include acknowledgments that it is difficult to assess redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

It is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Tūwharetoa for all the loss and prejudice suffered. However, we note that in keeping with true Ngāti Tūwharetoa tradition of giving to the nation what is their birthright, the true meaning of the word “koha” is again being repeated with Ngāti Tūwharetoa forgoing full compensation. Such koha is recognised by the Crown as a contribution to the development of our country, New Zealand.

Nā reira, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Nā koutou i whakaarohia kia tukuna mai he koha ehara mō te karauna anahe engari, mō tātou katoa e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa.

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

[And so this is an acknowledgment to you, Ngāti Tūwharetoa. You considered amongst yourselves to gift it not only for the Crown alone but for all of us New Zealanders living here as well.]

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, but we support it because there is no mention or reference made to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Firstly, that would suggest to me and to all fair-minded people that the inclusion of such words is not necessary. Secondly, it would suggest that perhaps the Government has perceived that to include such words without definition will not make this settlement as enduring as we would like to see it. We will certainly be supporting this bill.

In conclusion, I support the comments made by Mr Brownlee with regard to the use of the Māori language in this bill. I reassure him that the layout of the Māori text fits with the layout of the English text. I must point out that where the Māori translation identifies the members of the select committee, reference is made to their political parties. Reference to political parties is absent in the English translation. Kia ora.

United Future is pleased to support the second reading of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. As our Māori affairs spokesperson, I am pleased to speak on this bill and to see it being progressed.

I do not need to go over the circumstances again that gave rise to the need for a claims settlement, because they have been well documented in the settlement deed as well as in this bill, and they have been mentioned by other parties. I just say that it arises from the confiscation of land around 1865 and subsequently. I note that although 20,000 acres of the land were returned, that amount fell somewhat short of what had been taken. The impact on Māori of the confiscation of their land was profound, as it would be for anybody. The inability to obtain food, medicine, and shelter particularly impacted on Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I note also that some efforts were made in the past to recognise the Crown’s wrongs and to right them but, as was typical with a lot of approaches taken by the Crown 50 to 100 years ago, there was a lack of recognition of tikanga Māori, and in particular of the property rights of iwi as opposed to the property rights of individuals. I guess that one of the big differences in the settlement bills that have been put through this House in the last 10, 15, or 20 years is now a recognition that iwi property rights, which are foreign to the British justice system we have inherited, are nevertheless valid property rights. There needs to be recognition of the ownership of property by iwi groups, not just a recognition of the individualism we adopted from the British legal system that seems to recognise only individuals. I note the reference in the bill to the fact that land that had actually belonged to iwi was returned to individuals, which reflects what at that time would have been, to some extent, a degree of ignorance on the part of my predecessors in this House in their recognition of property rights in a different culture.

I notice with approval, contrary to some of the comments National has made, that the mandating of the settlement occurred with a 55 percent vote. Of those who voted, 95 percent endorsed the bill. I can compare that only with the results of the local body election we had just a matter of months ago, whereby a 55 percent vote was one of the better results that local bodies received. Therefore, in this context a 55 percent vote is quite acceptable, in my view. It is always nice to get a higher vote, and to get participation by all of those who have an interest in the matter. But I note that even if we take the level of achieving 100 percent of the vote, the fact that there was a 95 percent endorsement means that more than 50 percent of Ngāti Tūwharetoa have approved the settlement, in fact, whether or not they voted. Therefore, there has truly been a majority recognition of the settlement and an acceptance of it by Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I note that one of the primary changes the Māori Affairs Committee suggested was to clarify that we are not dealing in this legislation with all of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, but simply with the Bay of Plenty iwi of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. There have been some changes to the bill’s wording to reflect that, and to avoid any possible ambiguity or confusion that this settlement involves more than simply the Bay of Plenty iwi of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I think that that is an important recognition, so that it does not in any way fetter, or have any potential to fetter, claims that are yet to be resolved in relation to other parts of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

One thing that is unique about this bill, and that is new, is the settlement of a right of first refusal to geothermal assets. That is something about which we have needed to proceed with some caution, because of the value of the geothermal resource to New Zealand as a nation in terms of energy needs. I note that the settlement is reserved to Crown-owned assets only, and then only to physical assets and not to subsurface water or streams. Obviously, by the ratification that has taken place, that is something that Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty have been happy to accept in terms of their settlement. I commend them for their approach and, one could argue, to some extent their generosity. They could have held out for a claim of somewhat more, given the history of the land, and the history of the geothermal activity that obviously existed in New Zealand over the time when they owned the land rights.

