Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

This is the part that deals with the apology and the acknowledgments of those matters that formed the basis of this claim in the first place, and are the underlying reasons why Ngā Rauru have laboured for some time now to reach a settlement. I think that given that colleagues have been quite fulsome in their comments on the preamble, it is probably helpful to look at clause 8, “Text of acknowledgements in English”. Some of it, I think, is worth traversing because the reality is that while we in this Chamber are privy to a number of settlements now, to the point that we often become a little bit used to what they are about and the provisions they contain, I guess that as parliamentarians we should always be mindful that the public, on whose behalf this House settles these claims, are not always so privileged.

In the case of the Taranaki claims particularly, which is where the confiscations began, it is a part of our history that—notwithstanding the comments made by my colleague Dr Mapp and others—is sad, and the reason for which we are now in this Chamber to make amends.

Clause 8 states that the Crown acknowledges the cumulative effect of its breaches of the treaty and its principles and that these have contributed to the dismantling of Ngā Raurutanga and loss of Ngā Rauru Kītahi land, language, and social structures. Further on, clause 8 talks about Ngā Rauru Kītahi suffering loss of life during the wars that preceded, including the lives of unarmed children, killed by Government militia at Handley’s woolshed in an unprovoked attack. They suffered the destruction of their homes, property, cultivations, and taonga at the Crown’s hands during the wars and as a result of the Crown’s “scorched earth” policy. The Waitangi Tribunal, of course, traverses this in much more detail, and those who are interested should be referred to the comprehensive reports issued in relation to the Taranaki claim.

When we read of children being killed in an unprovoked attack, then clearly that is a part of our history that we would prefer to forget and, of course, the only way we can have that put behind us is to make the kinds of amends that have been made in this particular settlement.

Having said all of that, I think the comments I made in relation to the preamble are applicable, as well. It is very important to acknowledge just exactly why the Crown, the Government, on behalf of New Zealanders, has reached a settlement with this tribe. It is not an inconsequential settlement, either, although in terms of what the tribe went through, I guess it is. In the end, how does one make amends for loss of life due to an unprovoked attack? Looking back at that—and I am referring particularly to the attack at Handley’s woolshed—I am not saying that the whole of it necessarily was unprovoked. On the other hand, if one tries to look at it from the point of view of the tribe, we see that not many years earlier a treaty had been signed, ostensibly giving the tribe protection for its land, resources, etc. It had agreed to the establishment of British government and laws, only to find some few years later that in fact those undertakings, promises, call them what you will—Māori actually call it a sacred pact—were being totally ignored.

It is all very well for us to stand here in the 21st century, in 2005, to try to set these provisions, or set out the history, and make judgments. As I have said, the acknowledgments are basically the heart of the settlement. They are very important to the tribe, and it is very important that the public of New Zealand know why Parliament, in voting for a settlement, commits the kinds of resources it does in order to make amends for what took place many, many years ago.

The apology is a very important part of a settlement. Over the last 15 years I have interacted with numbers of claimant tribes. Having sat on the tribunal for 10 years, I think I have quite a keen appreciation of how important the apology is. I have heard some tribes say that although a settlement of money and lands is great, because of course they need that to provide a base for them to move forward in an economic sense, an apology is an absolute must. In the end it gives credence to the fact that they suffered hurt and harm many, many years ago. In the case of the Taranaki tribes, the losses were quite tragic. So it is only right and proper that an apology is set out in this settlement bill.

In clause 10 the Crown apologises to the ancestors. It is clearly the wish of the tribe itself to have those acknowledgments put in. The current generation, on behalf of the ancestors, take and accept the apology. Clause 10(2) states: “The Crown profoundly regrets, and unreservedly apologises” for its actions during the wars, for “the destructive and demoralising effects of these actions … and loss of life during the wars.”, and so on.

The apology in this case is reasonably brief, but not so brief that it does not do the job the claimants wish it to do. We recall that in the Tainui settlement the apology was actually presented at Government House. That is how important the issue of an apology is to the tribes.

