Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and especially for those who have travelled here to join us in the House for this very important occasion. Sadly, some of those who began the long task of settling these claims are no longer with us, and I take this opportunity to acknowledge them and their contribution.

The passage of this bill will make a significant contribution towards the goal of promoting harmony between the peoples of this country, in two ways. Firstly, it will provide tangible and intangible redress to Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the settlement of their claims, allowing them to rebuild their economic base and shift the focus from addressing grievances to developing and building the future. Secondly, it will restore the honour of the Crown. All New Zealanders want a Government that is fair to its citizens—one that recognises when Governments have made mistakes in the past. Making amends is at the heart of being fair. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and settles all their historical treaty claims. Those grievances are at the serious end of the scale.

Ngāti Tūwharetoa were faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership and sought to build strong relationships with the Crown. But the Crown did not treat them fairly in return. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown.

Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty began direct negotiations with the Crown back in 1998. The main components of the settlement package were agreed in February 2001, and a deed of settlement was initialled by negotiators in October 2002. A significant majority of iwi participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly, representatives of the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 6 June 2003. The passage of this settlement bill is the final hurdle to enable the Crown to transfer the settlement redress to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

The historical treaty claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty relate mainly to the confiscation of land in the bay in the 1860s and to the damaging effect the confiscation had on their welfare, economy, and long-term development. The claims also relate to the loss of control of and access to geothermal energy and to the pollution of the Tarawera River. Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty are based around Kawerau and Matatā. Ngāti Tūwharetoa are of the Arawa waka, and are descended from the ancestor Tūwharetoa, who lived in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

The Ngāti Tūwharetoa people located in the Bay of Plenty are distinct from the whanaunga around Taupō Moana. Although many descendants of Tūwharetoa migrated south and settled around the Taupō area, others stayed in the Kawerau and Matatā areas and have their own separate and distinct identity. Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty have also been closely interlinked and have a shared history with their neighbours, Ngāti Awa. They share an interest in some of the same sites around the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

It can be difficult for the Crown to negotiate separate settlements in such circumstances, but in this instance it was clearly the right thing to do. In 1999, shortly after negotiations began, the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, as they were then known, were entitled to stand alone in any settlement, with their distinct lineage and identity properly acknowledged.

This is the second claims settlement bill to be passed through the House this year, and it will probably not be the last. The additional effort this Government has put into settling treaty claims is paying off. This year is likely to see at least three claims settlement bills passed—more than ever before in a single year. I want to acknowledge the support of many members around the House in making that possible.

This legislation will move Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty beyond the stage of lodging historical claims at the Waitangi Tribunal or in the courts. In this sense they will join Waikato-Tainui with respect to their raupatu claims, as well as Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Tūrangituku, Pouakani, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Awa. These groups have all been through the negotiation process, and have agreed that they can no longer lodge further historical claims. At the same time, others have been exercising their rights, as Māori, to register historical claims. There are hundreds of registered historical claims now.

The Waitangi Tribunal has already produced significant bodies of research at a general level, as well as examining the detail in its district inquiries. I do not believe that 20 years after historical claims were first lodged there are many remaining issues still to be brought to the Crown’s notice through the Waitangi Tribunal. The time is coming soon when we must all increasingly shift our focus from the gathering together and presenting of historical grievances, to resolving them in either a tribunal inquiry or by direct negotiations. As Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty know, lodging a claim is only the beginning of the process, and long years of work have been put in by the Waitangi Tribunal, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and especially Ngāti Tūwharetoa themselves to reach the end of the settlement process we are all achieving today. It is important that hearings and negotiations be resourced sufficiently to proceed apace, but not constrained by any artificial deadlines. Settlements should be done once, and done right.

I am pleased to acknowledge all those in Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and the Crown, who have worked towards making this day possible. In particular I acknowledge Bev Adlam, the chief negotiator for the settlement. Bev’s leadership and determination over past years has steered the claim through some challenging times. I would particularly like to acknowledge the dedication and goodwill that Bev has demonstrated to ensure that this bill has proceeded smoothly, and is able to proceed today through the House. I also acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Finance, the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotitations, and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the contributions of the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the first Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the early stage of the negotiations.

I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty deed of settlement. Stories such as these are scars on our collective history, but remembering them is vital to understanding the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those whose ancestors arrived here later. We must know our history if we are to truly learn from its lessons. Only then are we able to build our nation’s future together, on the foundation of those lessons. I wish all the best for the future to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. They will shortly begin the critical task of managing their settlement assets. I am confident that they will do so with the judgment, tenacity, and commitment they have showed throughout the settlement process. I look forward to witnessing their future endeavours. Kia ora tātou. I commend this bill to the House.

Mai Maketū ki Tongariro ki taku whānau o Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahi kua tae mai ki konei i te rangi nei, aku mihi ki a koutou. Ki tāku tuahine kaha, tuahine toa, a Beverley, e mihi kau atu ana ki tō pakari, tō pūkā, tō māia. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[From Maketū to Tongariro, to my family from the Bay of Plenty who have arrived here today, my greetings and wishes to you. To my strong sister Beverley, I acknowledge your strength, your patience, and your courage. Greetings to us all.]

