Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill

Last night I concluded by asking what effect the inclusion of cultural beliefs into legislation has, and how they are to be enforced. Will those beliefs, by virtue of their inclusion in this bill, be what future generations of New Zealanders are required to believe?

I repeat that the claimants in this bill are entitled to their own beliefs, but I think it is clearly wrong for this Government to continue to have those beliefs legislated for by inclusion in this bill, given that their inclusion will in no way affect the quality, the legitimacy, and, more important, the durability of this settlement. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter further with a number of my colleagues, and they were unable to shed any light on it for me, particularly in terms of those parts of the narratives that clearly reflect what—one would say—are tribal beliefs and understandings. I reiterate the point that we in New Zealand First in no way deny the beliefs that Ngāti Tūwharetoa may have, but we certainly have some concern that those beliefs are now, by virtue of their inclusion in this bill, being foisted on the rest of us in New Zealand.

I just want to clarify for the member, and repeat what I think I have said previously, that, firstly, the statutory references—statements of association—are not exclusive, and, secondly, they are a recognition of what those people believe. They are not in any way an encumbrance on the belief of any other New Zealander.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Commercial redress