So, all in all, although this bill follows the accepted format, this part is very important. It acknowledges what has occurred to the tribe and also apologises for those events. It is hoped that, as with the preamble, all these parts together will provide the backdrop that enables the tribe to put behind it those things that have hurt it over the generations—those causes of harm it has carried for so long. They are very, very important.

So, on balance, I do not have any queries to the Minister in relation to this. No doubt other members may, but I for one certainly accept that Part 1 is a very important part. The reason that National is supportive is reasonably set out in it.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the very thoughtful contribution made by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu in relation to Part 1.

I want to turn to two particular points. The first is the apology and the second is the text of the acknowledgments. I am doing them quite deliberately in that order, because the apology essentially refers to regrets, to the destructive and demoralising effects of the wars on Ngā Rauru Kītahi, and the confiscations. That is actually how it should be, because the fundamental reason that we as a Parliament, with the exception of one party only, are dealing with the settlement process is that there is profound recognition that one of the consequences of the wars—the most significant and enduring consequence as it affected Māori communities—was pretty much the complete loss of those communities’ ancestral lands and economic base. We live with the echoes of those actions today, and I accept the reality of that. Much of the interracial problem that exists in New Zealand today has its origins back then, and we would be less than honest not to recognise that reality.

Jim Bolger, before he was Prime Minister, in a speech to a National Party conference in 1989, which I remember well, challenged the National Party—and one can imagine that back in 1989 it was actually quite a significant challenge to the National Party—that this was part of New Zealand’s history that we simply had to address, because if we did not, we would not be able to bring closure and harmony to our country. It has been a more difficult process than anyone accepted back then it would be, and I acknowledge that both the National Government and the current Labour Government have found that to be the reality. But the whole point of the restoration—and the claims settlement process is intended to provide an element of restoration—is about recognising the totality of the confiscations and that they wreaked such havoc not only on the Māori economic base but also, I suggest, on the Māori psychology, and I know that from speaking to members of my own family.

That is, I guess, the activating reason for the settlement. The second point I wish to deal with is the events that occurred in the 1860s—not the confiscations so much but the wars themselves. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu properly noted the attack on the lives of unarmed children, which we would all deplore, but I want to go back a little from that to the totality of the wars themselves. What were they actually about? In 1840 there was a sovereignty treaty, a transfer of sovereignty, and that is not really disputed today except by the radicals. Even Mita Ririnui as a Minister of the Crown—let us not forget—must recognise that he accepts the sovereignty of the Crown; otherwise, he could hardly take the warrant of the Crown. The reality is we have the modern-day Parliament and the modern-day Government. That is a direct outcome of the treaty, of the transfer of sovereignty.

Although the wars had a whole variety of causes—improper purchases in the Waitara case, invasions, responses, and so forth—I think the wars can properly be characterised as sovereignty wars. Dr Belich has done some work on that in his own books, along with Michael King. Imagine if the Crown had not won—what would the consequence have been? The consequence would have been a loss of sovereignty—in effect, the overturning of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840. There would not have been a transfer of sovereignty. Sovereignty would effectively have been regained by the iwi where they had won their war, if you will.

Dr Belich’s books refer to Tītokowaru’s war, and he was actually successful. In a series of quite brilliant, at least in a military sense, engagements he defeated Crown troops. It has always been a bit of a puzzle to modern historians as to why he did not capitalise on those successes, because he had a window of opportunity, if you will, effectively to regain sovereignty in the South Taranaki. He never did. He withdrew from the field of battle. Maybe the relevant iwi simply did not have the long-term capacity to sustain it and they recognised the reality of that.

So the wars in essence were sovereignty wars, rather than land wars. They had a series of causes, and I do not think it is right that the Crown should apologise for that, and, indeed, it has not, and that is an interesting point. It is, one might say, the contradiction between clause 8, which sets out the events of the wars and some of the depredations during the wars—in particular the loss of life when unarmed children were killed by Government militia—and clause 10. Clause 10 does not apologise for the retention of sovereignty. What it does apologise for are the destructive actions of the confiscations, and the loss of the economic and social base. I believe that it is important that we record some of this in Hansard at this point.

