Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. All New Zealanders join Ngā Rauru Kītahi in celebrating the triumph of a favourite son, Michael Campbell.

This bill is an important milestone, both for the iwi and for the Crown. The negotiations process that has resulted in the introduction of this bill into the House was begun under a Labour-led Government back in 1999, with the recognition by the Crown of the mandate of the Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the people of the tribe. This bill addresses the significant and longstanding grievances suffered by Ngā Rauru Kītahi as a result of actions taken by the Crown. The bill enables both parties to move forward in a positive treaty relationship.

I encourage each and every member of this House to read the preamble to this bill with considerable care. It sets out a formal Crown apology to Ngā Rauru Kītahi for the Crown’s past dealings with this iwi, which breached the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. The preamble also acknowledges that the Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngā Rauru Kītahi were left with sufficient land for their past, present, and future needs was indeed a breach of the treaty and its principles. It acknowledges that the confiscation of Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s tribal land by the Crown had a devastating effect on their welfare, economy, and development, and hindered the ability of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to live according to their own values, or Ngā Raurutanga.

The deed of settlement in this bill provides an opportunity for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to begin to plan for their future and will assist them in revitalising Ngā Raurutanga. The settlement will enable this iwi to build a stronger ongoing relationship with the Crown, and may help to dispel the sense of grief and loss that they have suffered. As well as a formal apology to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, this settlement provides for them to be given financial redress of $31 million; 100 hectares of Nukumaru Recreation Reserve; the bed of Lake Moumahaki, with ongoing protection of public access and recreational activities; Rehu Village, to be jointly administered with Ngāti Ruanui; and three other small sites of special significance to Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and has submitted its commentary on the bill to the House. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with minor amendments of an editorial and technical nature. I want to thank the committee for its thorough and careful consideration of the bill.

The committee highlighted two issues in its consideration of the bill. Firstly, it noted the preference of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to define themselves in a manner consistent with Ngā Raurutanga. This was to enable legally adopted children who do not whakapapa from the tribe’s ancestors to be excluded from the claimant definition. Members of the committee were sympathetic to the position of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, but advised that it was not appropriate for settlement legislation to override the Adoption Act, or to diminish rights or discriminate against individuals under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the Human Rights Act. The committee recognised that there is a conflict between the right of an iwi to define its members, and existing statutes. I agree that these are difficult issues that should be considered at some time in the future. The proposed review of the Adoption Act may be an appropriate time for this.

The committee noted its concern also about the quality of Māori translations in the bill, and suggested greater collaboration between the Māori Language Commission, parliamentary counsel, and the Office of Treaty Settlements. I thank members of the committee for their advice. I recognise the need to achieve translations of the highest quality possible. Officials will address these issues prior to the introduction of the next settlement legislation.

The National and New Zealand First members of the committee expressed a minority view concerning the statement of Ngā Rauru Kītahi values relating to toopuni, in schedule 12. The Māori view is that these statements should not be included. I note and respect that view. However, treaty claim settlement Acts as far back as that of Ngāi Tahu have recorded claimant groups’ values relating to particular sites, including reference to cultural and spiritual beliefs. This is how the toopuni redress instrument works. In carrying out management of the lands over which there is a toopuni, the Minister of Conservation and Department of Conservation staff will have particular regard to the values that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have over the site as recorded in the legislation. The toopuni redress enables the Crown to address the claimants’ longstanding interests in such high-value sites while the land remains owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders and administered by the Department of Conservation.

Settlements often rely on the Crown being willing to acknowledge the particular cultural beliefs of a claimant group. This settlement is no exception. Ngā Rauru Kītahi want their values recorded in this bill. As I have indicated in my discussions with the Māori Affairs Committee previously, at some point in the future it may well be appropriate for Parliament to consider streamlining settlement bills, and to decide what is absolutely necessary to include in them. However, it is my belief that this is not the time to do that. Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown have agreed to what will be included in this bill as part of a considerably drawn out negotiated settlement. It is not appropriate, in my view, to attempt to unpick a settlement that has been entered into in good faith by two parties. Members of this House do not need to agree with the values of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, nor do they need to endorse them; members simply need, as the legislation does, to acknowledge that these values belong to these people. It is the Government’s view that these acknowledgments, having been part of the good-faith negotiations, are an important step towards strengthening the Crown’s continuing relationship with Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

Settlement negotiations between Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown have occurred over a number of years to reach this point. The Crown considers the settlement to be a fair and reasonable settlement. The people of the iwi have ratified it, and the public now have an opportunity to make submissions on it through the select committee process. I encourage all members to support the passage of this bill through the House.

Once again, I am obliged, on behalf of the ACT party—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek some clarification. I did indicate to the ACT party that, because of time constraints, it could take the second call, which is a National slot. My question is: will we be able to take the third call, with my colleague Gerry Brownlee? That is out of the usual speaking order. We are supporting the bill, but the ACT member has to leave, so I did indicate that he could take National’s call if we could take the third call, which is a Government call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Normally in this situation, National would have to take call No. 5, which is the ACT call. The member, of course, has already risen to speak and, under Speaker’s ruling 25/4, once he has been called he has to continue that call. But the member may seek leave.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Well, I seek leave from the Government that the third call be a National call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is no objection.

💬 Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First was not consulted about this change to the sequence of speakers. My understanding is that if the National Party has given its right to ACT, then by the normal sequence New Zealand First should follow ACT.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member could object to the leave. But the reality is that I have a list of the order of speakers, which has been adhered to, and it is a guide. The next speaker, now that Mr Franks has been given the call, will be a Government member. The Government has agreed that it has no objection to this course of action being taken, and it is quite possible that one of those speakers could drop down in the order. But I am really in the hands of the House on this particular issue. The member has sought leave. I will put the question again that the National speaker follow the ACT speaker. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Once again, I have to advise that the ACT party is unable to support this bill, because once again, like other similar bills, it has been presented in a form that has this House participate in the endorsement, or implicit endorsement, of matters that are not appropriate for legislation. In particular, this is another instance of the House recording, in a number of places, reference to the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, instead of to the words of the treaty itself, or instead of recording that in addition to reference to the words of the treaty itself. The ACT party has consistently opposed legislation that contains wording concerning the principles of the treaty. This was an interesting day for this bill to come back from the Māori Affairs Committee, because it is the day that the New Zealand First Party has released its treaty policy. The leader of the New Zealand First Party delivered a very fine speech, and it is a pity that it was not delivered in this House in relation to one of these treaty settlement bills. Many of the warnings that the New Zealand First leader has given, in his great rhetorical style, apply in relation to this bill.

