Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

There were negotiations earlier this afternoon about Parliament granting leave for this bill to progress immediately following the Committee stage. The reason for that was that we were told that a large number of people from the iwi were making their way to Parliament for the third reading. On that basis, obviously, we did not want them to come here for no purpose. I know we are not meant to refer to the galleries, but it is patently obvious that the group that is on its way has not yet arrived. Accordingly, I would seek leave that we hold this third reading for, perhaps, another 35 minutes or so, in order that the group may be able to be present in the Chamber.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

I move, That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I acknowledge the significance of this day to the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and to the representatives who are in the House today to witness this very, very important occasion. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngā Rauru, and settles all its historical treaty claims. The past actions of the Crown that are acknowledged in this legislation contributed to the dismantling of Ngā Raurutanga and the loss of Ngā Rauru Kītahi language, land, and social structures. That has affected the economic capacity and the physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. What happened to those people in the past was at the very serious end of the scale, in terms of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. This bill contains the Crown’s formal apology to Ngā Rauru Kītahi for those breaches of the treaty, which are acknowledged by the Crown.

The historical treaty claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi relate mainly to the wars in Taranaki and to the consequent confiscation of land from Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The effect of those actions on Ngā Rauru Kītahi was severe. Ngā Rauru people were forced by Crown troops to leave their homes and marae for several years in the 1860s and 1870s. When they joined the peaceful settlement at Parihaka, they were arrested and imprisoned. I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngā Rauru Kītahi deed of settlement. Stories such as that are scars on our history, but remembering them is vital to an understanding of the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those whose ancestors arrived later. We must know our history if we wish not to repeat it.

Ngā Rauru Kītahi started its negotiations with the Crown in 2000. An agreement in principle that set out the basis for settling the historical claims was signed on 16 May 2002. A draft deed of settlement was then prepared. More than 67 percent of the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi voted on whether to accept that draft deed, and of those, 92 percent agreed to accept it. On 27 November 2003 the deed of settlement was signed. Ngā Rauru Kītahi has recently established a new governance entity, Te Kāhui o Rauru, to represent all 12 marae of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The trustees have pledged to uphold and be guarded by manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, whanaungatanga, kotahitanga, wairuatanga, mana whenua, kaitiakitanga, whakapapa, te reo, and mātauranga. Their vision is to live as Ngā Rauru Kītahi, to enjoy good health and a quality lifestyle, to foster unity, and to enable their people to embrace Ngā Rauru Kītahitanga. It is a great challenge they have set for themselves, and we all wish them well into the future.

One of the key features of the negotiations has been an emphasis throughout by Ngā Rauru Kītahi on the need to enhance its relationship with the Crown into the future. I am encouraged by that fact. In negotiating its settlement, Ngā Rauru Kītahi expressed a desire to establish a forum to provide an ongoing relationship with the Crown. That has been done through the establishment of a paepae rangatira—a chief-to-chief forum. The forum will assist in contributing to the development of an ongoing and a positive treaty relationship.

The passage of this settlement bill represents the final steps of a journey for Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown that began when the leaders of Ngā Rauru Kītahi courageously decided in 1999 to try to move from grievance mode towards a more positive future. I acknowledge that that was a very difficult decision for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to make. I commend it for negotiating with the utmost good faith and for demonstrating that it was willing to cooperate and compromise in order to reach an agreement.

This is the third claims settlement bill to pass through the House this year. The additional effort this Government is putting into settling treaty claims is paying off. This year has seen three settlement claims passed—more than ever before in a single year. That means that three more claimant groups have had past wrongs acknowledged, and that there are three more groups with which new and better relationships with the Crown are now possible. I am pleased to acknowledge all those from Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have worked towards making this day possible: the kaumātua and kuia who provided leadership and support throughout, the marae delegates on the iwi authority, the authority’s chairman, Mike Neho, who made the hard decisions, and Martin Davis, the authority’s kaiwhakahaere, who led the negotiations with the Crown. I also acknowledge the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for all the work she did in negotiating the settlement of Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Finance, and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement.

I wish all the best for the future to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, to its elders and descendents, to the negotiating team, and to the trustees of Te Kāhui o Rauru. The trustees will shortly begin the task of managing their settlement assets. I am certain that they will do so with the judgment, tenacity, and commitment they have shown throughout the settlement process. It is important for the House to be aware that a son of Ngā Rauru Kītahi is currently the centre of attention on the world sporting stage—and I am talking, in particular, of Michael Campbell. His message to the people of Ngā Rauru and to us all here in Aotearoa is that if he can win a tournament like that, so can we all.

The National Party is very proud to have been the first party in New Zealand’s parliamentary history to settle, in a full and final way, grievances that have arisen out of treatment that reflected a lack of understanding of Treaty of Waitangi rights. We have, both in Government and in Opposition, participated in the process of settling grievances with good faith. We strongly believe that for these grievances to be settled in a way, a manner, and a style that is enduring, they should receive the overwhelming support of Parliament. That is why we are very annoyed to be put in the position we are in today.