The final point I want to turn to is this particular acknowledgment in clause 8(4)(f): “when land was finally returned,”—and some 3,000 acres were returned—“Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi found that its customary title to this land had been compulsorily extinguished by the Crown’s confiscation, and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles:”. I have to say that is a misstatement. If the land had remained as customary land, it could not have been sold. That was the whole problem with customary land: it was incapable of being mortgaged, being sold, or being dealt with in any realistic way. Many people might say that was a good thing, but I would argue that economic development actually requires modern title. I acknowledge that Māori land law title under the current Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, is a form of modern title; it enables people to deal with the land. So rather than that being a loss or, indeed, a breach of the treaty, which it was not, it was actually an enhancement. That is not to suggest that all the things that occurred in the initial phase of what was then known as the Native Land Court were right—they were not—but the principle of turning customary land into a modern land tenure system was actually a benefit for Māori. They needed to have it. If the land had stayed as customary land, I suggest, it could never have been properly dealt with. That is one of the tragedies of much of the Third World—those countries do not have modern land law systems. That is widely recognised by development economists. So I think it is false for that issue to be part of the acknowledgments.

I close with this final point. I have made these points, and I am putting them on the record, in Hansard. I know perfectly well that we cannot change these acknowledgments or the apology, and National is not seeking to do so. We recognise that when the select committee gets these bills, there has already been an agreement. But what is important to do in the debate is to record the way we view these things and how we might do them differently in the future. That is the value of the debate. Mr Stephen Franks made the point that it is a pity it is not recorded. It actually is, of course; it is recorded in Hansard. It is there for us to read, and the intent of a number of us is to develop over a period of time a collection of ideas that can inform us in the future as we do our settlements.

National will be voting for this bill, but we do make those points for the record.

I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate, particularly in relation to the clauses that cover the text of the acknowledgments, both in Māori and in English. I want to say straight off that I have no problem with regard to the Māori text. It is an accurate translation of the English text—or should I say the English text is an accurate translation of the Māori text. But I believe that in the acknowledgments lies the nub of this whole bill. They articulate the reasons for this settlement. I want to pick up on the comments made by the previous speaker and say that I believe that what is missing from the acknowledgements is the background as to why the events happened in the first place, which is needed so that readers in the future will have a better understanding of why martial law was proclaimed in Taranaki, and of all that sort of detail. I think that understanding is important, particularly for those members of our society who have some ambivalence about the whole settlement process. I think that if the background is articulated more in that context, then people may have a better understanding of why we are going through this process.

Of course, this settlement will, it is to be hoped, put to rest the effects of the loss of life and the land confiscation, and the impact of all that on Ngā Rauru Kītahi, all of which has been found and acknowledged to be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. Therefore the apology is important, as it is in any settlement. How effective an apology is can be felt only by the recipients of that apology, which in this case is the claimant group. In terms of the outcome of this bill, although it is laudable that the Crown is acknowledging all that and that some compensation is being considered, it will never suffice and therefore will never provide full restitution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break.

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

As I was saying before the break, clauses 9 and 10, which state the text of the apology in both English and Māori, actually comprise, in my view, the nub of the purpose of this bill. Although some members feel that the content of the apology may be over the top, if I have any criticism of it in terms of being wanting, it relates to why certain activities for which the Crown is apologising occurred. Those activities were clearly a breach of the treaty. For instance, why did the Government of the time decide to go to war? What was the real purpose of going to war? Although some who take an interest in New Zealand history may have their own views, if I have any criticism of the text of the apology, then it is in that area. Other than that, I think the bill is a reflection of the intent of the Crown. The fact that the claimant groups have accepted the apology means that this Committee should lend its support to these clauses.