This bill goes through a complicated recital of grievance, in English and in Māori. It refers five times to breaches of the so-called principles of the treaty—those spurious inventions of 1980 and 1990. It has the Crown, on behalf of us all, apologise for things that are just part of the normal human condition. It has the Crown state that its failure to ensure that the iwi concerned retained sufficient land for its present and future needs was a breach of the treaty. The treaty does not guarantee that anyone will retain his or her land; it simply states that Māori will retain it for so long as it is their wish to do so. It guarantees that land will be tradable. Because the treaty states that land is tradable, it was clearly expected that Māori, like any other citizen of New Zealand, would be able to decide when and whether they retained their land.

So we have this Parliament about to push through its next stage a bill that is a negation of the principal assurance of the treaty, as stated in article 2. We have a bill that the select committee and the Minister just now have said they are uncomfortable about. We have a bill that the Minister says he wants to contribute to a strengthening of the Crown’s continuing relationship with the iwi. The treaty did not assume a continuing relationship with iwi. It did not assume a partnership. That is a mythical invention of judges, who were forced to invent something to cope with some political compromises put through by David Lange. A continuing relationship between the Crown and the Ngā Rauru Kītahi people is perfectly appropriate. We all expect the Crown to treat us with courtesy and to want to have a continuing relationship with us. But here we have a Minister who has admitted that this bill is designed to give a privileged relationship to Ngā Rauru Kītahi that other New Zealanders do not have with the Crown, which is the embodiment of us all.

I do not know how many times we will be told that it is not yet time for a select committee to try to change one of these bills. Here at least we have New Zealand First and National saying that some of the things in this bill should not be there. The select committee’s minority report states that the recital of spiritual values, with reference to “the origin of gods man, vegetation, and taonga.”, deals with matters, perhaps, of the belief of some members of the iwi, but that they should not be included in legislation. We agree entirely with the select committee, but what we want to know is why this bill is nevertheless likely to be supported by the members who consider that. When will they stand up for a standard of legislation that does not remove the proud boast we started with: that our Government would be secular and treat all alike, and that our Government would protect any spiritual values, provided they were expressed in a law-abiding way?

The New Zealand First and National view is great, but I will listen with interest to see whether those parties vote on this bill according to where their mouth is. That is particularly significant today, when we have a very eloquent mouth, in the form of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, articulate a view of the treaty that I think most New Zealanders would endorse. But we do not know whether New Zealand First will vote in the same way as that, or whether it will support the kinds of deals that we see in this settlement—deals that are not actually good for the people they are dealing with. They are deals that give mock property rights: rights to be a nuisance, rights to be consulted, rights to be heard by the Environment Court, and rights to require Government officials to come and solemnly pretend to pay attention, but then ignore the iwi. They are only rights that put this iwi in the position of many other iwi, whereby all that it looks like to its neighbours is a nuisance, because the iwi does not get real property rights. It is not getting the ability to use, to exploit, to change, and to sell land.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Is that the same for Ngāi Tahu?

It is the same for Ngāi Tahu, too. The pattern that has been created here, and which only ACT has had the political courage to question and to vote against in this House, is a pattern that should have long since been abandoned by the Government and by this Parliament. It is a pattern that actually perpetuates the grounds for future grievance. A future generation of young Māori will look at this settlement and say they were just given the shadow of a settlement, and were palmed off with a new generation’s baubles and beads. They will say they were given a fulsome apology and then rights that, on their face in the fine letters of the legislation, were intended to mean nothing: requirements that Government bodies take account of Ngā Rauru Kītahi views, but then, a few pages later, very blunt statements to the effect that “taking account” does not mean anything has to change. In fact, the bill goes further than that. It states that those bodies can act, or should act, as though the submissions have no weight, and as though the submissions are not required by statute.

Why would anyone in this House keep on voting for that kind of fraudulent settlement? It will not seem to be so at the moment, because people understand the context of it. Oh yes, they will rue this. This bill is necessary to maintain face. This bill is about the Crown showing its regret, and that is all those people want. They want to be acknowledged. They want it to be recognised that wrong was done to them—and I have no doubt that wrong was done. But wrong went both ways in so many of those areas. The next generation, when it finds an apology that is all one-sided, will look at it and ask why, if everything was so bad, the settlement was so insubstantial. Nothing in this bill tells us we will not have exactly the experience that occurred after the last set of Taranaki settlements. The Sim Commission went there, and in good faith tried to settle this issue. The Sim Commission’s recommendations were, in fact, beefed up by the Labour Government in those days—by Peter Fraser and his Ministers—which thought that the Government should be more generous. Two generations later, we find Taranaki has come back again and has said the compensation was not enough—that it did not work. The next time round, by looking at legislation like this, the people who come to the Government will have a far more substantial ground for doing so, because on the face of it this settlement looks ridiculous. ACT will vote against it.

That was an interesting speech from Stephen Franks. While critical of this bill, it did not give any indication of what ACT, in the event of it having responsibility for settling these matters, might do. That is rather disappointing. There can be no doubt that when these settlements are achieved, those who are settled are able to get hold of their assets, are able themselves to determine what their new structures will be for ownership in the context that is European but also Māori, and how they will work those assets for the benefit not only of the settling iwi but also the wider economy of New Zealand. So the National Party does support the settlement process.

People get upset about the “grievance industry”, as they call it—and we do ourselves—but when it comes to the settlement process, it is fascinating to note that the fiscal cap, the billion dollars set aside in 1990, still remains. While it is the source of much angst for people, is it not rather surprising that we had the news yesterday that the Kyoto Protocol is likely to cost us about the same amount of money in a very short period of time. It would seem that people do not get just as anxious over that, although I suspect that 4 weeks of National and other parties on the road would quickly manage to sort that out. Our position is that while we have concerns about the mandating process for this settlement, and for others, it should be supported.

If I might make a few comments about the mandating process. This bill, unlike any other settlement that has gone before it, states that this Parliament, and those who have signed the deed of settlement, agree that it is full and final. The difficulty for National is that too few of the iwi themselves are participating in the votes to establish either the governance entity or accept the settlement process. It is no good for the Office of Treaty Settlements to say that 92 percent of those who participated voted for it, when well short of 50 percent of those eligible participated in the vote, anyway.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: No, 67 percent are eligible.

I am prepared to accept what the Minister is yelling across the House—that about two-thirds of the iwi supported this. But I do not think that that is enough.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It’s enough in this House.

He says that it is enough in this House! Well, we know how often the House overturns pieces of legislation. It happens day after day. The Minister should not get so hot under the collar, because I do not think it is unreasonable, given that the Government is denying people an opportunity to ever raise an issue again, that those who have the opportunity denied, overwhelmingly give a mandate to that. That is not unreasonable. However, in Parliament today we are settling this bill.