I note there was some concern, as there often is with these bills, that the granting of certain rights to iwi might impact on the rights of other people. Once again, there are provisions in the bill that make it very clear that this settlement does not impact on the rights of anyone who is not a party to the deed between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and that existing property rights remain. I think that clause 61 makes that abundantly clear. It always seems to be a concern that individual property rights may be affected by such legislation, but obviously that is not the case.

If there is perhaps one thing that United Future has achieved in this area of treaty settlements over the last 3 years, it is to have helped to speed up the process of settlements. United Future is very keen to reach a situation whereby all treaty grievances are settled, so that we can move on as a nation. That would also have the spin-off effect of the setting up of governance entities over all iwi in New Zealand. As we gradually get to that position, it is my hope that the voice of Māori can be more clearly stated, because there are clear authorities that have the potential, if their members so concur, to speak on behalf of iwi on issues that are broader than simply the settlement issues. That is something I think would really help in terms of the development of the relationship between Māori and Pākehā in New Zealand.

United Future succeeded in getting commitment from the then Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Margaret Wilson, to endeavour to get resolution of all treaty grievances within 10 years. Our party also succeeded in getting additional funding through to the Office of Treaty Settlements, in particular, to enable a second claims development team to be implemented so that we can speed up the process.

I think it is absolutely important that the Crown, on its part, does everything possible to resolve those grievances and bring them to fruition, recognising that there are two parties to the process. The Crown cannot force iwi to come to the table, negotiate, and reach resolutions. I certainly encourage any iwi representatives who are yet to see their grievances resolved to avail themselves of the process, so that we can get to a point of settlement of those grievances. Those iwi could then have assets and money in order to move on and improve the lot of their people. We could then get to a point in New Zealand whereby historical treaty grievances were all resolved, and we could together look forward to a nation with very positive race relations and a working together of Māori and other New Zealanders for the good of the nation.

United Future is very pleased to see the progress on this claim. We hope that more claims will come through. We will continue to apply pressure on the Government to try to get more and more settlement bills through and grievances resolved. We are pleased to support the second reading of this bill and look forward to its continuing stages.

I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate on the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill with a sense of weariness. Once again, we have a bill that repeats the errors of the past. Members have gloated over the very techniques that got our forebears into trouble. We have had sanctimonious speeches—like the speech made by the previous speaker—full of unction, with speakers claiming superiority over people on the spot 140 years ago and alleging that those people did not know what they were doing, when there is no way now of deciding with any kind of certainty who was right and who was wrong.

I am also concerned because I think I heard New Zealand First members, who finally discovered enough integrity in relation to the last settlement bill that came before the House to refuse to support it because it contained references to spurious principles, say that they would support this bill. That reverts to the pattern they have had for the last 2 or 3 years of loudly denouncing in this House the so-called principles while busily voting for bills that contain references to them. I draw the attention of New Zealand First members, whom I assumed would have seen those references because those members were represented on the Māori Affairs Committee, to clause 10(2), which refers to the Crown profoundly regretting and unreservedly apologising for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. So the Crown has not yet purged those nonsense words from the legislation.

That is not the only instance. Again, I draw New Zealand First members’ attention to clause 14. In the most important definition of the bill, and in the only provisions that make this settlement worth proceeding with, is the provision that states that the claims are settled. That is the definition of historical claims. Clause 14(a)(i)(A) refers to a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or from the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. To be fair to New Zealand First, in this connection it is probably sensible to put that definition in, because people may still assert that they have rights arising from the principles, even if we now find that the principles are so contentious and insubstantial that a definition should not be included in legislation. So I could understand leaving that reference in the bill for the sake of completeness, but I think that New Zealand First has lost some of the mana I was prepared to concede to it last time for finally acting in accordance with its claimed principles and aligning with ACT’s view.