I am delighted to take part in the debate on Part 1. I do not think there is any doubt that New Zealand had an appalling history of failing to honour the treaty that the Crown signed with Māoridom in the early days. There is an obligation for us to try to find some way to settle the Crown’s failure to meet those obligations. I was happy to be a member of Cabinet when it settled a number of those obligations along the way. Having said that, I want to give a warning to everybody.

Actually, let me deal first with what Part 1 is about. It is an acknowledgment and it is to do with an apology. I do not mind how strong the apology is.

💬 Mark Peck: I’m sorry.

It can be much more than: “I’m sorry.” It can be: “We were wrong.”; it can be: “We shouldn’t have done that.” Quite frankly, I think that an apology often solves a problem and allows one to move on quickly. One thing I have learnt in politics is that whenever people get themselves on the wrong side of an issue, they should very quickly say that they are sorry about it and move on. There is no question that from the Crown’s side, if we want to talk in labour relations - type language about good faith, we can say the Crown did not act in good faith. It did not act in good faith in a number of the settlements that have been done—in the cases of Tainui, Ngāi Tahu, Taranaki, and others.

But I will say the following to the Māori claimants. I always have a really strong nervousness about any focus on the past. I want the claimants to make sure that their focus now, once the settlement has been done, is on their future, in terms of breaking the cycle. For example, I argued quite strongly in Cabinet, when the first of these settlements was being done—Doug Graham was negotiating with Bob Māhuta—that there was no question that Tainui had been done a serious wrong. Doug Graham gave us a lot of evidence about what the British troops had done when they came south of the Bombay Hills, and we learnt they had acted in a way that was just appalling. But my argument to Doug Graham was that we should try to settle the claim by trying to break what I thought was a cycle of dependency that Māoridom had fallen into. My view was that a good way to settle some of the claims would be to ask Māori to give us their best 500 kids each year, whom we would put through the tertiary education system—not give them a low-grade hip-hop tour or twilight golf sessions—for free. I said that over, say, a 20-year period we should amortise the cost of that—$174 million, I think it was—in order for us to see that figure. I said that we would break the cycle, that we would create a Māori middle class that had high levels of productivity, and that those people would be good-earning people who were focused on the value of education, and so on.

I guess I have a single message to the iwi for which this particular claim settlement is being progressed tonight. I say good on the iwi. It is probably getting only a very small percentage of what the actual damage to it was. However, I ask the iwi please not to think that the best thing to do is to keep living in the past. I ask it to please say that it will make sure the settlement is focused on achieving outcomes.

If I had reservations about the Tainui settlement, they were dispelled dramatically by the way that Ngāi Tahu began to act. Ngāi Tahu just said that it would be there for the betterment of its people and that it would bring in whoever that took. That iwi brought in a few white honkies—I do not think “honky” is allowed any more, is it, Mr Chairperson? Was “honky” ruled out? I am happy to use the term, because I am one of them. Ngāi Tahu brought in some white honkies to manage the place. [Interruption] If the Chairperson is shaking his head, I will withdraw the term. I do not mind doing that, but I did not think “honky” was ruled out.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What other colour do they come in?

Whatever. Honkies are only white, I suppose; Gerry Brownlee is right. Ngāi Tahu brought in whoever it took to get its investments to grow, to get some relevant income streams for its people, and to start to lift their performance. I say good on Ngāi Tahu; I think it is a lesson to us all. A young guy from Ngāi Tahu who was running Shotover Jet in Queenstown once came before a select committee. I have never seen a more stunningly focused businessman—he talked about outcomes and making it happen. There was almost a tear in my eye, like I had when Michael Campbell won the US Open. I say good on Ngāi Tahu.

These settlements are about making sure that if we address the wrongs of the past, we are careful about that. There have been wrongs in the past forever—for example, what Britain did to the Jews.

We are in the Committee stage of yet another settlement. This is a settlement for the Taranaki area, and a settlement for one of the more outrageous actions against Māori.

Having said that, I say that when I read through this bill, I have some grave reservations about it. Anyone reading this bill—and a lot of young Māori will read it—will think that this is an authoritative account of the history and, of course, it is not.