I am very proud to stand here today and contribute to the third reading debate on this settlement bill, not least because the people who are the subjects of the settlement are my own relatives, Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I am very pleased to acknowledge their presence, and to stand and support this bill on behalf of the National Party. I am also proud, when we come to third readings of settlement bills, because I came into Parliament with the National Party under the leadership of Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham. Their team at the time, in 1994, decided to commit to a genuine settlement of treaty claims, and Doug Graham, as was his way—he was very competent and very good at this work—set about, in quite a short space of time, developing a treaty settlement framework that has stood the test of time and is still the framework under which this settlement comes before this House today. So I do want to acknowledge those past colleagues of the National Party, and those in the National Party now, for their foresight and for their commitment to put in train a process that allows tribes—iwi such as Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, who are here today—to put the past behind them and to move forward.

To suffer confiscation at the hands of an authority that one might have expected would be one’s protector, cannot be a happy event. Of course, not all settlements are based on confiscation, but this one was. I think that we today, in the 21st century, can only guess what that must have felt like at the time, when a tribe or tribes were depending on Governments to protect them. Some of those confiscations occurred not far out from the signing of the treaty, which promised that their lands and other resources would be protected, and then they found out, some short time later, that that was not to be the case.

I do not think that anybody can really understand the hurt and the burden of pain that must descend upon the generations, and the difficulty that Māori have had in looking forward while they were carrying that burden. Happily, today my relatives in the gallery will be able to put that hurt behind them, hopefully, and really begin the process of healing. The Minister has acknowledged, as I also want to, that this is a really, really important thing that we members of Parliament are doing in this House this afternoon. For other New Zealanders who say: “Let’s hurry up, can’t we get these things out of the way?”, I point out that Māori claimants are the first people to want them out of the way. They are the ones carrying the burden.

What other New Zealanders must understand, and what they must also have a sense of, is that these settlements are about injustices to their fellow countrymen and countrywomen. This is about injustice. From time to time, we stand and say: “One law for all. Equality before the law.”, but not until this sort of injustice is removed can a group feel that there is, indeed, equality before the law. That is something we must all remember. There is no equality before the law for groups who carry this kind of burden and this kind of injustice.

As I said, this is a good day for this Parliament. I hope that it is an even better day for Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, and a good day for New Zealand overall. I am proud of New Zealand. I am proud of New Zealanders, because we in this country at least have shown that we are prepared to find a way to help put past grievances right. When we see on our television sets what happens in other countries, we can only be grateful that, generally speaking, we are a fair-minded people, and that if we show enough tolerance and patience we can get through this process, and not only restore to ourselves, all of us, a measure of honour but also restore to the tribe their honour and allow them to exercise the mana they have been seeking to exercise all these years.

Again—I keep repeating it, but it is important to say it—this is a good day. Settlements are not an end to the matter; they are, of course, a beginning. But they do bring closure for the current generation, enabling them, hopefully, to feel that in some way they are able to shake off what has happened to their tīpuna in the past. Looking forward to the future, I think these settlements are also about reconciliation. It is only when people start to feel equal that they can behave in an equal manner. Otherwise, the notion of equality is just something floating in the wind.

I expect that pretty soon, Beverley, who I know will not shuffle around getting dirt on her shoes, will be up and doing the business. She, along with the elders, have driven this settlement. I am sure she already has developments in train, and I wish her, and certainly the tribe and all the elders, much success and goodwill for their future. It is important for New Zealand children to understand that they live in a nation that can exercise fairness and tolerance and do the right thing, and that can, when called upon, do great things, and this is one of them.

I say to the Minister that, yes, he certainly can acknowledge that this is the second—or is it the third—settlement. [Interruption] OK. We certainly look forward to others occurring. Of course, National is likely to be in Government pretty soon, and, as we have had such a lot of experience in the area, I can only imagine that settlements will become more timely. Settlements should flow. Either way, it is my view that it is incumbent on all MPs in this House to understand the nature of what is happening today, to understand the importance of these settlements for the tribe concerned, and to support them. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ngāti Tūwharetoa tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i hara mai i te nuku o te whenua ki te whakatutuki i tēnei kaupapa hirahira e pā ana ki a koutou, Rau Rōpata, koutou rā. Ko koutou rā te kanohi ō rātou kua hinga, kua ngaro ki tua o te ārai. Nā rātou te huarahi i parau, nā koutou te waka i tōia kia tau ki uta. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings to you, Tūwharetoa. Greetings to you who have come from a distance to complete this matter of great importance to you, and especially you, Rau Rōpata, and others. You are the face of those who have passed on and are lost from view beyond the divide. They were the ones who ploughed the way, and it is you who hauled the canoe ashore. And so, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you.]

Along with my colleague the Hon Mark Burton, I stand here to support the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I welcome here today the representatives of Ngāti Tūwharetoa mai i Te Moana a Toi, who have come here on a very important occasion. This bill comprehensively and finally settles the historical claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It is a hugely significant milestone for Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown, and it addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by the iwi. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew their relationship as treaty partners. Prior to the 1860s Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty were prosperous and economically successful. That is well known. However, the loss of Ngāti Tūwharetoa land and resources through confiscation and other means has hindered their development throughout the past 150 years.

The two issues of historical grievances and Māori economic and social development are deeply interconnected. Although settlement redress cannot hope to fully compensate iwi for their historical losses, or address all their future needs, it provides a platform for future development. This also marks a break from the past. No longer will the relationship between Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown be focused on the grievances between them. We can get on with the business of working and building a strong and inclusive country together, in the spirit of partnership originally envisaged by those who signed the Treaty of Waitangi.