In the select committee process the National Party and the New Zealand First Party raised issues about the definition of Ngā Rauru Kītahi—in particular, about whāngai, or adoptees into those families. We have been told it is inappropriate to do what the iwi would want, because of the Adoption Act 1955. We think that is utter rubbish. We say that people are either part of that iwi by blood line or they are not. One of the things that is most fascinating is another concern raised by us—and I will come back to the adoption issue in a minute—concerning in schedule 12 the use of very, very ethereal concepts, and then those concepts being placed in law. I quote: “Rauru of the gods, sky, lands, and seas—Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard, down through the generations of the Kaahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect, Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and, therefore, so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi.”

I hope someone on the Labour side will stand up and explain what that means. What I am surprised at is that the Government is prepared to put this into law. Although many of us may have different religious beliefs—varying beliefs about the origin of man—for this iwi the law now states that this is it. I wonder why it has to be in the bill. If the law was not there, it would not stop that belief from being freely held. No law could take away from this group its identity. So why in settlement bills do we need references to what are essentially ethereal concepts? I do not think it adds much; I think it actually makes us look rather silly.

The statement continues: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi makes a direct acclamation by stating its origins from the period of the Absolute Void to Rangi and Papa, to Rauru the man, and Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi the tribe. This claim draws together the spiritual and temporal manifestations of which Rauru is the central figure, it deals specifically with the origins of: the gods, man, vegetation, and taonga.”

How does that add to the purpose of this bill? How does that claim sit with the requirement that someone can be adopted into that genealogy? I do not think it does. That is an aspect of this bill that I find particularly worrying. It means effectively that if, say, Ngāi Tahu wished to expand their numbers, they could simply go out and begin some sort of very heavy adoption programme. It does not even have to be in the legal sense, which is interesting, just in the Māori sense, the whāngai arrangements. I do not see how that actually sits with the concept of settling a grievance held by a people—a continuous line of people—post-1840.

💬 Darren Hughes: It’s hard to fill in 10 minutes, isn’t it?

I am just taking a drink of water. I have a slightly croaky voice. We just heard from the outgoing member for Otaki, Mr Darren Hughes, a man so transparent that if it were not for his varicose veins, we could see right through him.

I conclude my remarks by saying that National will support the bill, but we do hope that in future, when settlements are brought to this Parliament, they do not contain the specifics around ethereal concepts such as found in schedule 12. These should not be part of a settlement arrangement. They add nothing to the bill. They probably make a lot of Labour members feel good, but they add nothing to this.

We wish all of those who are being settled today with this bill all the best for the future. We do hope this passing of legislation allows them to take hold of the assets that are theirs, get over the grievance, and build a better future not only for themselves but also for the wider country.

I listened with great attentiveness to the previous speaker.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: He always does.

I always do, but I do not acknowledge him as a historian or an anthropologist. He showed his remarkable lack of in-depth, expert, traditional knowledge, when he alluded to the fact that he did not think the cosmology, the beliefs, the atua, and those referred to by Ngāi Tahu, have everything to do with their identity. The honourable member could not see the relationship of the cosmos and the tribe as being in any way of assistance towards their identity. I beg to differ. Every tribe that presents their claim in the House has the opportunity to express it in a way that is absolutely relevant not only to their identity but also to their connection to those who have gone before. They have a right also to articulate their relationship with the heavens. There is nothing that diminishes that value. The previous speaker referred to the Ngāi Tahu settlement; we in that settlement also made reference to people and places that have a historical connection between those who are in the spiritual dimension and those who are in the living dimension. So from that point of view I totally and completely support Ngā Rauru Kītahi in their articulation of who they are.

I agree with the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in terms of one of the comments he made. He brought to light that there is an anomaly between treaty settlements and the Adoption Act. It is something that is causing some considerable difficulty in the passage of claims, and will do so until that anomaly in the Act can be addressed. Here is the anomaly. For any tribal group to trace their whakapapa to an eponymous ancestor, it has to be proven through blood lines. That then identifies the group with the eponymous ancestor. It then allows the process of mandate to proceed. It is exclusive, not inclusive. It is an exclusive process, limited to those who have the whakapapa blood line. Then we have the Adoption Act. The anomaly for me is that any individuals can determine whom they wish to leave their estate to, and, whether the beneficiaries are taurima or related by blood, it cannot be contested. On the one hand we are asking people to identify their blood relationships with whakapapa, but also we are asking them to accept someone who may not be of a blood affinity as part of that group. That is where the anomaly is.

The issue for Māori, in my view—not only Ngā Rauru Kītahi but other groups who are in the process of their claims—is that Māori, like a lot of other people, are global. They are global citizens of this world. Therefore, it is highly likely that they will form a union with someone who is not of Māori ancestry at all. Their partners may be Australian, or Chinese, or Taiwanese; they may be from any other grouping that inhabits this world. The defining principle has to be whakapapa. That makes it very, very clear who is eligible and who is not. I, if I were not of Ngā Rauru Kītahi whakapapa, or any other Māori here who was not Ngā Rauru Kītahi, would not be able to be accepted within that group—even though we are Māori. Yet under the present situation people who may not be Māori are eligible. I look forward to a resolution of what I consider to be a difficult situation that needs clarification.

Ā, tēnā koutou ngā tāngata mai i Ngā Rauru Kītahi i haere mai nei ki te aroaro ki te kawe te taonga a ō koutou nei tīpuna, ō koutou nei pāheke, ō koutou nei tauheke ki roto i tēnei Whare i raro i te tāruru ō tātau nei. Koutou e mahia ngā mahi i runga i te ara mutunga kore. Mai i te wā e haere mai ngā manene nei ki te raupatungia i ngā whenua katoa mai i te raki o Taranaki tae noa atu ki te tonga, i a rātau rā e rapua te whenua, e takahia mai hoki ngā mana a koro, a kui mā. Nā, kua tae ki tēnei wā, tata atu i te mutunga o te take. Arā, ki a au nei, ehara tēnei e oti pai ai engari, kua tīmata kē ai. Kei a koutou kē te ara tika mō tātau nei mō ngā rā e hekeheke mai nei. E ngā karanga rua, ka tū tautoko mai a tēnei tangata mai i Te Rōpū Reipa, i te taha o te Minita nei, ki te tautoko mai i te pire nei, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke i mua i te aroaro o tātou katoa. Nā, ko te wakapono me te tūmanako, ahakoa te tangitangi haere o ngā roimata a koro, a kui mā, ahakoa te waewae mai o te whatumanawa, ahakoa te popōuri mai i runga i te pokohiwi ō tātau, nā, ko te tohu mai ahau ki a koutou, kia kaha, kia māia. Rire, rire hau pai mārire ki a tātau koutou. Nō reira e te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ka oti ai tēnei tū. Kia ora mai.