We recognise that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have had a long wait for this settlement. But we find it amazing that at this point, things had to become rushed. Throughout the select committee process, the report back to the House, and the Committee stage we raised an important issue about this settlement bill with the Government. We still do not know whether the Government went back to Ngā Rauru Kītahi and asked whether there was something they could talk further about. We suspect it did not. The issue I raise is that of the points put forward in schedule 12.

Let me say, before I turn to that schedule, that we think it is appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi is the document of reference when it comes to settling treaty claims. It may seem self-evident, but it does not appear to be all that evident in this case. One of the things the treaty did, under article 2, was to guarantee to all New Zealanders—and Māori, if one wants to make that separation—that there was freedom in this country to hold close to oneself things that were taonga. Surely, the most obvious thing for all people in that regard would be their spiritual and religious beliefs. A Government has no business, in a country like this, either putting down spiritual beliefs or, for that matter, promoting one particular type. The problem with schedule 12 is that that is exactly what the Government proposes to do.

I argue that if there are people inside the iwi who do not want to believe some of this, their treaty rights are being trampled on, because, once this bill is passed, the law of the country will prescribe this as being their belief and will determine that this is what their origin is. If that were not a big enough outrage, the law will also prescribe the idea that if one is of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, one is no different from the land, the sea, or the sky. That is what schedule 12 says. We know that in other settlement bills, various iwi have said that they have a special, spiritual connection. None of those bills has said that the connections are such that there is no difference.

I urge people to read very carefully all the aspects of schedule 12. There would be no problem at all with this statement being in a settlement deed, but there is a big problem with putting it into the law. As unbelievable as it might seem, schedule 12 states—and will cause the law to accept—that anyone who is of Ngā Rauru Kītahi is of demigod status. That has to be quite unacceptable. People might like to say: “Oh, no, that’s not right. That man’s being silly.”, but it is right here in the proposed law. I am very disappointed that those who were responsible for negotiating this particular settlement bill did not have this put into its right context. It means that this settlement will not endure, and it may be the first to come back to Parliament so we can have another look at it, because no sane Government will allow this sort of provision to exist in law.

I say again to those who think this is some sort of joke that it is, in fact, a breach of treaty rights to prescribe this in law. I see, on the other side of the Chamber, various people shaking their heads. By and large, they are people who do not respect the law. That is my observation. So I am unconcerned by the tut-tutting and finger-waving. This is an enormous decision for the National Party, and not one that anyone should think is taken lightly. We asked Ministers repeatedly through the Committee stage for answers, and we got silence or we got some sort of addressing of the question, which, in this Parliament, is acceptable even though it may not in fact be an answer. So we are left in the very uncomfortable position of having to vote against a settlement bill.

We are voting against it because it will not achieve settlement. There cannot be a significant number of New Zealanders marginalised in a settlement bill. I thought the reason we settled these issues was that all of us in this country have rights before the law, and that where those rights are trampled on and we have the appropriate historical reports, there is redress. But redress cannot go as far as conferring additional rights on some but not on others. These are not relatively small things like customary rights, which everybody understands; these are very strong rights inside the law. I thought that the Hon Richard Prebble made a very good point last night when he asked how a judge in a court would deal with something like this. We might like to speculate, but the only real conclusion that can be reached is that the judge would struggle and the decisions would cause trouble. So there cannot be a concept of settlement whereby people in this Parliament know that what they are doing will cause further trouble.

For that reason, with deep and sincere regret, the National Party cannot vote for this bill. We want settlements. We want iwi to get their assets. We want redress. We want acknowledgment of past grievances. But this has to be one of the most poorly negotiated bills ever to hit the floor of the House. We are saddened to be put in this position by a Government that seems to be in an awful rush to pass this bill.

I see this as a very propitious occasion.

💬 Pita Paraone: What was that word again?

I am sorry. I am not here to close gaps in people’s literacy. I see this as being a very propitious occasion. It is propitious because the settlement before this House is taking place i te wā o ngā whetū a Matariki me Puanga, arā, ngā whetū e tohutohu mai ki te tangata o te ao. Mai rā anō ka puta mai te whtū a Puanga i runga i te maunga Tītohe o tātau Ngā Rauru, Ngāti Mutunga, me ngā kōrero e whakaputa ana.

[during the period of the stars of Pleiades and Rigel, indeed when they pointed the way to the people of the world. From the beginning of time, the star of Rigel has appeared above Tītohe our mountain of Ngā Rauru and Ngāti Mutunga with the stories.]

So it is propitious for that reason alone.

However, the timing of this bill before the House also coincides with three other magnificent occasions that are positive for Māori. Let me briefly talk about those, because they relate to my theme in terms of why I want to support this bill. A huge occasion for all of Aotearoa took place in Hamilton, kei roto Tainui—the Māori All Blacks versus the Lions. The second magnificent occasion was when we saw a gladiator transform himself into a twinkletoes. Then, on top of that, a descendant from Ngāti Ruanui in Taranaki achieved a global distinction kei roto i tētehi o ngā hākinakina.

[involved in one of the sports.]