In the time I have been in this House, ACT has always voted against these bills because they contain words that are undefined, are not capable of a proper definition, and are not able to meet the standards that this House should insist on for legislation. That is, it is legislation that sets people at each other’s throats with words that, at the time we pass the legislation, we know will have different meanings to different people. That will cause the parties to go back before judges and to spend money on lawyers, because the words mean different things to each side of the deal. The function of this House should be to make sure that we do not do that. We should make sure that the law we pass has clear and accepted meanings, and that disputes are being resolved. [Interruption]

The senior Government whip from Whanganui is interjecting, as she always does in these debates. I will not use the pejorative descriptions that are often applied to her approach, but I will draw this to her attention and ask whether she wants to participate in the debate to explain to me just what is meant by the protocols and the acknowledgments. This bill is offering to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty the legal equivalent of bangles and beads. This bill is offering shiny baubles to get an agreement, with words that either have a substantial meaning, in which case they will cause trouble in the future, or that mean nothing, in which case it is fraudulent to be offering them.

I draw Ms Pettis’ attention to clause 41—it is just a sample; there are many clauses like this—where the Historic Places Trust and the Environment Court are directed to “… have regard to a statutory acknowledgement in forming an opinion under … the Historic Places Act …”. In clause 48 we find that relevant consent authorities must have regard to the “geothermal statutory acknowledgement”, which is a novelty with this bill. We find in clause 52 that the statutory acknowledgments are not: “(2) … binding as deemed fact on—(a) the consent authorities: (b) the Environment Court: …”. In other words, for legal purposes they have no evidential weight. In clause 60 we find a cute little instruction that states: “(b) no person, in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under a statute, regulation, or bylaw, may give greater or lesser weight to the association with, or use by, Ngāti Tūwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) of a statutory area or the geothermal energy or geothermal water … than that person would give … if no statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition existed …”. In other words, in this statute the Crown goes through the rigmarole of telling people that they are getting something of significance, and then carefully states that it does not mean a damn thing. Nevertheless, the court has to have regard to it.

I would really appreciate a member of the select committee explaining now or during the Committee stage on this bill exactly what is meant by this duplicity. The rest of Parliament might be quite content to go along with these things, saying that they are just matters of form and that everyone knows that Māori do not really care that they are getting a bauble.

Members of this House stand up and make grand speeches in Māori about how proud they are to be part of settling these longstanding grievances, when they well know that a future generation will look at this legislation and say that Parliament must have meant something by it and that it cannot be as empty as it appears. We cannot assume a new round of bad faith in what is supposed to be a settlement of old breaches of faith. Descendants of the people who sign this deal are sure to be back, saying that no one could have expected, after 150 years of grievance and solemn promises to put it all in the past, that their people could have been offered utterly empty assurances and utterly useless deeds of acknowledgment.

So what will the descendants do? They will assert, and future historians—probably sounding as unctuously confident as the United Future member who has just spoken—will say: “Of course they didn’t know what they were really doing. Of course we’ve got to read some meaning into this. Yes, we will convert this into the ownership rights that should have been created.”

If this were a real settlement, we would be creating real ownership of the kind promised in article 2 of the treaty. Article 2 of the treaty did not offer a shadow; it offered classical property rights—the kind of property rights this Government does not give a toss about, despite its members being champion tossers.

This bill may be the first—I am not certain—that the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Margaret Wilson, had brought in herself, from the ground up. She could have broken with tradition. She could have broken with the National Party’s habit of making meaningless deals. She could have taken note of the select committee’s decision that the so-called rules that say it cannot recommend substantive changes are not worthy of this House, and allowed the select committee to look at this bill and do something meaningful with it. Instead, of course, the Crown is here apologising for allowing someone’s culture to be changed.

The Greens will support this bill. We acknowledge the incredibly hard work of those who have negotiated to obtain some degree of redress for the crimes that have been committed against them. We thank those who made submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee, and we also thank the officials—who always get a hard time from the committee on these issues—for their hard work in bringing this bill to the committee.

The Greens recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the legitimacy of the Māori text that was signed by the hapū signatories. Te tiriti is an agreement between hapū and the Crown. It is, in our view, a solemn pact. The treaty settlement process is designed to provide some redress for the grievances that have arisen from the Crown’s failure to adhere to that pact. The Greens acknowledge that representatives of the Crown have breached, and continue to breach, te tiriti rights of Māori. We support the resolution and restitution of outstanding historical and current breaches, but via a process by which those who have been aggrieved are the designers of the process for their own justice.