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

[And greetings to you the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have come here before us to bring the treasured possession of your ancestors and old people into this House and under our ridgepole. You are the ones who have done the work on this path of no ending. From the time when these foreigners came to confiscate all the lands in Taranaki from the north right down to the very south, they violated the influence of the old people as they sought the land. Now, we are at this point and close to the finish of the matter. Indeed to me, this is not the ending but merely the beginning. The right way forward for us into the future is entirely in your hands. To you my other half, and regardless of the highs and lows before us, I of the Labour Party stand alongside this Minister in support of the bill. Now, the belief and hope is that regardless of the tears that continue to be shed by the old people, regardless of being cut up emotionally, regardless of the gloom upon our shoulders, my advice to you is to be strong and bold. Peace, goodwill, and good health to us all. And so greetings to the House, greetings. I end here with thanks.]

Ā, tēnā anō koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā anō tātau o te Whare nei. Ā, tēnā hoki ngā kaikawe o te kaupapa nei mai i Ngā Rauru Kītahi i tau mai i roto i te Whare nei. Koutou o te hau kāinga e noho tonu i raro i ngā maunga whakahī, ā, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you once again Mr Speaker. Greetings to us of this House as well. Greetings also to the negotiators of this policy from Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have arrived here in this House. To those of you of the home winds living below the lofty mountains, greetings, greetings and greetings to you all.]

I acknowledge yourself, I acknowledge members of this House, and I also acknowledge those who have come from the claimant group who are here today and who have carried this matter on behalf of the tribe. I also acknowledge those of the tribe who have not been able to come to Parliament this afternoon but who remain at home, under the shadow of their mountain, and who are listening to the debate.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First—and, I reiterate, the only non-aligned party in this Parliament. Let me say at the outset that New Zealand First supports the intention of this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Let me say at the outset that New Zealand First supports the intention of this bill, which is the culmination of a long and arduous process initiated by the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi towards a satisfactory claims settlement. The process has its genesis in longstanding claims against the Crown expressed through petitions and protests, which led to the establishment in the 19th and 20th centuries of commissions of inquiry into land confiscated in Taranaki, including those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Such reasons for these original petitions were the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed; the confiscation of land; the impact on the welfare, economy, and development of Ngā Rauru Kītahi as a result of these confiscations; the delay in setting aside reserves; and the events relating to the implementation of the confiscation, which finally led to the invasion of Parihaka in 1881. The bill is clear that this ratification will see full and final settlement of this claim. So one can say that the journey that has seen this bill come into this House actually began way back then.

The history of this iwi in Taranaki is steeped in blood and injustice, and it is right that a formal apology and compensation be given by the Crown for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. I commend the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi for their support for the ratification of this settlement agreement and also for their support of the management structure put in place to receive and manage the settlement assets. That bodes well for the future of the iwi and it displays a sense of unity and concord. The iwi, one of eight in the Taranaki region, is solid and secure, and I congratulate it on reaching this important milestone in its development. The leadership, commitment, and courage of kaumātua and negotiators to reach this stage of accepting an apology and redress from the Crown for past injustices will allow the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to move on, acknowledging that their history of loss and betrayal can never truly be compensated for but also recognising that in order to move forward and to progress, the shackles of past injustices must be recognised and removed.

New Zealand First is therefore supportive of the settlement of this claim, but I must say we have a few reservations, which I wish to express. As recorded in our minority report on the bill, we do not support the inclusion in schedule 12 of the statement of values relating to the Toopuni site. The site to which this schedule applies is known as the Lake Beds Conservation Area. The statement of values recorded in the schedule describes the divine origins of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Although we in no way question the beliefs and values of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, we do not support their inclusion in legislation. This settlement is not about cultural beliefs, and we cannot see any valid reasons for their inclusion in this settlement legislation. The notions of sacredness and spirituality represented in schedule 12 have no place in the legislation of 21st century New Zealand. We believe that to include them is quite wrong. The indefinable, and essentially contestable, concept of divinity should not be put on the statute book as if it were some kind of legal status.

New Zealand First believes that the traditional beliefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi are those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi alone, as a consequence of their tino rangatiratanga or, as they would have us accept, their Ngā Rauru Kītahitanga. This is not a matter for the tino rangatiratanga of the Crown to have these beliefs included in this bill. I would suggest that this ought to be a signal to claimants of the future that when talking of their tino rangatiratanga, that it is theirs alone and does not need to have the stamp of approval of this House. It is interesting to note that the Crown was willing to accept the inclusion because Ngā Rauru Kītahi wanted it, but was not willing to accept the tribe’s other request to give beneficiary status only to those born into the tribe.

New Zealand First notes the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the bill, although it is pleasing to see that the presence of these references in this bill is somewhat limited compared with other legislation. During the select committee process the representatives of the claimant group were asked what they understood the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to be. Can I say I was not surprised at their response. They did not know what it meant in this context and in fact I believe they did not know why it was included. That highlights the long-term view of New Zealand First that, without clear definition in legislation, there will continue to be a lack of understanding of their inclusion. New Zealand First accepts that the inclusion in this bill does not affect future or operational matters that arise from this bill but still questions the need to include in any legislation terms that lack definition.

These so-called principles have, as previously mentioned, been of some concern to New Zealand First, and, notwithstanding the lack of impact it will have in concluding the settlement, we would be happy to have references to them removed from the bill if other parties in this House would support their removal. I am conscious that during the debate on the last settlement bill that came before this House, both National and ACT declined to support an amendment put forward by New Zealand First to have that happen.

I acknowledge the decision of the Māori Affairs Committee to present its report in both English and Māori, and, more important, in the dialect of the claimant group. That in itself recognises the tino rangatiratanga as referred to by Ngā Rauru Kītahi. We are about to conclude this matter, as we move to the Committee stage, and I believe that it is testament to the ongoing commitment and fortitude displayed by representatives of this claimant group to persevere and allow the progress of the bill to come before this House. I state on behalf of New Zealand First that we will support the bill.

He mihi nui ki a koutou Ngā Rauru Kītahi. In my speech on the first reading of this bill, I described the Waitangi Tribunal’s interim Taranaki report, which upheld two platforms of the iwi’s claim: land deprivation and disempowerment. At that time I said that by the term “disempowerment” the tribunal referred to the denigration and destruction of Māori autonomy or self-government. This bill may restore a modicum of the economic and land resources that were wrongfully taken from Ngā Rauru—a restoration that is absolutely critical. But I do not believe for one second that the Crown has made restitution for the disempowerment and the denigration of Ngā Rauru, or for the destruction of their autonomy.