What does this mean? How does it relate to this bill? It relates to this bill because each and every one of those individuals showed tremendous determination against great odds. Look at Jonno Gibbes. He got off the ground, tackled this fellow, then fell on the ground again. That shows strength of commitment and absolute concentration on the task. That illustrates what Ngā Rauru Kītahi have done, mai i te tīmatatanga o te raupatungia o te whenua, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā.

[from the time when land confiscation began, to the present day.]

Then we come to the transition of a gladiator to a twinkletoes. We know that our history has been characterised by actions that should never have happened. Last night Norm Hewitt talked about actions that should never have happened as far as he, personally, was concerned. But then he accepted the responsibility publicly. Māori have had to wait 200-plus years to get any apology at all. He did not wait; he gave his apology succinctly and publicly. So finally we get a Crown apology.

Let us look at what was achieved mai te uri o Taranaki in that golfing tournament of high esteem. It shows that Māoris have a character to match against trials and tribulations, both personal and professional. Nothing seems to stand in the way of achieving the goal.

In relation to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, in spite of what the previous speaker has said in outlining reasons why there should not be a codification of one’s spiritual beliefs and cosmology, I am of the opinion that if one wants to tell one’s story, one should do so. I think the decision to do that rests very firmly with the claimants. If that is the way in which they care to identify their mana tangata whenuatanga, then they have every right, as far as this side of the House is concerned, to express it in like manner so that it becomes part and parcel of the accepted beliefs that are shared not only by people who believe that a snake talked to a person about eating an apple. That has become part of an accepted cosmology—we have read about that. We accept that as being part of some people’s cosmology; that is fine. If we are to go forward together, then we must accept that there are other cosmologies that are relevant to our existence as a people going forward in Aotearoa. [Interruption] The member will have a turn to speak, no doubt, and he can add his own opinion.

💬 Murray Smith: I will.

Yes—and I would say that it is an opinion only. I would like to end this brief statement of total support by borrowing the quote “It is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.” In that context, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, ā, anei te kōrero tautoko mai i tēnei nā nō Te Āti Awa, Ngā Rauru, Ruanui, kia kaha, kia māia i a koutou i runga i te ara tika, ā, e takoto mai rā a ngā tauheke, pāheke mō tātau katoa, kia ora mai.

[And from this descendant of Te Āti Awa, Ngā Rauru, and Ruanui, a statement of support: be strong and bold as you make your way along the right path, for those who have passed on, for the generations to come, and for all of us, greetings.]

Ā, tēnā anō koe Mr Speaker. E ngā rangatira, ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa mō Ngā Rauru Kītahi, e kara mā, e kui mā, koutou katoa i tae mai ki te Whare nei, mai i te hau kāinga o Ngā Rauru Kītahi, mai hoki i raro i te maru o te maunga tapu o Taranaki, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

[Greetings again to you Mr Speaker. To the chiefs and negotiators of this matter for Ngā Rauru Kītahi, to the men and women and all those who have arrived in this House from the home winds of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, from beneath the shelter of the sacred mountain of Taranaki, greetings to you and greetings to all of us.]

On behalf of New Zealand First—and I just want to reiterate that we are the only non-aligned party in this House—I rise to speak in the third reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. This bill will see the culmination of what has been a long and an arduous period of endeavour for the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi towards what we all agree is a satisfactory claims settlement. The bill records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, the detail of which is articulated in the deed of settlement dated 27 November 2003. The bill also gives effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Ngā Rauru Kītahi. It passes governance responsibility for the assets from this settlement to the entity known as Te Kāhui o Rauru, which the majority of the people and the beneficiaries of Ngā Rauru Kītahi have indicated their support for.

New Zealand First supports the timely and satisfactory settlement of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, whether by way of hearing or of direct negotiation. This bill is the outcome of an agreement reached by Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown. I am happy to note that the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi have supported the ratification of this settlement agreement, and that their support of the management structure put in place to receive and manage the settlement assets is almost unanimous. That bodes well for the future of the iwi, and it displays unity and concord. This agreement acknowledges that the Crown acted unlawfully during and after the colonisation period and, in particular, that iwi land was illegally confiscated during the war of the 1860s. It also acknowledges that the Crown acted abominably, both morally and legally, in its treatment of iwi members, including children. It acknowledges that many lives were lost in the Crown’s pursuit of its aims during that period.

New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill. In doing so, I would like to include a comment regarding the part of the bill that relates to cultural redress, for not to do so would be very remiss of me and the party that I represent. New Zealand First is of the view that the inclusion of a statement of the beliefs and values of Ngā Rauru Kītahi in legislation is actually erroneous. The references that describe the divine origins of Ngā Rauru Kītahi are clearly a matter for Ngā Rauru Kītahi alone. We in New Zealand First do not disregard or question the beliefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi or, for that matter, the beliefs of any group, whether Māori or non-Māori, in that context. But we do question their place in legislation, and we believe that their inclusion may actually give credibility to them. That is not the purpose of this bill. This settlement is not about cultural beliefs, and we see no valid reason for their inclusion in the legislation for this settlement.