We recognise that there are serious problems with the current model of treaty settlements, and that those failings create further grievances and will continue to create further grievances until the Crown accepts that there are problems, and moves towards a better process. One of the problems that continues to arise is that in the 21st century we continue to have confiscations. The rohe that is the subject of this bill includes coastal land, and the mana whenua of that coastal land have recently had their legal rights, and potential rights, taken from them—in other words, confiscated—in the 21st century. The Labour Government is a modern-day confiscator, and New Zealand First is, likewise, a confiscator of land, stripping Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau of their legal rights.

How do we ensure that future grievances will not arise? We guarantee that we will not create any future grievances by undertaking these unconstitutional, treaty-breaching activities in the future. It is relatively simple if we learn the lessons of our history, which we should be doing, given the number of settlement bills that are before us. We know what has happened in the past. We should know not to repeat it. As I am talking about considering our histories, I want to mention that there was an issue in the select committee about statements of association. These caused some difficulties in the select committee, because they were inadvertently left out of the bill, so the committee could not test their legitimacy and test that they were not controversial with the submitters. This made it very difficult for the select committee to deal with the statement of association.

I must say, though, that the Green Party has no problem in principle with the inclusion of statements of association in settlement bills. These statements are statements by the claimants of their views of their histories and their associations with their particular resources. In our view, they are incredibly valuable to the claimants and to the whole country. One real gap in our nation’s education, and a large part of the problem that leads us to keep making stupid mistakes when we should know better, is that we do not have a clear understanding of the collective history of our own country.If we are to find ways to foster understanding and peace in our country, we need to know our collective histories in detail. These settlements, despite their flawed process and what we consider to be fundamental injustices, can at least provide to local communities that precious information about the stories and histories of their local areas.

These settlements, the settlements bills, and the deeds of settlement describe the local stories of what was a terrible civil war in our country. Many lives were lost in that war. Horrible crimes were committed in that war. These settlements outline some of the local stories that have been largely kept from us about our own histories—things that were done, and stories that belong to our neighbours, to our friends, and to the people whom we deal with and meet with every day. These stories can give us incredibly valuable insights into how our country has developed, why we are in the state we are in today, and how we can ensure that we do foster peace in our country in the future.

These settlements contain not only statements and descriptions of recent occurrences and historical occurrences in our country but also, through things such as statements of association, pre-colonisation histories that have remained intact—cultural, traditional, and spiritual stories that describe, in the idiom of the indigenous people, their pre-colonisation history. Statements of association, in my view, are gifts by the iwi to us; gifts of their precious histories that most of us would never otherwise know. These statements are no less valid than any preamble or historical description in settlement bills or in any other bill.

Some have argued that these statements should not be in legislation, but in my view that is stupid. They do not need to have legal effect to be incorporated into legislation and to be valuable in legislation. It is, after all, the iwi’s bill. It is their restitution and their grievance that has been dealt with, and they are entitled to have their stories told—not the stories interpreted through the coloniser’s view, but their own stories about their own pre-colonisation history—as they choose. It is absolutely critical that they have their views and their stories recognised, just as the history of Pākehā and others in these bills are also recognised in the preambles of these settlement bills. These statements are as valid as any other preamble. It is just that they describe a pre-colonisation history that colonisers’ sympathisers continue to decry and devalue. There are lots of ways that we can describe that particular attitude.

The Greens do not like the process of settlement bills. We think that they are unfair and wrong, and that they require iwi to compromise too much. But we do see that they have enormous value as an educative tool, as a way of recognising the history and the value of that iwi themselves on their own terms and not interpreted through English or through the coloniser’s perspective. We will continue to advocate for a fairer process for settlements, and for the expansion and distribution of these settlement histories to the whole community, so that perhaps we can undermine some of these bad attitudes from various parts of our community and actually have communities that truly understand our collective history, so that we do not create further grievances in the future.

Ka tū au ki te kōrero ki tēnei pūrongo a te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori. I am rising to speak to the report back of the Māori Affairs Committee. Kua tirohia e te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori tēnei pire, anā, Te Pire Whakataunga i ngā Kerēme a Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi. I am rising to speak to the report that the Māori Affairs Committee has examined with regard to the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Ki ō mātou nei whakaaro, me whakamanatia ngā whakatikatika. It is our view that the amendments recommended in this report be agreed to. Kei roto i te pire ngā pūkenga kōrero, anā, te pūtake i tīmata ai tēnei kerēme. In this bill are most of the historical stories and evidence as to the origins of this claim. E tika ana ngā kōrero ki a Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi, ō rātou nei kōrero tūturu. And it is right to say, and reaffirm, that the stories as set by Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty are theirs, and theirs alone.