During the select committee process, the Māori Affairs Committee heard from a number of submitters, including members of Ngā Ariki hapū of Waipapa Marae. Their issues are discussed in the select committee report. They came to the committee to ask for help to have their claim, Wai 772, taken out of the bill, because they did not want to be part of the negotiations. They officially withdrew their mandate from the Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority. They informed the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements. They have been trying to organise themselves to negotiate directly, and they want the lawful opportunity to proceed with their tribunal claim and have it dealt with by the tribunal. That claim is theirs and theirs alone. Yet they have been told that Government policy is such that they will not be dealt with. Government policy is to assert the responsibility for their Wai claim and to unilaterally negotiate and settle it without a mandate from that hapū.

When Ngā Ariki said that they were a separate identity and wanted to pursue their claim themselves, the Government’s response was that it considers Ngā Ariki to be an integral part of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, as they have a shared whakapapa, and that the claims of Ngā Ariki are not distinct in nature from those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The Government has taken this hapū’s claim from them and prevented it from being pursued through a judicial tribunal—as a matter not of law but of Government policy. The Government has decided the whakapapa of this hapū and its place in its genealogy.

I asked the Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority, which has pursued this settlement and fought hard to achieve it, what its response was to the refusal of the Office of Treaty Settlements to drop Wai 772 from the negotiations, and whether it had any power to refuse to include Wai 772 in its claim. The Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority said that it did not; it was a fait accompli. It had no choice, because Government policy says that the Office of Treaty Settlements decides who is negotiated with and what matters are settled. The denigration and destruction of Māori autonomy has absolutely occurred over and over again. In the struggle for iwi and hapū to have returned to them a tiny percentage of the wealth and resources stolen from them in the past, they are forced to suffer the same deprivation and disempowerment that led to the claims in the first place.

Nowhere else in our current legal system can the Government take a private person’s application to the court, negotiate that application with people other than the applicant, settle that case with people other than the applicant, hand over reparation to people other than the applicant, and expect gratitude for having done it all. No Pākehā person or organisation would stand for that usurpation of the justice process. That happens to no one except, of course, Māori. There would be a riot if this Government began unilaterally to negotiate and settle cases before the courts without the consent of the parties, but it is OK when we are dealing with Māori hapū and iwi. There is no outrage and there are no riots, because structural racism against Māori in this country is so embedded in policy and political actions that it has become almost invisible.

The Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority has done the best job it can to conclude this settlement, given the constraints within which it has had to operate. The Greens are very supportive of a number of parts of this settlement, particularly the paepae rangatira, which can operate as a forum for leaders to deal with treaty matters so long as the Government engages in that process, makes an active commitment to ensure that the process is effective, and is prepared to explore similar forums with other hapū. This is a time when our constitutional make-up is under examination by this Parliament and by the people of this country, and when the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to be discussed in our communities. We eagerly welcome the establishment of the Ngā Rauru - Government paepae rangatira as one means by which that can occur.

I mention briefly today’s launch of New Zealand First’s policy on treaty settlements. The policy sets a 10-year limit on treaty settlements and removes the capacity to use legal aid. It is, in effect, a land-grab, because without legal aid support, and without changes to the fundamental injustice of the direct negotiations process, there simply will be no settlements. That will mean that the thousands of acres of Māori land stolen by Governments over the last 150 years will remain in the hands of the Government. It will mean that no hapū or iwi will receive even the meagre 1 percent of restitution that they can at least get now. New Zealand First, which helped to confiscate the takutai moana from iwi Māori, is now seeking to keep the confiscated land of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Where does that leave all of those who, like Ngā Rauru, have struggled for years and years with their Waitangi claims and with the direct negotiations process? It leaves them bereft of anything. New Zealand First and its Māori MPs should be ashamed. New Zealanders must accept that Māori, in accepting those settlements, are making an extraordinarily generous contribution to our country as a whole. Ngā Rauru Kītahi has agreed, as part of its settlement, to forgo full redress for all the loss and prejudice it has suffered and to take the settlement—described as “fair in the circumstances”—rather than its actual rightful entitlement. The Green Party acknowledges and respects that gift from Ngā Rauru, and commits to the pursuit of a just process of redress for historical wrongs that is based on the needs and tikanga of hapū and not of the State confiscators.

United Future will support the second reading of this bill, but we share the concerns of other parties in regard to parts of the bill—in particular to schedule 12, the statement of belief, about which I will address most of my comments. Before doing that, however, I want to begin on a positive note and again congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi on achieving this milestone after what has been a lengthy settlement process, and on getting to a point whereby they have settled grievances with the Crown that extended back for such a long time and that are well documented in the deed of settlement. I will probably say more about that at the third reading debate, assuming we get there.

The concern I have, however, is over the acknowledgment in regard to cultural redress. Really, the problem is with the wording that has been put into the bill. The way it is phrased is not just to represent and acknowledge the fact that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have certain spiritual values but actually to constitute an acknowledgment by the Crown of those spiritual values, in a way that I believe constitutes an acceptance by this House of the legitimacy of those values. The concern that United Future has is not whether those values are legitimate—that is not the point—but whether this House should be acknowledging any spiritual values and endorsing a spiritual viewpoint in any legislation when we have a secular Government and live in a broad society.

The views we are talking about are expressed in schedule 12, and I will read the first paragraph of those views just to give an idea as to the sorts of values that Ngā Rauru Kītahi adopt for themselves. Again, I do not make any judgment on them: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard, down through the generations of the Kaahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect, Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and, therefore, so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi.” That final statement made by Ngā Rauru Kītahi effectively states that they believe that both their ancestor and themselves are demi-gods—half man and half god.

Now, I have gone back and looked at the settlement agreement, and I do not think that the bill reflects the agreement. The problem is with clause 88 of the bill, which states: “The Crown acknowledges Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values …”. For the bill to state that the Crown acknowledges Ngā Rauru Kītahi values is, in my reading, to say that the Crown acknowledges that Ngā Rauru Kītahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods, so Rauru is the progeny of both divine and human parentage, and, therefore, so are Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

That gets us into huge sorts of problems when we look at subsequent clauses and see the way that that acknowledgment is implemented. Clause 89, for example, states: “The governance entity and the Crown may agree on and publicise protection principles that are directed at the Minister of Conservation—(a) avoiding harm to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni; or (b) avoiding the diminishing of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni.” What does that mean in terms of what the Minister of Conservation must do to avoid doing harm to those values, and to avoid their diminishment?