The governance structures that iwi develop for receiving the redress also play a vital role. As part of its duty to the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and other claimant groups, the Crown requires that a representative—an accountable and transferred governance entity—is established to receive and manage the settlement assets. Good governance is vital to development.

This will be the fifth Act that settles raupatu or confiscation claims. There were many ways in which the Crown unfairly deprived Māori of their land and resources, but warfare and confiscation is viewed by this Government as the most serious. The Crown has made significant progress in settling raupatu claims. The first, of course, was Waikato Tainui. In the last 6 years this has been followed by Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Awa, and the settlement bill for Ngā Rauru Kītahi is currently before the Māori Affairs Committee. Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty are partially completed. In the last year the Waitangi Tribunal has reported on two more districts where there was raupatu. We hope that the negotiations can begin for the Gisborne claims soon, once the mandate for negotiations is resolved. Officials have met on the Tauranga claims and already discussed possible structures for negotiations.

To maintain this rate of settlement progress depends on bringing new groups into negotiations, and last year we began negotiations with Te Arawa, for their non-lakes claims, Ngāti Kahu ki Whāingaroa, Taranaki whānui ki te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, Moriori, Ngāti Manua, and Ngāti Whare. We have recognised mandate negotiators for Ngāti Apa ki te Rangitīkei and are working with Waikato River and North Island and South Island claimants to progress mandates there, in addition to those I mentioned earlier. I look forward to the day when these groups will be celebrating the passage of their legislation.

During the select committee consideration on this bill attention was drawn to the statements of association listed in the legislation. These statements describe the association of Ngāti Tūwharetoa with particular sites owned by the Crown. Some have questioned what the Crown is doing putting the legends and spiritual values of a particular iwi into legislation. This settlement legislation, like all others before it, as far back as Ngāi Tahu, records Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s views for a specific reason. It is not to give their views primacy over anyone else’s; it is so that in any decisions about important resources, their views are not overlooked. Many grievances throughout the country relate to the failure of decision makers to make decisions that affect Māori on an informed basis. For instance, wāhi tapu could have been unintentionally destroyed because a local authority had never been aware of it. Statutory acknowledgments give the claimant group the opportunity to record its association with the site in a publicly accessible form. Redress instruments like this will make it easier for the Crown to avoid causing further grievances and give iwi confidence that processes exist to protect their interests.

In conclusion, the passage of this legislation marks the end of a long journey for the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I acknowledge the dedication and hard work put in by all those people who contributed to this settlement—Ngāti Tūwharetoa negotiators, the Ministers, the officials, and iwi members themselves, who voted 95 percent in favour of the settlement. This is a ringing endorsement of the work put in by negotiators. I also pay special respect to those elders of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who began the journey so long ago towards settlement, but who have passed on before it was completed. Once again, I join my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending this bill to the House.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā hoki tātau o te Whare nei. Ā, tēnā hoki ngā manuhiri mai i Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahi, koutou o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, ngā rangatira, ngā kaumātua, ngā kuikuia. Koutou hoki te rōpū i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa, mai i te wā i tonoa atu e koutou ki te Taraipiunara, tae noa ki tēnei rā. Nā reira, ngā mihi whānui ki a koutou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and indeed to all of us here in the House. Greetings as well to the visitors from the Bay of Plenty, especially you Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the chiefs, elders, men and womenfolk, you also of the group who brought this matter here, who took it before the tribunal and as a consequence is here today. Therefore, a great acknowledgment to you.]

It is my pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First—and I remind members once again that it is the only non - politically aligned party in this House—to contribute to the third reading of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and in particular, to signal our support for it.

I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty who are in the precincts of this Chamber, together with members of the claims negotiating team. I also acknowledge their whānau who were not able to travel to be here today and who remain at home listening to what is, essentially, an important day for their iwi. They have arrived at this point after a period of almost 16 years; it has been 16 years since they first initiated their claim. From that time to this, a number of their fellow tribesmen who were involved in this claim have passed on. I support the sentiments expressed by the member for Waiariki in acknowledging those who have returned to the spirit world.

The passing of this bill will give final effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty back in 2003. It will also see another chapter added to the history of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty—a chapter intended to place some closure on events that have had an adverse effect on this iwi since the 1860s, when war broke out, ironically, in the Waikato. I say “some”, because although this settlement is full and final, and all parties to this settlement have signed up to it, no one can say that it fully compensates Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty.

Like many other claims already made to the 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, the inadequacies of the compensation court process, and the subsequent alienation of the remaining lands that were subject to the native land laws and Crown purchasing.

It is important to acknowledge the team representing this iwi, who have been able to confront the difficulties that are becoming quite common for those who are charged by their respective iwi to negotiate with the Crown. Those difficulties include getting the mandate for their own appointment; getting the mandate of the tribe to negotiate on the tribe’s behalf for what they believe is their entitlement, much of which is consequently not accepted by the other party; negotiations with Crown representatives; and getting the mandate from their iwi to accept final offers. Added to that list is the length of time taken to get to the settlement point—a matter that is clearly a sad commentary on the current process of negotiation and settlement.

However, those difficulties will pale into insignificance given the task that lies ahead for the iwi of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty in terms of how they deal with the proceeds of this settlement. To that extent, I make this point to the present and future leadership of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. If they thought that their journey thus far has been one of challenge, I say that the future will provide further challenge, as they confront the demands of the future and of their iwi. I say to the leadership to never forget to look back from time to time, so as to ensure that those they lead are, in fact, still there.