Of course, the inclusion of that statement of cultural beliefs raises further questions. The first one is what the effect is of including those beliefs in legislation, and I add that in considering that question we must look to the future. The second question is whether those beliefs are what future generations of all New Zealanders will now have to believe in. The third question is how the judiciary will be able to make judgments on issues that may arise as a result of the inclusion of those beliefs in this legislation. Last night that very question was posed, and although it may be considered that the response addressed the question, it certainly did not answer it. We note further that the exclusion of reference to those beliefs would have no effect on this settlement proceeding or on its durability. During the process that has seen the bill arrive at this stage, I heard that the inclusion of reference to the cultural beliefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi was done at the insistence of the claimant group, and I ought to acknowledge that the Minister in the chair said, during the Committee stage, that an approach was made from the claimant group in that regard. I also heard reference to the tino rangatiratanga of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. We in New Zealand First do not question the tino rangatiratanga of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. We do note, however, that insisting on the inclusion of its beliefs in this legislation means the subservience of that tino rangatiratanga to that of this House and, indeed, to the tino rangatiratanga of the Crown.

Despite those comments, I extend my congratulations on behalf of New Zealand First to the people of Ngā Rauru Kīkahi. I sincerely hope that this settlement allows them to reach closure on past injustices and to move forward, creating opportunities for their tamariki and mokopuna. They are the future, and this settlement is ultimately for the benefit of them. I also acknowledge the ancestors and their descendants of the iwi who have passed on, and I express my sadness that they cannot be here to see this settlement.

In conclusion, I offer these words to the present and future leadership of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Today they begin a new journey that will require them to lead their people to economic and social destinations never seen or imagined by some of them. However, that should not deter them in their endeavours in that regard. It is often said that we should never forget our past, for to do so may condemn us to making the same mistakes of that time. I say to the leaders of Ngā Rauru Kītahi that they should not live in the past and should not be afraid to take on the best people to take the iwi into the future, be they members of the iwi or not. I ask the leaders of Ngā Rauru Kītahi never to forget to look behind themselves from time to time, to ensure that the people they purport to lead are still there, behind them.

Nā reira e te iwi o Ngā Rauru Kītahi, ngā hapū hoki ō koutou, haere i runga i te huarahi i whakapai ērā o ngā mātua tūpuna, i whakatīmata mai tēnei kaupapa. Kua puāwai te kākano i whakatōngia e rātou mō koutou me ngā tupuranga kei te heke mai. Kei ia o ō koutou te kawenga ināianei ki te whāngai i a ia. Nā reira e te Whare nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa i tēnei o ō tātou whare, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Therefore to you the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi as well as your subtribes, travel along the pathway blessed by those elders who began this matter. The seed that they planted has blossomed for you and future generations. It is your responsibility now to nurture it. And so to all of us throughout this House, in this building, greetings, greetings, and greetings once again to all of us.]

I rise for the ACT party to speak on this third and final stage of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitaki Claims Settlement Bill. I stand in Richard Prebble’s shoes at the moment, having seen the speech notes of his contribution to the debate on the Committee stage. I adopt what he said, because in speaking for the ACT party on a number of these bills he has said it so much more simply and clearly than I could have attempted.

I express, endorse, and adopt his concern that in effect we demean this House by passing bills like this. We demean this House, because instead of confining ourselves to doing what a legislature should do, which is to authorise the redress of wrongs—and there were wrongs—we have got into the habit of using legislation to make rhetorical statements and, worse than that, of making a patently greasy submission to views and values that say this country is no longer protecting the notion of the secular State.

In a bill that goes so much further than is necessary, we are also recording apologies. All this bill needed to do was to authorise the transfers, and to record the status, of the lands being vested and the lands over which coast stewardship was being created. By having a bill that records apologies based on partial recitals of history, we actually make those apologies much more easy to repudiate. I think that a future generation will come to this legislation and say: “That was then; this is now.” A future generation will say that this bill can be read only as a creature of some very curious times—of times when two old political parties, who had got into the habit for over 20 years of consoling each other that although the rest of New Zealand did not believe a word of what they said in those areas, they, because they held hands and pretended they were on a sacred mission, could put anything in legislation provided they had the right spirit.

Their spirit and their intention was good. They wanted to help settle grievances. They wanted the people involved to put behind them the brooding sense of injustice they had. But behind it all, too, were two decades of politicians who had been covertly using race as a means of distinguishing “them and us”—of deciding who were the out-group and who were the in-group.

So we have these fanciful “principles”. I do not blame judges for finding principles. The legislation told them they had to find principles. The legislation told them they had to develop a theory of why they were finding principles where there were none, so they invented a mythical partnership, and this House sent New Zealand down a long blind alley of race discrimination—when the treaty had been signed by people who knew it was intended to lead to our being one people!

ACT, then, will be obliged to vote against this bill, because we will not be party—as we have not been for years—to legislation that recites principles that do not exist, and that directs courts to take account of spiritual and cultural values on one page and then two or three pages later tells the courts they do not need to give them any weight but instead to act as if they were not there—in the sergeant’s terms: “As you were.” So we end up with a bill that is creating a form of power and authority; it has smoke but not substance.