Clause 93 states: “(1) On notification by the Minister of Conservation in the Gazette of the protection principles agreed under section 89”—as it will become—“the Director-General must take action in relation to those principles. (2) The Director-General retains a complete discretion to determine the method and extent of the action to be taken. (3) The Director-General must notify the governance entity of what action the Director-General intends to take under subsections (1) and (2).” So there is a very affirmative obligation for the Crown, having accepted the truth of those obligations and values, to uphold them and avoid their diminishment.

The briefing document that I received from the Minister in regard to this provision did not state that that is what it is doing, at all. It stated that the redress included an acknowledgment by the Crown of the importance of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and their practices and values, and the importance of revitalising those practices and values. If that is what the bill stated, I would not be quite so worried. I am quite happy to acknowledge that certain values are important to certain people, but it is a different matter to in fact endorse those values.

Then I looked at the deed of settlement. Clause 2.9 states: “Ngaa Raurutanga is the term used by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to describe those values, rights and responsibilities Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi holds according to custom, including the values, rights and responsibilities recognised by Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” That is fine. I have no problem with that.

Clause 2.10 states: The Crown acknowledges the statement by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi that: (a) Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi has: (i) exercised Ngaa Raurutanga in respect of, and has occupied, the traditional rohe … and (ii) held tight to the values that constitute Ngā Raurutanga;”. I have no problem with that acknowledgment.

Clause 2.11 states: “The Crown further acknowledges that, in its dealings with the Crown, Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi: … is guided by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values; and … seeks outcomes that enable Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to practise Ngaa Raurutanga.” I have no problem with that acknowledgment, either.

Clause 2.12 states: “Accordingly, in order to enhance the ongoing relationship between Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi and the Crown … this Deed of Settlement includes Redress that assists the Crown to recognise and respect Ngaa Raurutanga and the desire of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to practise Ngaa Raurutanga.” That is fine. I have no problem with the Crown recognising and respecting their values.

Clause 2.13 states: “The Crown acknowledges: … the importance to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi of revitalising Ngaa Raurutanga; and … that Ngā Rauru Kiitahi intends that the Redress will assist that revitalisation.” I think it is quite appropriate that Ngā Rauru Kītahi will in fact use the proceeds of settlement in order to revitalise their own personal beliefs.

Then, when we look at paragraph (g) in Part 6, “Summary of Redress”, we see that it speaks of “The Crown acknowledging Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni;”. That is where we start getting close to what the bill states, which is that the Crown acknowledges their values. But the definition of values in the settlement agreement defines values in quite a wide sense, and clause 2.9 refers to those values only in terms of their customs, traditions, and spiritual beliefs. it does not get into the sort of detail we now have.

However, when we go over and look further at the actual deed of recognition contained in the deed of settlement itself—which is really from where the clause has been taken—we see that that clause actually reads very differently from what has been put in the bill. Clause 1.1, which talks in Part 5 about deeds of recognition, under the heading “The Crown’s acknowledgment of statements of association with statutory areas”, states: “The Crown acknowledges the statements by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi set out in this clause of its cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association.” That is the relevant clause. I have no problem with the Crown acknowledging statements by Ngā Rauru Kītahi of its beliefs in terms of its cultural, spiritual, and historical traditions, but that is a step removed from what we have in the legislation, which is the Crown’s acknowledgment of those values. As I have indicated, that acknowledgment appears to me to be an acceptance of those values.

💬 Stephen Franks: But are you going to vote for it?

Seeing Mr Franks has asked, I tell him that I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the provisions of clause 12. [Interruption] Mr Franks will have to wait and see, but an amendment to clause 12 by a Supplementary Order Paper—which in fact would delete the first part of the statement, the sort of part I read out—would continue with a statement from schedule 12 that I believe would be appropriate, the statement starting in the fourth paragraph that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has “a spiritual and physical relationship through whakapapa to its Taonga.”

I have no problem with the Crown acknowledging that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have a spiritual and physical relationship espoused within their mana atua, mana whenua, and mana tangata. That is fine. I am quite happy for the Crown to acknowledge that they have such a relationship. But when it comes to doctrinal statements that state certain beliefs, I think we have gone too far. I would say exactly the same if the Apostles’ Creed, which I adhere to, had been there in the legislation. If there had been a statement saying that the Crown acknowledged things in the Apostles’ Creed, I would have said the same thing, because I think that it is inappropriate for this Parliament to be endorsing particular spiritual beliefs.

I rise to make a small contribution to the second reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill in respect of the work of the Māori Affairs Committee on it. I want to thank officials and also the clerks of the committee, who helped to pull together much of the consideration of the committee on this bill. I want to pick up on some of the points that have been raised earlier in the House—firstly, with regard to the issue of schedule 12; secondly, with regard to translations of settlement bills that come before the select committee; and, thirdly, in relation to adoption issues.

To address the last issue first, in my time on the Māori Affairs Committee, which has not been very long, we have dealt with the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. Each of those times, the committee raised concerns around the way in which iwi members who benefit from the treaty settlement are expressed within the context of their treaty settlement. Each time, we have heard concerns from various claimant groups that they are not happy with the way in which they have to extend out the net, as it creates some confusion and internal issues around the relationship of adoptees, and also of whāngai.

In saying that, the committee to some extent agrees that that is a matter that should be considered within the wider context of the review of the Adoption Act. However, I certainly want to express in this second reading tonight that it is of considerable concern if Office of Treaty Settlements officials are guiding claimant groups along a particular path, and are not outlining the range of options they have to be able to express how the Adoption Act applies in legislation. That is the one point I would make in terms of achieving better progress on this particular matter. It is right that claimant groups should have the full array of information in deciding how to express weighting in terms of who benefits from a treaty settlement. So it should be.

The second issue was in regard to translations within a settlement bill. This is particularly within the context of the role that Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori plays. When a bill arrives on the committee table, the committee should not have to go through it to check macrons, grammatical issues, and things like that. However, the difficulty we have is that that is the standard process for settlement bills, and there needs to be further consideration, I believe, within the Office of Treaty Settlements and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori as to how they work out that relationship, so as to better present claims settlement bills before this House. It is simply not good enough that the select committee has to conduct the mundane task of checking particular grammatical nuances of te reo Māori within the written form. I raise this for the attention of the House because if we want to ensure that we uphold the status of te reo Māori—and it is an official language of this country—we need to pay better attention to the way in which we present bills to the House, and to the select committee for consideration and report back, so that the integrity of te reo Māori is upheld in its true intent.

I support comments made prior to me that it is good to be able to express te reo in the dialect of the claimant groups. I think that is important, and serves only to show that our language is fully flourishing out there amongst iwi, amongst our communities.