Before I conclude I make reference to two particular issues that arose during the earlier debates on this bill. The first one is in regard to references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in the bill. It is well known that New Zealand First is seeking to have all references to the expressions “the principles of the treaty”, “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, and the “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles” eliminated from all New Zealand statutes, including all preambles, interpretations, schedules, and regulations.

The references to the principles of the treaty as articulated in this bill refer to an apology already given and to the definition of historical claims. It is stated in clause 15 that in terms of the deed of settlement and this Act, the settlement “is final”. The settlement therefore ensures that there is finality to these claims. 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 around the expression or the concepts of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The second issue is that during the Committee stage an amendment was made by way of Supplementary Order Paper 367 to amend the English text. I refer to recital 32. The Supplementary Order Paper from the Government asked for the omission of the words “Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) around Kawerau”, and the substitution of the words “Ngāti Tuwharetoa around the Kawerau area”. However, the Māori text was not amended. New Zealand First subsequently lodged an amendment to reflect that amendment, with the suggestion that the Māori text be amended to read: “i waenga te rohe o Kawerau”.

To my utter surprise, the Minister in the chair at the time, the member for Waiariki, Mita Ririnui, a Māori whom I regard as quite fluent in the use of the Māori language, refused to support the proposal. In his words, it was purely a matter of semantics. I tell that member that we in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation made here is clear and accurate to all New Zealanders and, in particular, to those affected by it. Although it may be said that the amendment is unlikely to affect the intent of the bill or the durability of this settlement, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that the use of te reo Māori in legislation is correctly translated, whether it be from, or into, te reo.

In furthering the use of te reo Māori in legislation passed by this House, I had intended to propose that the title be amended to read “Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Te Moana-a-Toi-te-Huatahi) Claims Settlement Bill”, but because of the earlier lack of support by the member for Waiariki, I felt compelled to pass up that opportunity. History provides enough evidence to give credence to what I have said. If anyone has any doubt in that regard, I refer them to a particular document first signed in 1840 at Waitangi, in which the Māori text was not a clear translation of the English text.

Finally, on behalf of New Zealand First, I wish Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the best for their journey—a journey intended to bring them economic, social, and cultural prosperity. Their success in that regard will be of benefit not only to them but also for New Zealand Aotearoa.

Te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira o Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, kua tae tautoko mai i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

[To the visitors from afar, the elders and chiefs of Ngāti Tūwharetoa of Kawerau who have come here this afternoon in support, welcome, welcome, alight here.]

The Greens extend to Ngāti Tūwharetoa congratulations on their achievement in this claim for restitution and redress for the crimes committed against them in the past. We will be voting in favour of this third reading. That said, it is always very hard, I find, to vote in favour of these settlement bills. I know that other parties take a very surface and simplistic approach to them, but the Greens understand deeply what a sacrifice their achievement has meant. We recognise the hurt and the difficulty, the potential for fracturing, caused by a process whereby winners and losers are specifically picked. We support these bills, because we will not perpetuate the cycle of legislative and structural abuse that is the treaty settlement process. We will not undervalue the enormous achievement of iwi getting as far as this through the settlement process.

But our objection to the settlement process is also because we do not want to be complicit in a process that is unjust, that returns no more than 1 percent, if that, of the original stolen resources, and that requires iwi and hapū to make sacrifices they should never ever have been required to make. I know that those involved in the treaty negotiation processes, across the board, feel similarly. But they also acknowledge and work with the duress of poverty that is the settlement process, and that the settlement process exploits, because they see that steps to rangatiratanga, in some form, need to be made for their people. We understand that.

The Greens want to see a settlement process that is developed by Māori. If we are to be committed to restorative justice, it is critical that the wronged party has control over the nature of that restoration. Otherwise, as with other justice processes, the victim will remain disempowered. We completely oppose the notion of time limits to treaty settlements, because to impose such time limits purposefully excludes iwi from restoration of the historical wrongs committed against them. The capacity to engage in the settlement process is already critically dependent on Government funding or funding through the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, which ties its criteria to the needs and desires of Government agencies. If iwi miss out on Government funding, soon, they will have no chance of obtaining the redress that justice entitles them to. That is structural racism.

The bill before us tells a story about the old Compensation Court, which tried to provide redress. But because it implemented only the values and processes of the dominant culture at the time, it not only failed to provide redress but, in returning individual and not collective title, enabled the further alienation of land and the loss of precious economic and cultural resources. Those resources have not been fully restored by this bill. The Compensation Court processes described in the bill are written again in what we are doing today. We have to learn from our mistakes. We say that often in this House. We have to learn from our mistakes, but this and previous Governments have blindly refused to do so. Māori, iwi, and hapū suffer as a result.

I refer to some of the issues briefly raised at the Māori Affairs Committee by other iwi and hapū who have been struggling to have their claims and views heard in the settlement process. There are stories of losing battles to get funding because of the arrangements—ad hoc though they seem to be—between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust that pick winners and losers. There are stories about claimants’ struggles to get the research to back their tribunal claims, and to stand alongside other iwi as independent and capable of negotiating their own claims separately. They are not new stories. Neither will they be the last that the Government, the select committee, and future Governments hear during the treaty settlement process.