The bill is not giving what it should have given, which is a clean break. Just as in matrimonial law the idea is that one does not force parties who have been unhappy with each other to spend time negotiating and continuing that relationship, this bill sets up the iwi to be involved in repeated discussions of trying to emphasis their heritage and of trying to assert their traditional views of what should happen in relation to land, with local authorities, with the Environment Court, and with ministries under protocols, when in fact all those bodies will be then told: “As you were—listen to them and then ignore them.”

That is the effect of those parts of the bill, and if this legislation had been a matter of a simple transfer of property, a straightforward endowment of money, or a restoration of something that had been lost, the ACT party could have voted for it. But instead we go through this bill and in so many places we see a Government that is deliberately creating dismissible legislation.

I say that honourable apologies are apologies given in full knowledge, with both sides fully accepting the position of the other and deciding to go forward on a basis that is a fresh start. This bill does not create a fresh start. It has a whole lot of words in it that for years from now—forever, if one believes the legislation—courts are going to have to grapple with.

What will it mean when a submission is made about a piece of Department of Conservation land by people earnestly believing they have been given a special right, and then the submission is ignored? Why do we put something in legislation that we direct the courts to take account of, but then tell the courts that the provision has no weight? Parliament is demeaning itself by passing that kind of legislation.

I am absolutely delighted to be in this House on the first day that the National Party has voted against one of these claims settlement bills. I hope the House will not be served up with anything like this legislation in future. These bills should be unanimous.

When the ACT party first voted against the Ngāi Tahu settlement, it should have been noted that that was a principled position. As the party that stands for property rights, ACT wanted to see the claims settled. We wanted to see property theft remedied and that matter put behind the claimants. All the other parties treated our protests—which were principled—as if we were racists. At last we are now seeing—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: That is not correct. National did not.

Well, I am sorry; it certainly appeared that way, but I say let bygones be bygones on that.

I have now heard speeches from New Zealand First—indeed, a very fine speech made by the leader of New Zealand First on Tuesday—about treaty matters. To see at least some parties putting their votes where their mouths are is an encouraging sign for New Zealand.

However, I heard New Zealand First speakers indicate they were voting for this bill, despite the bill’s inclusion of the term “the principles” in, I think, seven places. That is a bit baffling, because if New Zealand First members were really going to be consistent—if they were really going to send a message to the public servants, who of course are required to negotiate those matters, that in future they had better negotiate with a different set of instructions, because otherwise they would run the serious risk of the House not approving the matters—then it would have been helpful to have them not only make fine speeches out in the provinces but use their votes to be consistent with what they had said.

The bill has four main flaws. The select committee did change the bill, although we have been told so often that it is not appropriate for this House to change a settlement bill. The select committee did change the bill—it changed some translation. It could easily have held up the report back, and come back to the House and said there were matters it was very uncomfortable about—for example, members of two parties did not wish to see religious views embodied in legislation. The committee could easily have suggested that the settlement would have been just as powerful without the reference to the so-called principles, and that would have made it acceptable to the ACT party and probably more acceptable to New Zealand First.

Instead, the select committee did not. It came back with a very unhelpful report, so the ACT party is left in a position where the only way we can mark that is by voting against a settlement that in its substance we want to see proceed. We want to see those properties vested, and we want to see those people’s grievances redressed.

E te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira, koutou Ngā Rauru Kītahi kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, whakatau mai, haere mai.

[To the visitors from afar, to the elders, chiefs, and those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have arrived here in support this afternoon, welcome, alight here, welcome.]

The Green Party congratulates Ngā Rauru Kītahi on its settlement. Many years and many dollars from pockets that can ill afford it have gone into the pursuit of this settlement, and that work will be rewarded at the end of today. We are very pleased to see the return of moneys and land to the iwi, who lost so much in the wars and in the past. We are particularly interested and pleased to see that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has put forward the proposal of the paepae rangatira, which has developed a new way for iwi and the Government to deal with issues between them. It is very innovative and exciting, and the Greens look forward to seeing it succeed. This settlement will provide Ngā Rauru Kītahi with enormous opportunities.

Much has been made during the discussion on the bill about schedule 12, and the iwi’s decision to include in the schedule a statement of association of values over an area of land. The Greens are fully committed to the iwi’s entitlement to have its legislation, its settlement bill, reflect its views in its own words. The complaints from various political parties in this Parliament have been immature and pathetic, and show just how desperate politicians can be to keep iwi Māori in their place—faceless and voiceless.

During the second reading of the bill the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations asked why the Greens treated this bill as if it were a black day for Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The Greens do not consider that this is a black day for the iwi. The Greens are prepared to face the hard truths about settlements, and to be honest about the real costs of settlements, both to the claimant groups and to those hapū, marae, and whānau for whom these settlements are not a resolution. We want to make sure that all the voices of the iwi and hapū are heard, not just those that the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements have picked as today’s winners. We have to be honest about the real and full costs of settlements; otherwise, we will not continue to pursue the best, the most just, and the most equitable means to resolve the crimes of the past. If we cannot expose the difficulties and the inconsistencies in the direct negotiation process, then we are certainly committing further wrongs. Iwi and hapū have worked too hard, lost too much, and come too far to be left treading water, replacing one wrong for another.