Tokorima ngā tino wāhanga, inā, i puta ai ō mātou nei whakaaro me ngā whakawhitiwhiti kōrero i roto i te pire nei. Tuatahi, ko te whakamāramatia mō Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Tuarua, ko te tikanga mō whāngai o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, anā, mō whāngai of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Tuatoru, ko te whākinga o te ngāwhā i raro i te ture. Tuawhā, ko te whakaurunga o te tauākī whakarōpūtanga ngāwhā kei te mōtiningia. Tuarima, te tika o te whakakorenga tuatahi ki ngā hua ngāwhā a te Karauna.

[In our deliberations and considerations in respect of this bill, five essential elements emerged—the first one in relation to the definition of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the second concerning the meaning of whāngai of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the third about geothermal statutory acknowledgment, the fourth regarding the proposed inclusion of geothermal statutory acknowledgment, and fifthly the right of first refusal over Crown geothermal assets.]

Because it is a protocol of the Māori Affairs Committee to preface the report in te reo Māori, we may as well refer to it. There are five issues that are summarised in the report back that I want to speak to, and I will speak to each of them separately. Firstly, I will deal with the definition of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The committee spent some time discussing overall how best to encapsulate the intention of this settlement. Now, lots of comments have been raised in the House about this, but I simply want to say that the committee resolved and thought that it was important to make clear that this settlement was specific to Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty. So we recommended that the report, throughout its whole reference to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, be changed accordingly to make clear that that is who the settlement is for, and notwithstanding other interests throughout Ngāti Tūwharetoa, they would not be affected by this particular bill. I think, in terms of points of clarity, that that was very helpful.

The second point that I refer to is the meaning of “whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa”. We had, again, a lot of discussion around this. We noticed a trend in a lot of legislation—there was some onus being put on claimant groups to actually specify or provide for whāngai in a way that encountered issues to do with the Adoption Act. So we asked whether this was the case of the claimant group, and whether it had been given the whole range of examples, to which we received advice that it was something that the Office of Treaty Settlements had, kind of, suggested—it was an example or reference that had been suggested by the Office of Treaty Settlements.

The committee was not very comfortable with that. In fact, we said that surely on issues of whāngai—on issues of adoption—the expressions in the bill should be closely aligned to what that iwi wanted. So after some discussion we basically came to what the intention of the deed was, to try to align the definition of whāngai in the bill as closely as possible to the intent of the claimant groups. I think that what we have suggested is more in line with their intention than that of the Office of Treaty Settlements.

The other part of the report back, the third part, is on the issue of the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. I do acknowledge that this is the first time that a geothermal statutory acknowledgment has been made in any settlement legislation. We spent a good deal of our deliberations and considerations on this matter alone, because a lot of members wondered what it meant. Now, I am sure—and I am sure it is the intention of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty, that there will be a tangible benefit from this provision. However, it was not evident in terms of the advice that we received from officials. In fact, I think we probably spent far too much time on this issue. But the point here is that this geothermal statutory acknowledgment emanates from an association that Ngāti Tūwharetoa has towards geothermal energy, and that has been referred to by a number of members who have spoken before me.

The statutory acknowledgment, in particular—and we sought clarification on this—is around the bores. It is not about the water or the geothermal energy above the ground or under the ground; it is just the bores through which that energy passes. So to some extent we are still scratching our heads as to what the tangible benefit will be, but we expect there must be some for it to be in here. And, really, it is not for us to say whether or not. I have heard some parochial comments in the House along the lines of: “Here’s a generation of people who are settling, and they really do not know what they are getting.” I beg to differ about that. I think that every group of negotiators who has sat opposite the Crown to negotiate its claim certainly know what they are getting out of it. We might not be clear about it, but it is an agreement that the Crown is upholding, and one that, I am sure, even though there has been a lot of debate around this, has tangible benefits that will go back to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. As I said, the committee all hopes and I am sure that the expectation is that they do realise a tangible benefit from this statutory acknowledgment.