I acknowledge that claimants’ rights are undermined by this bill. Until the Government—having talked to claimants—reviews and alters the treaty settlement process in accordance with the actual needs of claimants, settlements will always be, in part at least, tools of oppression used against the claimant groups because of the pauperisation that the process requires and used against the other iwi and hapū whose rights are legislated away because of Government haste and political expediency. Part of the structural violence that is the colonisation process is seen in the more recent failures of the Government properly to address related issues. It has not been just this Government, either, but also previous Governments.

The bill refers to the pollution of the Tarawera River by the Kawerau pulp and paper mill. The clean-up of that river has not been done. It remains poisonous. The toxic sites remain unclean, exposed to the environment, and vulnerable to floods. When I was there last year I saw asbestos rubble lying fully exposed on contaminated sites along the main road to the mill. Whose responsibility was it to clean it up? Nobody took responsibility. Who suffered the effects of the pollution? It was the workers and the people who live in the area. Many of them were Ngāti Tūwharetoa people who have lived and worked near that site for years. Is it a treaty issue? Yes, it is. It was only a month ago that the Sawmill Workers Against Poisons, Greenpeace, and others came to Parliament to tell MPs what was really happening as a result of the poisoning of the environment in their rohe—the sickness, the birth defects, the intergenerational illnesses. Where is the restoration of these historical wrongs? They are nowhere.

Today is a very important day for Tūwharetoa, and for all New Zealanders, as they see the conclusion of this settlement claim for this iwi. Some resources are being restored, and that is a good thing. We celebrate that as a good thing. We also celebrate that the iwi is now able to step away from the demands of Parliament, from the criticisms, the accusations, the abuses of Government and members of Parliament in this House, and the demands and requirements of Government agencies, and will finally be able to concentrate on their own needs and meet their own aspirations themselves, as they have always been entitled to do. The Greens want to see a just process that is durable and acceptable, because Māori have been part of the development, the architecture, of it. We want a process that meets the standards set by tikanga Māori and not by political expediency. Kia ora.

It is always hard to follow some of the speeches on the settlement bills, and it is particularly hard to follow speeches from members like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, Metiria Turei, and others who have a very honourable purpose, who want to see the best for their country, and who are making acknowledgments to folk who have been hurt. They wish the parties all the best, and certainly they wish the recipients of the treaty settlements all the best. They wish them to have prosperity, pride, and a focus on the future, which are things that every New Zealander hopes for from the treaty grievance process. But I believe it is important that someone in this House—and ACT is prepared to do this, however much the other parties may howl at us—warns of the danger of believing in one’s own rhetoric and of being persuaded by one’s own fervent wishes. I look at the settlement bills and I see that they are being passed as Acts of Parliament. They are statements of law, and the claim is that they are intended to put grievances behind us. So I look at them as a lawyer, and as a lawyer who is aware of just how tempting it is to other lawyers to find more problems where there should have been settlements—to turn what was intended to be a solution into permanent grievance work.

When I look at this bill, I see in it a pattern that this Government and earlier National Governments have perpetrated: a pattern of self-deception. The bill contains deliberately vague terms. It contains deliberately fuzzy language. It contains promises that are deliberately intended never to be called upon. One clause may contain assurances, but 10 or 20 clauses later those precise assurances are negated. The generation that we are part of may understand that the bill is an attempt to reach a political compromise. It may be well meant, but the generations to come will simply look at it and be mystified. They will ask how it could have been that the Parliament of New Zealand, in trying to settle grievances that had festered for decades and decades because of a complete mismatch in understanding, or because one side thought the other had been tricky with regard to language, could go ahead and pass law designed to do exactly the same thing again.

We look at the protocols and the statutory acknowledgments that the Crown sets out in the schedules—accounts of mythology, accounts of special value, and accounts of guardianship values that Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty will be given an opportunity to impose on areas that are important to it. It looks at first sight as though the Government is handing over a genuine power of protection. Then we go a little further on and find that the clauses expressly state that all bets are off. The environmental authorities and the various bodies that have delegated government powers in the Bay of Plenty are told that they must have regard to those things, that they must be solemnly recorded on titles, and that they have to be drawn to the attention of people who are looking to use land. However, we then find that those same bodies are told that they are to give them no more weight than anyone else’s submissions, and that they have no effect in law. They are simply statements of empty rhetoric. I do not think that that is a recipe for a durable settlement. I think future generations and courts will say that they cannot imagine that Parliament actually meant this settlement to have no practical effect, and they will make it have effect. What effect? That will be invented by judges on the basis of contending, bitter claims.

Another reason why ACT will not vote for these kinds of settlements is that they rewrite and falsify history, without even making it consistent. In this legislation, the Crown apologises because land was handed back, presumably in a good-faith attempt to try to mitigate what had been a wrong. It was handed back in individualised titles. The complaint now is that the original wrongs were wrong because collective punishment was meted out. Although some of the iwi had rebelled, others did not, but the Crown did not distinguish between them when it exacted its own redress—when it took revenge, if you like; utu, or muru—on the land that was held collectively. So why do we now have pages and pages of grovelling apology that states that the Crown “done wrong” because it handed back individual land titles, when the people complained initially that their collective land was taken? One cannot have it both ways. If people are to be treated as individuals and as not being responsible for what their whānau or hapū have done, and if they are treated as individuals and the only assets that are available for seizure are those that are held individually, why would the Crown not create individual titles? One cannot have it both ways.