Once this bill is passed, this Government and this Parliament will have no further control over the way that Ngā Rauru Kītahi manages its affairs. At last, the State will have to butt out and leave the iwi and hapū to get on with the job of managing their own resources and responsibilities, answering to their own people and not to this Government. This is not about getting out of grievance mode. It is not about moving forward. Those are platitudes and they mean nothing. Iwi and hapū must by now be sick of hearing these statements made by politicians that are designed to sound profound but are based fundamentally on ignorance. Iwi are not living in the past. Iwi and hapū have never been in grievance mode. They have struggled for years and years, for a modicum of justice in an inherently unjust system. Iwi and hapū do not have to move forward; they have never stopped moving. They have never surrendered their struggle. It is the Government, it is politics, politicians, and political parties in this House, that are in grievance mode. It is the Government and the State that now have to move forward and leave these people alone to exercise their own rangatiratanga.

This is a very short contribution because the Greens want to see this bill passed swiftly. The Green Party acknowledges the gift that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has made to the country in accepting this settlement. We wish it the very best for its future.

This is a very positive day for Ngā Rauru Kītahi. I therefore want to give a speech that is positive, not dwell on the negatives. I cannot avoid making reference to the spiritual values clauses, as it was my amendment that brought about so much debate on that issue last night. But I do want to be positive and congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi on reaching this milestone. It certainly has been a great week for them, with the passing of this bill at the same time as Michael Campbell won the US Open golf tournament. No doubt through his victory there has been an increase in the mana of Ngā Rauru Kītahi as well. I congratulate them on that double hit this week.

As I mentioned in the first reading of this bill I have historical connections with the Ngā Rauru Kītahi area, and in particular the infamously named town of Maxwell, through my great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents who farmed in that area and who no doubt had connections with the ancestors of Ngā Rauru Kītahi at that time. I have outlined in previous speeches the relationship there, and some of the events at that time—the infamous Handley’s woolshed being one of those—and my sadness about those events.

It is appropriate, with the third reading of this bill, that there is some reference to the history as it has been accepted by the Crown and Ngā Rauru Kītahi in terms of the wrongs that were committed. There is a lengthy historical account in the deed of settlement, which I am not going to read at length—partly because I would run out of time if I did so. But I do want to read an extract from it because I think it is important on this occasion, when we are dealing with the third reading of the bill, that at least some of the grievance that has been settled through this bill is put on the record. The deed of settlement states: “7.26 After Tauranga Ika Pa was abandoned as a defence stronghold in February of 1869, Crown forces pushed all Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi out of south Taranaki and pursued them into the interior, destroying crops, livestock and dwellings at every opportunity. Pursued by Crown forces and deprived of food and shelter, Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi were forced to place themselves under the protection of Whanganui iwi. Prior to 1873, most were forbidden by the Crown to return to their land. This was in response to both settler fears of Maori attack after the war with Titokowaru, and the desire of the Crown to settle military and colonial settlers on the land.

“7.27 The confiscation, which was to have such a long term and damaging impact on Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi, was effected by the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The preamble stated that the North Island had been subject to ‘insurrections amongst the evil-disposed persons of the Native race’. There was no mention of the Crown’s role in initiating the wars. The Act was used to effect the confiscation of land of Maori whom the Crown assessed to have been engaged in rebellion against the authority of the Queen since 1 January 1863. Where the Governor in Council was satisfied that an iwi or a ‘considerable number’ of an iwi had, since 1 January 1863, been engaged in rebellion, he could declare the district available for confiscation. Subsequent settlement of those districts by colonists was considered the ‘best and most effectual means’ of achieving the three purposes of the Act: permanent protection and security; prevention of future rebellion; and maintaining the Queen’s authority.

“7.28 The Act did not provide a definition of ‘rebel’. It did provide that no compensation would be given to those who had been ‘engaged in levying or making war or carrying arms against Her Majesty the Queen or Her Majesty’s Forces in New Zealand’ or those who had ‘aided assisted or comforted such persons’.”

That is just a taste of some of the historical grievances. The deed of settlement goes on to talk about the Sim Commission and the inadequacy of that commission in dealing with the grievance that was there. It particularly reflects on the importance of the land to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, as it is important to all Māori, and also on the importance of cultural redress. So it is important we note that, and acknowledge the serious grievances that are there. We can rejoice that this bill and the deed of settlement are resolving those.

I now want to talk about schedule 12 and the spiritual values matter, because that has played a big part in the debate and because of the amendment to schedule 12 that I proposed. I would like to express my thanks to National, New Zealand First, and ACT for their support of my amendment, and for the contribution to the debate they made.

It seems to me that we were dealing with two issues with regard to this matter. The first is the appropriateness of any theological or doctrinal statements in legislation. I do not want to talk at length on that, because it has been covered quite a lot in the debate in the House. I question whether it is appropriate even for a deed of settlement to include those sorts of theological statements, but that is a matter between the Government and the iwi group concerned and is therefore not a matter that the House should be directly concerned with. This House is concerned with the matter of the legislation it is passing.