The third and last issue is in relation to schedule 12 and issues brought to the House around statutory acknowledgments. We had this particular concern on another settlement—the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—and the particular concern is when belief systems lack a connection to a current-day context, and I will give some examples. The first lot of statutory acknowledgments was in the Ngāi Tahu settlement, and then, as other claims went through, claimants started to look at their own statutory acknowledgments. Where the House could consider models, I guess, of statutory acknowledgment is where there is a clear relationship between the epistemology of Māori and belief systems, and our traditions and histories—where there is a clear pattern to follow as to how the belief systems relate to actual history on the land. That is something that exists amongst all our communities, and that is why we have the stories that we do on the land. That is why we have names for areas, and things like that.

I would not presume, however, to tell any iwi going through this process to have, or not to have, a statutory acknowledgment. I think it is a very valid way to look at having a redress mechanism of sorts, and also to express some cultural redress as a result of the statutory acknowledgment. But I do want to say that, again, in all the settlements that have preceded this particular one there have been better ways in which to work it through. I would have some concern if we were seeking the agreement of the House to blanket reference to mythological stories without the context clearly relating them to the histories of the people they belong to. Again, that was the concern we raised in relation to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty.

To some extent, the legislation upholds the deed, so claimants could have the compromise that was recognised in a previous settlement, and that is to have the detail of the statutory acknowledgment in the deed, with the legislation providing a reference to the deed. That is a way, but, again, I would not presume to impose it on a claimant group if those people believe that they want it expressed in legislation. I just acknowledge that that is a mechanism.

That is about all I want to say on the bill, in making this brief contribution. I look forward to the third reading, and I certainly support the report on the bill that has come back from the Māori Affairs Committee to this House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

National supports the second reading of this bill. As with other settlement bills, its format is in keeping with what has gone before. Basically, there is financial redress to the total value of $31 million, a right of first refusal in favour of the Ngā Rauru Kītahi governance entity over certain Crown-owned properties for a specified time, and provision for a governance entity with the Crown, in which the iwi can enter into an accord—I guess for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to feel that they have some say over Government policy. I suppose I can agree with one thing the Green member said. She basically ridiculed it, but I suppose that while in essence it is a nice, feel-good, touchy-touchy thing, there is really no power to it. However, I want to congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi and give them credit for seriously considering their options and, in the end, for concluding that this is the best settlement they can get. They have shown leadership in accepting it and in concluding a settlement with the Crown—good on Ngā Rauru Kītahi! It does take courage, I think, to take steps finally to put the grievance behind one, and to look for ways to move on.

In terms of the Māori Affairs Committee’s deliberations and consideration, I can report that there were no problems, really, on the basic format of the settlement, particularly since Ngā Rauru Kītahi has concluded their settlement with the Crown. So it is their settlement; it is not ours. That is what is most important. However, as my colleague Gerry Brownlee indicated, there are three areas where National has concerns. They will probably turn out to be ongoing concerns, because this Government does not have a great record of settling claims. I am still waiting, because I would have liked to see a settlement bill come to this House for a settlement the Government had actually started and completed itself, but I do not think I will see it, because this Government will be going out of power.

Moving on, I say there are three areas Gerry Brownlee referred to, and on which I want to make some comment—mostly because the Minister had some comments to make and I want to comment on some of the things he said.

Firstly, there is the matter of the mandate. It is not as if National wants to ridicule, at all, those numbers of the iwi who first of all ratified the provision for the governance entity, and then, of course, accepted the settlement. It is that we, like every party in this House that supports these claims, want to be sure that there is no basis for an iwi to come back in the future on the same kaupapa, on the basis that they did not all agree in the past. So that is the underlying reason why National continues to raise the issue of mandate. Hopefully, if we continue to raise it, it will keep the Office of Treaty Settlements on its toes, and make it strive harder with each settlement to make sure we increase the buy-in of the iwi that is participating in the particular settlement.

In relation to the issue of whāngai and adopted children, again I think my colleague Gerry Brownlee in raising this issue also raises a good point. The fact of the matter is that on the one hand we are acknowledging, supposedly, the mana of Ngā Rauru Kītahi by acknowledging the harm, the hurt, and the injustice that has been done to them. Therefore, we want to make reparation for that and to provide a base in order for them to move on. But on the other hand, legislation is also in place that takes away their right, their responsibility, and their mandate to define who should benefit from this settlement. So the issue of whāngai and adopted children, so far as the Adoption Act of 1955 and also the Human Rights Act are concerned, is a real issue. According to tikanga Māori, one’s right to inherit is based on bloodlines, and where adopted children are being considered, then clearly bloodlines are not in the picture. So that will be an ongoing issue for tribes as they settle their claims.

Of course, the situation can be reached, I guess, where a Māori family may have adopted a person from another country and culture altogether. That is fine; nobody would wish to stop that, and it is happening. But if one’s tribal tikanga says that the way one inherits is because one is descended through whakapapa and blood, then someone who has become part of a family through legal adoption clearly does not fit into that category. Again, that is an issue.

Even Mahara Okeroa in his wisdom said he sees the anomaly in that—the situation when a person who is outside the bloodlines of the iwi we are talking about can be included. In fact, he described that as a difficult situation. I have to agree with him, and unless the Government can address its mind to it—and we in the National Government in a few months’ time certainly will address our minds to it—in the end, it is not a viable situation where on the one hand, as I say, we are trying to recognise the mana of the tribe, and on the other hand we are telling them who should be included in their tribe. It just will not jell, I do not think.

The third area concerns the area in which National joined with New Zealand First to include a minority view in the report back. It will not be fatal in terms of our support of the bill, but it is something, we think, that if the Government does not give serious thought to, then certainly National in Government will do so—that is, where this Parliament legislates for the cosmology, the spiritual beliefs—[Interruption] My colleague Wayne Mapp can describe it as he sees fit. I certainly think that it is entirely unnecessary.

The unnecessary nature of it was shown up when, largely due to the input of National in the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—now an Act—a statutory acknowledgment was taken out of the statute because, quite frankly, the association of an iwi is recognised quite adequately in the deed of settlement.

Just because Parliament says: “This is your cosmology.”, that does not make it any more lawful or any more legal. There are some tribes that would say: “Whether Parliament recognises it or not, this is my cosmological inheritance, these are my spiritual beliefs, I don’t need Parliament to recognise that.”

The issue is, I acknowledge—as referred to by the Minister—that it was done in the Ngāi Tahu settlement. That may be so, but as we move on through this process, we learn more, and we think maybe we could have done that differently. I think that is the way we deal with difficult issues, and it is likely that when National is in Government it will look at this issue. If it can be properly recognised in the deed of settlement, then we ask why on earth would we need to then put it into law. Iwi should be asking themselves why they need Parliament to recognise those things that are part of them.