I also think it is shameful that this Parliament is apologising for actions that, as clause 8(3)(f) states “eroded the traditional social structures, mana, and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty). The Crown failed to adequately protect Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) from the impact of these actions and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” The “Winston Peters Party”, which is busy promoting a bill to abolish the so-called principles of the treaty, is voting for this bill despite that utterly fraudulent apology. This is a Government that is deliberately eroding social structures. It is not only eroding the social structures of Māori but is eroding the mana of men throughout our community. It has changed schooling so that courage is a lost virtue. It has specialised in making everyone victims, in whining over spilt milk, and in providing a remedy for every pretended wrong. That has nothing to do with the grievance industry of the treaty. This Government has set out to undermine the status of men and families. It has set out to take any concept of muru or utu out of justice. This Government does not believe in punishment and in right or wrong, yet we have a formal apology in this bill for eroding traditional social structures. That is unbelievable. The Government has destroyed the distinction that New Zealand was so proud to have created over a century ago between Church and State, and that is now included in the bill. We passed a secular education Act and we tried to make sure that we knew the difference between religion and the State. Now we have a bill that deliberately recreates a form of coercive force to statements of spiritual values.

This is not a bill to be proud of. It grasps at a temporary political solution to an embarrassment for both National and Labour, which set out and encouraged completely unfulfillable expectations. Now they are creating documents that are full of weasel words that no one, even in this Parliament, understands or can define. The Government will leave it to the judges and to future generations to argue about what it meant. The bill does not deal with the treaty. It cannot be a full and final settlement. It does not even pretend to be full and final in terms of contemporary claims. It is a shame that the members of another generation are being set up to regard each other with suspicion.

I stand on behalf of United Future for the third reading of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and I welcome members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa to the House today.

I do not want to delay the passage of the bill by taking a long time, but I want to reflect on the fact that this settlement begins with an agreed historical account, including Crown acknowledgments that form the basis of a Crown apology. The simple fact is that 87,000 acres within the traditional rohe of Ngāti Tūwharetoa were confiscated. Of that acreage, 20,000 were returned into individual ownership, rather than to iwi or hapū, so that the tribal estate remained unaffected. Part of the consequence of being dispossessed of their land was the loss of access to traditional foods, medicines, and housing materials. In the 20th century Rangitaiki swamp lands were drained and access issues were overtaken by a complete loss of those traditional tribal resources.

Accompanying the acknowledgment of the historical facts is an apology for the past breaches of the treaty and the cumulative effect of those breaches on successive Ngāti Tūwharetoa generations. Following close on the heels of the acknowledgment and the apology is a series of provisions for cultural redress, which includes establishing at Matatā a reserve that will restore access to traditional foods for non-commercial purposes. The bill will also secure and provide protection for places and sites of traditional cultural significance to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The commercial and financial redress is valued at an extremely modest $10.5 million, with first right of refusal on significant sites.

United Future wishes Ngāti Tūwharetoa well, and congratulates them on this settlement. We acknowledge all those who have negotiated this claim, and we acknowledge those generations who never lived to see this day but who shared in the loss and the process that brings us to today. United Future is, therefore, very happy to support the third reading of this bill.

Tēnei e tū ana ki te tautoko ngā mihi, mai i ngā tahataha o te awa o Waikato, mai i te maunga o Taupiri ki Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, tēnā koutou.

[I rise and in turn add my acknowledgments from the river banks of the Waikato and the mountain of Taupiri, in support of those expressed to Ngāti Tūwharetoa of Kawerau; greetings to you all.]

I join with my colleagues to support the third reading of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Already the House has heard that the bill is in part connected to historical events subsequent to the Land Wars of the 1860s and confiscation of lands. Much of that historical account is included in the bill. More particularly, it includes the avenues for redress.

I want to make my contribution in light of discussions that were held before the Māori Affairs Committee. We spent some time debating two particular aspects of the settlement, and they are worth restating in the third reading. Firstly, we debated the issue and definition of “whāngai”. I reiterate that the committee felt that claimants should decide on how they want to express whāngai in their settlement bill and, more important, to determine just how benefits are to accrue to tribal members according to their tikanga. This was a subject of some discussion before the select committee, and it was noted in our report back to the House.

The second issue was around the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. Our deliberations became quite fixated on the way in which a geothermal statutory acknowledgment would be referred to in an Act of Parliament. It is important to mention that many members around the select committee table did not believe that the particular origin of association to geothermal resources, as told by ancestors and passed down through generations, should be included as such in an Act of Parliament. Quite frankly, none of us could guarantee that the iwi’s stories would not be made a mockery of in this House, as is so evident from derogatory remarks that are being, and have already been, made with regard to taniwha and the like.

I think that what is in the bill safeguards the iwi’s particular association to the geothermal resource, and the integrity of the iwi’s own story. Albeit it was not the wish of its particular negotiators at the time, it was the reasoning for the committee’s decision.

I sincerely look forward to any development opportunity that looks likely to arise from that statutory acknowledgment, as it is the first of its kind and we should celebrate that—certainly on this side of the House.

I take the opportunity to thank advisers from the Office of Treaty Settlements, Heather Baggott and her team, as we have had quite a few learning points in considering this bill and the issues that have arisen from it.