Again, there was a great deal of discussion about the next part—and I regret that so much time was spent on this particular part—which is about whether to include the exact reasons why Tūwharetoa had such a close association to the geothermal resource. The reason, quite simply, was that when the bill was introduced it did not include the statutory acknowledgment. So when we were going through the submissions we could not actually ask the claimant group, or people making submissions, about their stories. That did present difficulties, because the committee was then faced after the fact with having to consider stories, and there was a level of discomfort as to whether we should be asking Parliament to uphold what many in this Parliament would probably attack as being purely myths and legends, and we could not afford that. So with the ability to discuss this with Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, and also their discussions with the Minister, there was a change and the statutory acknowledgment was left in the deed, unharmed and protected, in the way in which it was introduced.

The final part of the report back concerns the first right of refusal. Again, many members may argue about that particular issue, but I simply want to say that the way in which the first right of refusal has been treated is consistent with other settlements in that it is not provided for in the bill per se. It is actually in the deed, and that is consistent with every other first right of refusal that has been provided for.

My final comment is about the use of Māori within bills. We need to get better at it. Certainly, in terms of the experience of the committee over the last two settlement bills, I do want to say that we should urge the Office of Treaty Settlements to have a good look at its processes when it is working with claimant groups in te reo Māori in legislation, because it is simply not good enough. However, the recommendations of the committee are clearly here in the report back, bilingually. We recommend them to the House and support them. Tēnā koutou.

I would like to take the opportunity to look at some of the things that are buried within the heart of this bill, as I read it, but that speak a great deal about the values of this current Government. I refer the House to schedules 5 and 6, which are buried deep in the bill. It is not surprising that those schedules are buried deep in the bill, because in them we find statutory references to myth and legend. We are incorporating into the law of the land that these are a legally legitimised world view. It is an issue not of personal religious belief or iwi history but of incorporating into the law that kind of approach. For instance, we find in schedule 5 a specific reference to Te Whakakau Ariki last being seen by elders in 1950 while they were setting an eel trap. We are incorporating the idea of a ghost—a spirit being—as part of the law of the land. We find the same again in schedule 6, which refers to Rakeimarama, who, with his incantations and powers, through his karakia, caused an island in the lake of Rotomā to disappear. That is in the law of the land.

I say that that is political correctness taken to absurdity. It is the cancer at the very heart of this Government. The Labour Government has a fringe agenda driven by people in this Parliament and by their henchmen and henchwomen in the bureaucracy. That agenda is being forced on mainstream New Zealand through the law. The Government has to ask why there is such an incredible ferment about the article containing the interview with Mr John Tamihere. It is not only about the criticisms of particular individuals. It is not about whether certain people are tossers and others are smarmy, and so forth. Those are the issues of excitable political headlines. Deeper within the core of that article is a question of values. It is that aspect of the interview that has struck such a chord with the New Zealand public. That is why the media has focused on it. What John Tamihere has revealed is the secret heart of the Labour leadership—the secret agenda that it wants to foist upon New Zealanders. One finds that agenda buried in legislation, never near the beginning of the legislation. It is buried in the schedules, but it is there nevertheless.

Those kinds of recitations, those references within our legislation to the spirit world and pagan religion, did not exist in earlier settlements. There was no need for them, because they are not actually what settlements are about. If a Government wants to change the way people think—if a Government wants to have an agenda that states that certain modes of thought are correct and other modes are incorrect—then it will start to insert those kinds of references into legislation, and to stack various commissions and bodies with people who think only one way and demand that other New Zealanders think the same way. One has only to think about the reaction of Joris de Bres to Dr Brash’s speech in 2004. He said that New Zealanders were not permitted to raise those questions. He said that it was dangerous. That is the mark of the politically correct. They want to bury debate and to stifle the mainstream views of New Zealanders.

So I ask myself why we even find references in our law to Māori myths and legends. I am one of those who take a certain amount of pride in those myths and legends. They are part of the history of our country. They are not part of the law of the land, and they should not be. The law of the land is supposed to apply to all New Zealanders, without fear or favour and without reference to religion. So why are those myths and legends included? Is it an example of guilt—is it guilt that causes those things to be represented? Is it, as Winston Peters would say, sickly white liberalism? Is it an example of extreme political correctness? Or is it a blend of all of those three things? I believe that this approach sets a dangerous pattern for our future. We are supposed to be a country moving forward into the 21st century. We are supposed to be a country that, in the words of Shane Jones, a Labour list candidate, is putting the grievance and the consistent and constant reference to culture behind us. But, in fact, we are seeing those things ever more deeply inserted into our law.