I want to take a brief call and acknowledge the presence in the House this evening of representatives of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and congratulate them on such a tremendous effort in bringing this historical aspect of their lives to an end. I encourage them to go forward from this day and make their people prosper.

This bill is all about Ngā Rauru Kītahi coming out of the age of grievance and into the age of development. From what I hear on the marae around the Taranaki and Wanganui areas, Ngā Rauru Kītahi certainly has the intelligence within its organisation to achieve exactly that. But in listening to previous speakers one would think it was a dark day for Ngā Rauru Kītahi—not a joyous day at all. Although the members have said that they will support this settlement bill, at the same time they have many criticisms of it. I wonder whether there is not some sort of double standard going on here in the House. I just remind the House that this is a bill put together and negotiated by the representatives of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown. Overall, it has the unanimous support—or as unanimous as possible—of the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

When the Māori Affairs Committee met in Wanganui to hear submissions, as usual we expected to receive some submissions that were opposed to this settlement package. That was one of the very rare occasions that I can recall where that did not happen. In fact, when what we thought was the opposing group came to the select committee, it not only supported the settlement of the Ngā Rauru Kītahi claim but also congratulated it on the process that had been undertaken and the level of consultation it had with other iwi in the district. So this is one of those very few bills that can stand up to considerable scrutiny. [Interruption]

I can hear the Green member chattering away in her seat across the House, but she should have mentioned those issues when we were in Wanganui, and the people were sitting in front of her, and not come back to this place in Wellington with double standards and start to attack the very process that Ngā Rauru Kītahi had entered into with total support. One wonders what goes on in some people’s minds when they say something in the electorate and something completely different in this House. From time to time, one gets sick of listening to them.

But as I said, well done, Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Go forth and prosper.

I just want to make a few comments about the bill and the claim by Ngā Rauru Kītahi, and the history of the Taranaki.

I note from the texts of the acknowledgments in English—and I do have to refer to the English version, I must say—that they deal essentially with the history, derived from the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. One has to ask oneself to what extent we are indulging in some form of rewriting of history. For instance in clause 8(4): “The Crown acknowledges that: (a) it acted unfairly in labelling some Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi as rebels,”. Does that mean there were others who were justly labelled as rebels? It notes that there were “detrimental consequences for the whole iwi whose land was confiscated as a result;”. Does that mean that some confiscations were justified, and others not justified?

The point I am really making is that it is quite important that we be honest about our history, and look at it without some kind of rose-tinted approach—that everything that happened in the 1860s was the fault of the Crown, and that Māori were the innocent victims. I suspect, in reality—and there is a hint of this in the bill—the situation was rather more complex, and that there was fault on both sides. It would not actually be appropriate to make full redress for every part of confiscation, because to do so would be to do violence to our history. I note that when many Māori say that they are getting only a proportion of the loss—$31 million in this instance, which is no doubt about 3 percent of the total loss—there is at least a degree of recognition in that of a balance of rights and obligations between the Crown and Māori. We should not be afraid to examine our history fully and fairly. I do recall very well the controversy that surrounded the Waitangi Tribunal when it issued its opinion on the claim, which was in itself quite controversial. That is the first point I would like to make.

There seems to be some recognition here that there is a balance, but it does not say so specifically. It sort of says it in coded language. Some Ngā Rauru Kītahi were rebels, presumably therefore others were not.

The second thing I would like to raise is the whole use of protocols. What is being developed through this claims settlement procedure is a whole series of special relationships and special consultation rights, obligations, and rules between the local iwi, who are the beneficiaries of the settlement, and the Department of Conservation, local authorities, and various Government departments. At some point it simply overburdens the system. We end up with an immense structure of bureaucracy—I know a certain leader of a party has referred to that as the “bro-reaucracy” today—but, in fact, developing all of these protocols actually lends itself to that process. National has been quite determined that it wants to reduce the level of bureaucracy, that unnecessary consultation actually harms people. It does not advance them at all; it gets them enmeshed in a relationship of codependency. A whole structure of people within Ngā Rauru Kītahi are essentially dependent on having continuing consultations, because that will actually be the source of their income. I have to ask the question, because for all of this consultation, fees will be paid. There will be a whole structure of payments, fees, consultants employed, and so forth, to support all these consultation protocols. We have to say to ourselves at some point: “Enough is enough. We are doing too much of this. Let us get on and live our lives and participate in the wider community and the wider economy.” That is the second point I wanted to raise.

The third point, which is the specific subject of National’s minority report, is what the whole reference to religion and cosmology does. I want to mention to the House that on Friday night I was at a formal dinner held for the President of Pakistan. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made the point that New Zealand is a secular society and, in their own ways, both were proud of that fact. The reason we attach so much importance to that fact—compared with, say, Pakistan, which claims to be an Islamic republic—is that we say beliefs and religious values belong in the private domain, and all are equal. As soon as we put one category of beliefs and attitudes into legislation, we have immediately differentiated between them. Some people receive a preference that others do not receive. That is, of course, the difference between a secular society, which does not do that, and, say, an Islamic republic, which does do that. The Islamic republics are quite proud of the fact that they elevate Islam as an official State religion. That is what they want to do. So I ask why, in a secular society—and the Prime Minister says we are in a secular society and is proud of the fact—would we put the statement that we would want to respect cosmology, beliefs, attitudes, and the like into legislation?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Respect diversity.

I heard one of the junior Ministers—for the next 12 weeks, I guess—in the Government say “respecting diversity”. We do not have to put beliefs into legislation to respect diversity. In fact, it is actually the antithesis of doing that. If we really respected diversity, we would not put it into law, because diversity involves a whole range of beliefs. All of those beliefs are equal. I have said previously in the House that each and every one of us has beliefs. Even if one is an atheist, one has beliefs. In that instance, it is the belief of being an atheist. We do not put any one of those beliefs into the law, and the Government is making a fundamental error in doing so.

I close on this point. I note that the Hon Mark Burton acknowledged in the Committee stage of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill that this was an area the Government would have to re-examine, and that maybe it was doing violence to the ideal of a secular society, which by definition respects all beliefs—that is the implication of the definition—and therefore it is not appropriate to put some beliefs into legislation. Yet right here today, we have a bill where the Government commits precisely that same error.

I conclude by saying that National is supporting this bill. We do believe in the settlements process, but we send warnings that there is a right way to do settlements and a wrong way to do settlements. Some of those areas are creeping into this legislation and into other legislation. If Mr Burton were serious, he would be starting to fix it. He is not doing so—National will.