From the committee’s perspective, it is important that the information received by advisers is accurate and reflects agreements reached with the claimant group, but that it also reflects concerns expressed by the select committee back to the claimant group. We felt that that is an important role the Office of Treaty Settlements plays, and will be increasingly so as we deal with more and more settlements.

In many ways, the Office of Treaty Settlements became integral to the transmission of information while the bill was still with the select committee. No doubt our committee will continue to ensure that it is a full and robust process, and I certainly thank Heather Baggott and her team for persevering with the deliberations before the committee. It was not an easy task at times.

I want to make a comment on the use of te reo Māori in bills before the House. We are going into new territory with the claims settlement bills, as most preambles are expressed in both te reo Māori and Pākehā. Mechanisms for redress often use Māori words in order to restate what that mechanism means in terms of redress measures. I agree with the member from New Zealand First in that, as legislators and as Māori in this House, we should endeavour to ensure that that is done in an accurate and robust way, according to the intent of both the claimants and the Crown. That said, I know that the process will probably be organic and, I hope, a positive movement forward. I look forward to the day when we are writing laws in Māori.

Lastly, treaty settlements in themselves cannot solve all the problems that continue to exist in our communities, and neither should they. The treaty settlements provide a platform of opportunity for claimant groups, like Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty, to move from grievance to reconciliation and to restoration, and to the advancement of their own aspirations. That is as it should be. It is not an easy journey, but deciding to start somewhere puts the next generation on a firm footing.

Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so at this point in time, I acknowledge you all, greetings.]

Tūwharetoa o Te Moana a Toi, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so my greetings to you all, Tūwharetoa from the Bay of Plenty. ]

This is a good day for the New Zealand Parliament, because it marks more progress not only for Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty, but for the country as a whole. The National Party is very pleased to support this settlement bill, because it has made a big commitment to ensuring that the settlement process moves more smoothly and with greater speed, in the near future.

Many people would wonder why we separate out some of our concerns about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from our commitment to the preservation of te reo Māori and the speedy resolution of treaty grievances. It is all pretty simple. Our view is that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed as many rights to non-Māori as it did to Māori. I ask people to consider that in light of this particular settlement. Many people will never understand quite why settlements are done, but what we have today in this bill’s preamble is all the history that indicates why a grievance exists.

In essence, in the early part of New Zealand’s modern history, post-1840, there were clearly occasions when the two main groups of people here, Māori and non-Māori, had disagreements. In this case, the disagreement is well-documented, right through to the start of the Waikato wars in about 1862. There was a subsequent confiscation from Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty of some 87,000 acres, because they fought against the Crown. Even though the Crown at the time afforded a certain amount of amnesty to many of the people involved in those early conflicts, the land remained confiscated.

As far back as 1863, the New Zealand Settlements Act of that year was designed for the hearing of claims for the return of confiscated land. But in the case of this claimant group, the 87,000 hectares was not given back to the entire iwi; rather, it was split among about 14 people considered suitable to hold the land. I think that in essence that would be the reason for the long-held grievance of the claimant group. If that is not entirely the reason, forgive me, but it is what I seize upon as being a good way of illustrating why we go through the settlement process.

All this legislation does today, effectively, is to confirm for Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty what article 2 of the treaty confirms for any New Zealander today who holds and owns land or other property. Therefore, as a settlement bill, it is a statement that in this country people who are wronged can have that wrong put right with goodwill and with the right lead from the Government. I think that when we look back on this part of history, perhaps in a hundred years from now when most of us will not be here—I will probably still be here, but many others will not—we might well say that this was an interesting period in our history. We might say that it was a period in which a lot of the dislocation of direction that occurred in the early years up to about 1880, and then the ignoring of the grievances that were created right through, probably until the mid 1980s, were put right, and that it was a period when as a nation we were able to be much firmer on the ground in relation to the rights the treaty guarantees to all of us.

It is that claim—that the treaty guarantees as many rights to me, a non-Māori, as it does to anyone who is Māori—that probably causes the most contention and political discussion at the present time. Nobody who clings to the treaty as being important to him or her should see any threat to that relationship coming from the position we take. We simply say the treaty has a series of rights that all New Zealanders can claim, and this settlement bill ratifies that. So our message to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty is: “Congratulations on reaching the end of a very long road, and best wishes for where this settlement will take the group.”

We know that there are some pressing problems in this country that cannot be ignored by any Government. One of those problems is the wealth-base of the country. New Zealand is not a wealthy country, despite what we like to tell ourselves, compared with our neighbour across the ditch—Australia. People ask whether that is a fair comparison. It is a fair comparison if people are choosing to leave here and go there. One of the interesting things is that groups like Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty will not leave here, because this is very much their home—just as much as it is the home of anybody else who has come here. Individuals in families may well choose to leave, so the need to address that economic gap between Australia and us is quite pressing.

But when we look just at us, we see there is a massive gap between the average incomes of non-Māori New Zealanders and Māori. That gap is about $6,000 a year—a huge income gap. When people get wound up about treaty settlements and fisheries settlements and everything else, I think it is interesting to consider that if we took all the money that goes into those settlements and divided it among the people who claimed to be Māori in the last census, we would give them about $2,000 each—once. But dealing with that income gap, that disparity within our own economy, would give them $6,000 on average per year.