I believe that that is precisely why Mr Tamihere’s speech has struck such a deep chord. He has revealed to the country what beats at the heart of the Labour Party. Members sitting in this Chamber know the truth of that. They know that there is a group of people in the Labour Party who do not represent the mainstream of this country. Their values are essentially those of the fringe and of the minority, and they have no respect for the values that have been at the heart of this nation for more than a century. These references in schedules 5 and 6 will ultimately be the downfall of this Government. They will be the reason why New Zealanders ultimately reject this Government. New Zealanders will know, as is revealed buried deep in this legislation, that they have a Government whose values are alien to mainstream New Zealanders—values that distort and pervert our history, values that have no place in a modern, forward-looking New Zealand, and values that do not unite people but only serve to remind people of difference, not of unity.

I want to take a short call and acknowledge the second reading of this bill and the fact that it is at last making progress through the House. More important, I want to acknowledge the tenacity of the people of Tūwharetoa in sticking with the job of progressing this legislation. I wanted to pay tribute to them very early in my short contribution.

I had to smile wryly at Stephen Franks, who made the ACT party’s contribution. It was all fluff and mirrors. If ACT were ever in a position to be in power in this country, and fortunately we are comfortable in the knowledge that it will not be, but if it were it would—[Interruption]

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the interests of assisting my colleague from Whanganui, I must say we are finding it difficult to hear her. I am surprised at myself for saying it, because that does not apply to Mrs Pettis very often, but members from her side are barracking across the House and that is making her lucid words very difficult to comprehend. I ask that you allow Mrs Pettis to continue in a manner whereby we can hear the contribution she is making.

I thank Mr Power for raising that matter. Could members please quieten down a bit so that Mr Power and others can hear Jill Pettis.

💬 JILL PETTIS: It has taken 12 years for somebody to ask me to speak up, but, never mind. I thank the member for his assistance.

Should the unimaginable occur and ACT be in a position to do something of importance in this country, it would never pass any settlement or facilitate the passing of any settlement bill, because that would heal the sore. ACT does not want to heal the sore; it wants to lift off the scab all the time. That is an ugly expression, but ACT members have no desire for peace, progress, settlement, or communities moving forward—not at all. I would have thought that after all this time they would be able to move on in a philosophical sense, because it is important to move on.

While we are in the process of talking about the future, it is important to remember the past and acknowledge that this very significant part of New Zealand has maintained that significance because of the generosity and foresight of te Heuheu Tūkino, an early paramount chief, who bequeathed to the nation some of the most significant geography in our country. It has remained in perpetuity to be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people, both New Zealanders and international travellers alike. It is a World Heritage Site and that is very significant. Whenever my relatively small whānau—my children and myself—travelled through that part of the country, and we tramped there when they were younger, I used to say to the children: “You know you can always come back here because we have Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi ancestry.” My hapū is Ngāti Pamoana.

We used to say to my husband—their father—that this was land where we knew we could tramp, swim, and camp because of our ancestral connection. So this is a very special part of the country to me. Although I am not from Tūwharetoa, I have some connection through the upper reaches of the Whanganui River.

This bill is back before the House partly because the National Government, in drawing up and signing a trust deed with Tūwharetoa in 1992 giving the tribe property rights in Lake Taupō, failed to be explicit about what it was signing away. Therefore we have had to enter into negotiations to resolve any uncertainties. One of the important parts of this bill is the resolution of uncertainties. The settlement package contains a formal Crown apology and redress, which includes the return of significant sites and appropriate levels of funding as well.

This is an important bill. It is not large in its significance overall, but, nevertheless, it is important. I am pleased we have had a good and constructive debate this evening. I look forward to its progress through the House as quickly as is achievable.

Kia ora ki ngā mema o te Pāremata nei. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora ki a Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

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

[Greetings to members of this Parliament. I greatly acknowledge you. Greetings as well to Ngāti Tūwharetoa of Kawerau. And so, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

As an opening remark I say that I was surprised to hear a request for Jill Pettis to speak up. I have to remind the House that, having been in the fortunate position of being on the other side, there used to be a wall of noise that came from this side. The behaviour was terrible compared with how people carry on nowadays. It was so loud that we could not discriminate any voices, but even through that the voice of Jill Pettis could still penetrate, and therefore I am surprised that she was unable to penetrate the light barracking from across the other side of the House today.