What I intended to do, and endeavoured to do with my amendment, was to omit the relevant wording in schedule 12 that, effectively, will constitute a doctrinal statement. It has been rightly said that the difficulties in enforcing that statement are huge. No law should be passed in this House that is impossible to enforce. How can the High Court, or the Waitangi Tribunal if that should be the forum, determine whether the clauses that state that the Crown must acknowledge, reflect, and encourage Ngā Rauru Kītahi values have been complied with without first defining their meaning in contemporary terms? The court has to take a doctrinal statement of origin and somehow bring it into a contemporary situation before it can determine whether that contemporary situation has been fulfilled in terms of the legislation’s provisions. What authority does such an institution have to interpret theological statements? That is just the beginning of the problems we have in regard to this. Mahara Okeroa said that if the iwi wants to tell their story, they should be able to. I have no disagreement with that. Deeds of settlement have been the appropriate places for that to happen, but it should not be embraced in legislation.

The second issue is the specific language that is used, and I thank the officials for being willing to come to talk with me to explain the rationale of how they got there. Thus I can enlighten the House on that. The point that was made in terms of the technical language is that clause 88 states that the “Crown acknowledges Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values”. But the term “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values” is then defined as being the statement made by Ngā Rauru Kītahi of their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association. Therefore, it is thought that, effectively, all that the Crown is doing is acknowledging a statement, not those values. However, it seems to me that when a statement is made in legislation, then the drafting of the legislation—and I think that the Parliamentary Counsel Office should take note—needs not only to be precise but also clear. It needs to be clear to the lay person. The officials admit that it is confusing. I wanted to amend that by stating clearly that the Crown acknowledged the statement of Ngā Rauru Kītahi values, but it was felt by the Minister that it was impossible to go back and get Ngā Rauru Kītahi consent to make that alteration at the last minute, as would have been desirable.

The Government has, however, in view of United Future’s approaches and concerns, made a commitment to us. First of all, the Government will make a public acknowledgment that it was a mistake to have the theological statement in the legislation, and it will also make a commitment that doctrinal statements will not be included in future Crown settlement legislation, as far as this Government is concerned. On that basis, United Future has indicated that it will support the passing of this bill at its third reading. We do that not only because of that acknowledgment by the Government but also because settlements are important, and ever since we arrived in this House we have been at the forefront of pushing for treaty settlements to be resolved as quickly as possible. We have been instrumental in getting more resources dedicated to the Office of Treaty Settlements in order for that to happen.

We also think it is important, if the legislation is to be passed, that it be passed by a substantial majority, and I note that Gerry Brownlee said the same thing. For that reason United Future will, in fact, support the third reading. I also note that the Government indicated that it did not want to rely on the Greens providing support, which says something about them. So I congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi on the passing of this legislation and express United Future’s best wishes for their future.

E tū ake au ki te tautoko ki te mihi i mihia mō ngā rangatira, mō ngā uri o Rauru Kītahi, ā, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi i mihia mō ngā tīpuna ō rātau me ngā tīpuna ō koutou, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, nō reira, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

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

[I rise to endorse the greetings extended to the chiefs and descendants of Rauru Kītahi. A huge and immense tribute to you all. I endorse the tributes paid to your ancestors Ngā Rauru, and to ours as well, and so to all of them, farewell, farewell, farewell.]

I want to deal with three issues in relation to, firstly, the treaty principles as outlined in the legislation; secondly, the property rights expressed in the legislation; and, thirdly, Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s cultural and spiritual rights expressed within the legislation.

I first of all turn to Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s cultural and spiritual rights embraced within the context of the legislation. At 2 p.m. every day, when the business of this House starts, members track into the Chamber, sit down, and listen to the Speaker administer a prayer—a prayer to a supreme being; a prayer to suggest that we should have wisdom and a whole range of other things—

💬 Pita Paraone: It’s not in law.

There we go—Pita Paraone says it is not law. It is not in law, because it pervades everything about the law that is embraced in this House.

💬 Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When people refer to other members of the House, they should have the courtesy to pronounce their names correctly. For the benefit of that member, my name is actually “Pita Paraone”.

It is also translated as “Peter Brown”. I will use “Peter Brown” for him, because it is far easier to say, and because that is what it really is.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that he must refer to a member by his or her correct name.

So when we track in here, the very essence of this House in terms of the concept of Christianity pervades most things that we do, led off by that prayer. The fact that certain people here believe they come from Adam and Eve—good on them; right, that is great. But at the end of the day this House now has a right to recognise Māori rights and Māori issues, and that is what treaty settlements are about. They are not about pouring ourselves into the mould of others any more. New Zealand First knows that. It has six Māori members, supposedly led by one, but they do not want to admit that. The reality is that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has a right that has been expressed here.

I go to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the way in which the great Māori speaker on behalf of the National Party expresses himself. I have never known a member to stand up in this House and not have any knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter of the legislation talked about—and Gerry Brownlee expresses that very well. Even with the meandering, moaning, all-over-the-place member Wayne Mapp, even in the tortuous requirements he presents in this House every time he stands up to speak, at least there is a modicum of some sense in it. The member who is the National Party spokesperson on Māori showed not only a distinct lack of knowledge, of education, but had not done any work on this legislation whatsoever. That is a disgrace.