So the sort of settlement that is being ratified in this bill, the handing to Ngāti Tūwharetoa of the tools to carve their own destiny, not only in their tribal and cultural sense, but also economically, is as important for the rest of the country as it is for those who receive the settlement. I say again to Ngāti Tūwharetoa that we congratulate them on the long years they have struggled to see this success. We wish them all the best for a bright future. It is not only theirs but also for this entire country—for us. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

That was an excellent speech from Mr Gerry Brownlee. I think it put very carefully the reason why National supports settlements, and it gave our vision for our country, Māori and non-Māori alike, as we move into the 21st century. I want to emphasise the importance of looking forward in doing that, and how we have to do that.

I also want to pick up on a theme developed by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu, who talked about justice and equality, which of course are at the very heart of National’s philosophy, not just on treaty issues but on much broader issues. It is actually the reason why we carry out settlements. We cannot achieve equality before the law—equality being probably the deepest single value for our country—unless we also achieve justice. So what we are doing today, on behalf of virtually the whole Parliament, is giving the Crown’s recognition of the need to do justice for Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty. That is why the settlements are so important, and that is the reason we need to complete them.

I must say I remain somewhat disappointed with the view of the ACT party. It seems to me that ACT members are saying that unless a settlement meets, in each and every particular, their expectation of what it should be, then there is no way the settlement can be supported by them. The problem with that point of view, of course, is that it is such an exclusive approach to settlements.

Settlements are, of necessity, something of a compromise and a consensus, not just within this Parliament but also by Ngāti Tūwharetoa themselves. They also have to compromise, or else there would no settlement. Compromise is an inherent part of the process, and I would ask my colleagues in the ACT party to contemplate that particular issue.

The promise of our country, both in 1840 and today, is that all our citizens will be treated equally and, as I said, part and parcel of that process is the completion of settlements. I noted the comments by the Minister that as a nation we have been in the settlement process now for 20-odd years. Many of the claims themselves have a genesis going right back into the 1980s but, of course, it is time now, after 20 years, to be able to say that we need to hasten the process. There seems, finally, to be some dawning recognition by the Government of that need, and I suggest that that recognition would not have occurred but for Dr Brash’s speech some 18 months ago.

During the Committee stage I pointed out some of the defects of this legislation. Some of those defects were also noted by Mr Franks. I also say that, as we go forward with settlements, a National Government would do things somewhat differently. I want to touch briefly on some of those differences.

I do not believe it is necessary now to constantly take an apologetic view of history, without any recognition of the standpoints of people back then. We must certainly recognise that injustices were done, but we should at least acknowledge that both Māori and Crown representatives were living in a different experience in the 1860s. Both groups were in a different experience and had a different expectation.

For instance, is it actually so bad that some land was returned to individuals? For many Māori, individual ownership actually laid the foundation for economic well-being. That fact does not, of course, diminish the accompanying injustice whereby the iwi did not get any settlement. But individualisation of title is actually part of the pathway to prosperity, and I feel we make a mistake in not recognising that.

There is a similar position in relation to the drainage of swamps. Where would the New Zealand dairy industry be today if swamps had not been drained? We can think of the prosperity right though the Hauraki Plains, and in much of the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato, generally. I know that Nanaia Mahuta well understands the importance of improving land in order to build prosperity. So rather than that action harming Māori, it actually benefited Māori, and we need to be careful in the way in which we record our history.

The point about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty has been well made by New Zealand First speakers, but I just add this: the problem with the inclusion of principles—not just in this legislation but generally—is that it blinds people to what the treaty actually promised, which was the protection of property. That is the true foundation for the reason we are undertaking these settlements, and we would do much better for ourselves as a nation if we had reference to the terms of the treaty—the actual undertakings—rather than to some fanciful notion of principles that, frankly, I have yet to hear the Government give any credible explanation of, no matter how much it tries.

💬 Pita Paraone: Haven’t they given any explanation?

No, they have not.

I turn now to the vexed question of myth and legend. I am one of those who says that they have no place in the law of our land. Everyone has beliefs. It is impossible to be a human being yet to have no beliefs. The question is: do we put those beliefs in the law? The situation is not to say—as Nanaia Mahuta and, apparently, the Green Party say—that if we do not put them in the law they are therefore diminished. That is simply false.

The whole notion of equality rests on the fact that we say our law applies to everyone equally. If we put into law the beliefs of some people but not of others, what we are actually doing is introducing inequality into the law. [Interruption] There is simply a lack of understanding, it seems, on the part of the Labour Party and, obviously, of the Green Party, on the role of belief, law, and the meaning of a secular society.

But this is perhaps not the day for the development of those issues; this is a day, in essence, of celebration, and a day of restitution and restoration. Parliament is voting for these settlements—unfortunately, I might say—not unanimously. It would be better if the settlements were being voted for unanimously, with people’s particular concerns or parties’ particular concerns being recorded, nevertheless.

I want to congratulate Ngāti Tūwharetoa today. As a number of speakers have said, this is the end of one phase of their journey but the beginning of another phase. I want to note particularly Bev Adlam, the chief negotiator. I know she will have a hugely important role in the next phase of development, on behalf of her whānau, hapū, and iwi.

I want to conclude with this statement: National is proud of its record in treaty settlements. We believe that they need to be hastened for the benefit of our nation. I stand alongside my colleagues Gerry Brownlee and Georgina te Heuheu in sketching, for the benefit of this upcoming election, our way forward, which we anticipate will be endorsed by New Zealanders.