One reason is that it fails to mention that this Parliament has made a number of attempts at settling this particular grievance. As early as the beginning of the 20th century there was an attempt. There was another one between the First and Second World Wars. The first Labour Government gave a settlement, as well, in 1947. The Hon Rex Mason, Minister of Justice, stood in this House, gave an account of what had happened, and said it was wrong. If we pull up the Hansard, we will find that he gave an account of what had happened in this particular case. Parliament then voted for a compensation package that people now say is derisory, but if we translated it into today’s dollars we would see that it was a very substantial settlement.

When I read this account I see, unless I have missed it, that that information has been left out. I think that is arrogance on the part of this Parliament. I think it is very difficult for us to apologise for something that happened in the past. We can regret it, but who are we to apologise? It is like members here saying it is extraordinary that we sent young men to Gallipoli. We cannot apologise for that: those were the actions; that was the culture; and that was the time. So I have difficulty with an apology.

I also have difficulty with the way the bill is written, because I do not think it is written even-handedly. In saying that, I am not failing to acknowledge that what happened was wrong. In fact, many European New Zealanders—to use a politically incorrect phrase now, but it would not have been so then—said at the time that what had happened was wrong. But when we read these sorts of accounts, we see that that does not come through.

I have also read the Waitangi Tribunal’s account. I think, frankly, that that is completely over the top, because in portraying things it goes too far in creating a sense of grievance.

There is a lot of truth in what the previous member said, in that one cannot rewrite the past. One of the most unfortunate things about the settlement process is that we have seen some of the brightest and best of Māori looking back and spending their time in trying to find ways in which they can get a better settlement. The number of bright young Māori lawyers who I now see working in the treaty industry is a tragedy for this country.

I hope that the claimants who get the money will use it well, and use it to go forward. Having said that, I think that we ought at least to record in the House that we are no better than the Hon Rex Mason, who attempted to settle this particular claim in 1947—and the House did settle.

I have heard MPs get up and say that this House has never acknowledged what happened. That is a load of rubbish. This House has acknowledged that what happened was wrong, and it is a form of arrogance on our part—and a lack of real historical knowledge—when we start to act as if we are somehow more moral than our forefathers who were engaged in this matter. I have grave doubts about what is a new PC custom, which is that we somehow have the right in the House to make moral judgments about those who have gone before, and to rewrite settlements. The only argument one can put in favour of that process is that if it enables Māori to feel that grievances have been healed, then perhaps the apology is justified.

We are all aware that there was considerable civil disobedience in that area of the country. One example is that in World War II many notices for conscription in that area were ignored, because Māori thought and said that until those matters were settled they should not have to take any notice. Members may not know this, but the Fraser Labour Government, which enforced conscription notices very vigorously, did not do so in that area. Part of the reason it did not was that the Fraser Labour Government realised there were considerable problems and, as I said, after World War II that Government came to the House with a settlement.

But one wonders how many settlements will be required. I wonder whether in 20 or 30 years’ time—maybe 40—MPs will get up and make speeches saying that it is outrageous that this matter has never been acknowledged, that it should be dealt with properly, and that the settlement given today is derisory. No doubt in 30 years’ time the amount of money that we are putting forward today—which we think is a lot—will probably not be enough to buy a house, or whatever, after the results of inflation.

So I say to the House that I regret the bill, and I say shame on the Crown negotiators for not insisting that there is a correct and accurate record. It is a matter of shame that those civil servants who wrote the legislation clearly thought they could malign the reputation of people like the Hon Rex Mason, and could completely ignore the fact that there have been previous attempts at making a settlement. I am ashamed that a Labour Government is not prepared to have any pride in its own record in attempting to make a settlement previously.

We may say now that the settlements were not enough, but to write them out of history is a new form of Stalinism—rewriting history is the sort of thing the Russians used to do. This account is no more accurate than the accounts that people rail against. That concerns me, because if one is not prepared to face up and write the history correctly, then one has to wonder whether the settlement will last.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Interpretation