Bring on Georgina te Heuheu! I note that she will not take a call in the third reading debate. I note that she does not accept National voting against this legislation, and that is a fact.

I shall move on to property rights. As for Mr Stephen Franks and his well-moneyed mates in the ACT party who will be around another 12 weeks, I wanted to say and express quite clearly that when it is not their property, they can have a go at it; when it is their property, they will have a go at it. I suspect he is wearing the Destiny ribbon. Brian Tāmaki is the only one who will save Stephen Franks.

The reality is, and I shall conclude on this as we move on, that I am grateful for the support of New Zealand First. It is great that its members can talk absolutely against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and then vote for it. It is great that United Future will also support this legislation, the Greens are supporting the legislation, Labour is, and we now know that it is a dirty election campaign, because National will not, and that is an absolute disgrace.

All I can say is that I hope the previous member is proud of that speech, because it will be his valedictory. That is the reality of it. The member knows that, and I know that, because I know literally hundreds of people in Tamaki Makaurau who will be voting against that member. That is the reality of it.

💬 Darren Hughes: Name them.

Most of my relatives, actually. The third reading is the opportunity to give voters powerful symbolic value. National is voting against this legislation, because we are expressing our deep concern about the trend in these settlements. Members should look at schedule 12 of this bill. I have been examining a number of settlements that, over time have ramped up, if you will, the inclusion of references to spiritual values, beliefs, ideas, and so forth. Frankly, I have never read anything like schedule 12 of this bill in any other legislation. Just a month ago we were debating the Tūwharetoa legislation. I raised my concerns at that point about some inclusions in that legislation. They amounted to maybe one particular line. But this bill has pages of arcane references to all sorts of beliefs, ideas, and values that have, as other members in this House have said today, no place at all in our law, and we debase our law if we make those references. So it is right in a third reading speech to express our deep concern about that.

A month ago the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mr Mark Burton, said that the Government was going to look at this issue. He was very clear that it was an error to include those kinds of reference in legislation, and that the Government would re-examine the issue. What do we have, instead? Not the same, but more of it—more intensified and deeper references. Frankly, that serves only to bring views and values into disrepute. That is the real problem, is it not? The Government does not understand why this nation has secular values at the heart of its belief system. The issue is about respecting everyone’s belief. Mr Murray Smith acknowledged that particular point in his contribution. How can one do that if one elevates one particular belief above all others, by putting it into law? There was not even just a general reference to it in this bill, but page after page of detailed references to the microcosms of belief. That is simply wrong in principle, so National is using its third reading vote to record its deep displeasure about that inclusion, which goes completely contrary to what Mr Burton said just a month ago when he said the Government was going to re-examine the issue. It has not done so. The Government has, in fact, made the situation worse.

I also wish to refer to another issue, which is the way that we record our history. I think we are falling into error there, as well. We are getting a very distorted view of our history, which can only do damage to race relations. That is what I suggest to members on the Government side of the House. There is a distorted view that says that the Crown is completely wrong and Māori are completely right, and an abject apology then flows from that, when people know the history is actually different from that view. Civil war—because that is what it was—has a much more complex origin than this deed of settlement records. We are damaging people’s understanding of the history. We lack the honesty to take an approach that avoids doing that. I suggest that when we undertake these settlements, we take a more critical analysis that enables the recording of history to more properly reflect the nuance of what occurred back at that time.

Those are two profound points. National is putting them on the record because our approach to settlements will be different in the future. It was different in the past. National Governments did not make the kinds of references to beliefs and values that the current Government has done—and the Government is intensifying them. National will take a more measured and considered approach that respects all the beliefs of this nation; it will not ask that beliefs be put into law. When I heard the Minister say in his opening speech that the references were put into this bill at the request of the claimants, all I can say is that that Government misunderstands the role of the House. We are not here as supplicants; we are here to make the law of the land. When people ask for their beliefs to be put into the law, frankly, we should say to them that that is interesting, and that they are entitled to their beliefs, but that we, as legislators for all New Zealanders, decline to do as they ask. Labour, in an obsequious way, has simply agreed to include those references, so we are using our third reading vote to record our displeasure about that.

I conclude on this point. National acknowledges that wrongs were done in the past—Mr Brownlee acknowledged that wrongs were done in the past. We acknowledge that a settlement was required in this particular case. There is no question about that. We have no quibble with the vast majority of this settlement. If schedule 12 had not been there, particularly in the way it is phrased in this instance—as opposed, for instance, to the phrasing of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—we would have been able to come to a different view. But National is using this third reading vote to make a statement of intent for the future: that there will be a different way of doing settlements. We can stand proudly on our record on settlements, actually, because we have done many settlements in the past. National’s record is different from that of another party in this Parliament, which votes only in one particular way—and we know which party that is. In this particular situation we are using our vote to indicate that there is a right way to do settlements, which is, in fact, the way of the right, and that there is a wrong way to do settlements, which is the way of the failed, left Labour Government.