I rise to respond to the remarks made by Stephen Franks about New Zealand First and our consistency in voting, with regard to the existence of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation.

It is true that New Zealand First is opposed to the operational or functional use of such references in legislation. But it is quite mischievous to say that if there happens to be any reference whatsoever to the Treaty of Waitangi in a bill, then New Zealand First must automatically vote against it. I invite the House to consider the logical conclusion of such an expectation. If Stephen Franks had his way we would not be able to champion a bill such as the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has referred to, which will expunge all references—operational and functional references—to the principles of the treaty from legislation. We would not be able to do that. It just would not make any logical sense. So I want to point out to the House exactly what he is referring to in this piece of legislation, and it is not a functional reference.

The first is the text of the apology in English. The apology has been negotiated by the Crown and the iwi and has been put into the legislation. It makes reference to an apology for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. That is something that is not part of the functional elements of the legislation itself.

The second part—and I think even Stephen Franks was a little bit concerned to be pointing this out—is that the reference is in the definition of “historical claims”. The bill states that a historical claim is founded on a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of the treaty, and then it lists a whole pile of other things. But when we refer to the clause it refers to, it in fact says that this particular settlement makes sure that there is a finality to all those claims. So no one—not from this particular hapū or iwi—could ever come along in future and say they want to ask for certain things under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So it basically expunges any future usage of such an expression or reference. The member for Tainui, across the House, knows that at times we have sat together on legislation, knowing that the “principles of the treaty” as an expression is very, very vague and does not express precisely what the legislation, or the Parliament, or the Government wants to achieve.

So I just make the point that New Zealand First is able to vote for this bill because we support the settlement process, and because the bill makes no functional reference to future decision-making or to advising future decision-making around the expression or the concept of the principles of the treaty, which we well know are so vague that no one can tell us what they are—not the Prime Minister or anybody else. The Government does not know what they are. In fact the Minister of Local Government said that the way the Government ensures that the principles of the treaty are effected by local government is to expect them all to abide by the principles of the treaty. But when the Minister was asked what the principles were, he said it was not up to the Government to tell local government what the principles of the treaty are that they are supposed to abide by. So in this particular case New Zealand First is comfortable and is able to vote for this legislation. As I say, we supported the Ngāti Awa legislation. The problem was in terms of that functional reference within the legislation.

I want to make just one more little comment, and that is in response to the speech made by Mahara Okeroa. He made the statement that all Māori members in this House should support any legislation that has been designed by iwi. That raises some very important constitutional questions around our democracy. Why would people vote for Māori members, in New Zealand First for example, who say they support the policies, the principles, and the leadership of the party, if those Māori members are then expected to purely and simply put all that to one side, and just agree to what has been agreed to between the Crown and a particular iwi. It is Parliament that is passing this legislation. It is the Crown that has made the agreement, but it is Parliament that passes the legislation, and therefore it is Parliament that creates the precise wording of the legislation. If there is an expectation that members would come to the House and automatically give their vote to the legislation—not to the agreement, but to the legislation—then that is in fact overriding the supremacy of Parliament, and I ask Mahara Okeroa to think that through. He is a thinking man, and I am sure he will think it through and come to a rightful conclusion once his error has been pointed out to him.

But other than that, New Zealand First is supportive of this bill. We are happy that in expressing the agreement within the legislation, references to things like the principles of the treaty—which we well know are vague and lead us nowhere—have been left out. It enables parties such as ourselves to give our full endorsement and support to the legislation.

I rise to take a short call at the end of the debate on the second reading of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. The bill was introduced into Parliament in October 2004 and gives effect to the deed of settlement that was signed in June 2003, as my colleagues the member for Tainui and the member for Waiariki have pointed out to the House. It aims to settle all the historical claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, covering the area from Kawerau to Matatā. The iwi we are talking about has about 3,000 members. The core treaty grievances relate to the Crown’s confiscation of land, at a point in our past, which covers about 87,000 acres in the Bay of Plenty. So it is a reasonably large area of land for the 3,000 New Zealanders of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty descent.

The package includes a formal Crown apology, free public right of access for recreational use of the lake and its waters, the transfer of four commercial properties and five cultural redress properties, and a financial redress of $10.5 million. There are a number of items in the package that, I think, will be welcomed. It is for those reasons that I support the second reading of this bill.

Bill read a second time.