Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill

I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui. Obviously we had the information, but it is good to get confirmation from him. It is also good that the decision was made to make improvements to this settlement in a way that did not delay the settlement through having to have a change in the legislation. We find that a great improvement from where we found ourselves some months ago, having to write a minority report on this settlement. We are very pleased that on the advice and affirmation of the claimants, and now the official indication from the Minister, we are able to say without any demur that we support the settlement.

My colleague made a comment about the apology. Of course, the apology is hugely important to Te Rōroa. We have now seen these apologies in the House over a number of years. The apology here follows the apology that has been part of previous settlements. The few words in clause 8 state: “The Crown profoundly regrets its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles as detailed above and seeks to atone for those breaches.” I have always been fascinated by the way in which those few words mean so much to claimants. For me they have always underpinned the burden of injustice that claimants have carried for nearly 160 years—the burden of loss, not only in physical terms but also in human terms. While all of this has dragged on over generations and into the current generation, our old people have passed on without seeing any redress or any indication from the Crown, represented by whatever Government of the day, that wrongs were done and wrongs needed to be atoned for. So the apology in its preciseness is important to claimants.

The apology is also important to us, because it indicates that in a sense the Crown is endeavouring to restore some of its own honour. Of course, by the actions of the Crown and of successive Governments from the 1840s onwards, the Crown has not only been in breach but has also been without honour. It has been in a place without honour, and that is not a good place to be. All of us here now in this Parliament, in our collective passing of laws, represent the Crown on behalf of New Zealand. So to be without honour in the way we have behaved and acted towards a group, a tribe—whānau, hapū, iwi—or any New Zealander, for that matter, and in this respect in relation to the particular settlement of Te Rōroa, is not a good thing. So the apology is important to them, but it is also important for us as representatives of the Crown in this House that the apology is made, that it is acknowledged, and that it is meant. Then we can put behind us a part of our history that none of us here today were responsible for. No New Zealander today was responsible for the hurt, but all New Zealanders want to feel that if the honour on their behalf has been lost or crushed, then that honour is restored. Today we move on behalf of the Crown to have our own honour restored, and to help to restore the honour of Te Rōroa, as well. That is very, very important.

I will just take a call to talk very, very briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper that seeks to amend a couple of clauses. We totally agree with it. Clause 14, of course, has to be amended in that way because there is a new way of recording settlements in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and we have no problem with that. We also have no problem with the amendment that inserts new clauses 82A, 82B, and 82C after clause 82. It simply inserts additional clauses relating to the alteration of place names, and the clauses follow the model of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. So that is all good, technical, and sensible.

I just have two questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, and I would be most grateful if he would answer them. Then I think we could just move through the remaining time in the Committee stage very quickly. The first issue relates to the deferred selection properties. Can the Minister give the Committee an indication of the date at which the properties are to be valued? Will it be December 2005, or some other date? I have a concern about that issue, because of the delay in dealing with this matter and the possible increase in land values that has happened over the last couple of years. So if the Minister could deal with that, it would solve a bit of a problem I have.

In relation to the second issue, I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation to me of the way in which the settlement is to be implemented, but I ask whether he could perhaps explain to the Committee what the impacts are on the Tainui and Ngāi Tahu ratchet clauses, where the Crown provides settlement redress outside the Treaty settlement process. Is it accounted for in triggering those ratchet clauses? I am not quite sure about that. So if the Minister could provide some answers to those questions—very simple questions—I am sure we could move on very quickly and get through the Committee stage. We must get this legislation signed into law.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. I think it would be very remiss of any member of New Zealand First currently in the Chamber not to speak to this part of the bill, and in particular to the clause where references are made to the Treaty of Waitangi and, more important—as quoted in the bill—to its principles. I do not need to reiterate what our concern is, but in terms of reading the actual clause itself one can easily suggest that it is implied that previous clauses actually outline the principles. I do not believe that that is the case; I certainly went through the previous clauses, and they do not outline the principles. I will quote from clause 8: “The Crown profoundly regrets its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles as detailed above and seeks to atone for those breaches.” Again, I take the opportunity of inviting the Minister in the chair to articulate what those principles are. However, having said that, we know that we are required to make some reference to them, because they are actually included in the apology.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Well, there’s no bill if you don’t do it.

Well, that is the argument, but it is not beyond the ability of this Parliament to rectify that concern, anyway. That member perhaps perceives herself as becoming the new Minister—I do not know; I will not go down that line. My apologies, Madam Chairperson, for digressing, but I just wanted to point that out, and to be consistent with the contributions that New Zealand First makes in regard to these bills.

I also agree with the previous speaker; we do not have any concern about the Supplementary Order Paper and the suggested amendments submitted by the Minister. In fact, we believe that the amendments actually give clarity to clause 82. I will also take the opportunity to make reference to the definitions in clause 11, “Meaning of Te Roroa”. As it reads, “(1) Te Roroa—(a) means the collective group composed of—(i) individuals descended from 1 or more Te Roroa tupuna; and (ii) individuals who are members of the groups referred to in paragraph (c)(i);”, which are “Te Roroa, Ngati Kawa, Ngati Whiu, and Te Kuihi;”.

I refer to this clause, and do so because of the allegations made by One New Zealand about my right to participate in this debate. One of the original claimants on behalf of Te Roroa is a first cousin to my father; his mother and my grandmother are two sisters. So in view of the Māori perception of genealogy and relationships, that provision makes me a link by whakapapa to Te Roroa, but I am not a beneficiary in terms of this definition of who Te Roroa claimants are. I just want to clarify that point. Suffice it to say, New Zealand First has no difficulties in terms of Part 1 of the bill.

Can members remember going to the dentist when they were kids? You know, they had those horrible dental nurses in schools—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Well, not dental nurses but dental clinics—sorry. And we used to have the feeling that we could either do things the easy way or the hard way. Well, we can do this bill the easy way, or do it the hard way.

There was a question by my colleague Chris Finlayson about how the ex gratia payment of $6 million impacts on the ratchet clauses in the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui settlements. I am sure the brother-in-law has the calculator out right at this moment. But it is an interesting question that I think the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, might want to explore, if he wants to go down the easy track. He might wish to focus his mind on that issue, as we move on this settlement—and I congratulate the Government on moving at pace on other settlements and agreements in principle, and signing deeds of settlement, in the rush before the election. But the question remains of how, now that the quantum has increased, that has affected the total, dare I say, fiscal envelope or multi-year appropriations, and how it affects the ratchet clauses in the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui settlements.

So that is the easy way. The hard way is that we draw this process out a wee bit. And I would not want to do that. I am not known in this House to be a filibuster—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Spell it!

P-h … That is a serious question, and I hope the Minister can give us a steer. I am not expecting him to give us a policy statement on the quantum or on the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui ratchet clauses, but I ask him whether there has been any thought on how it impacts on any other settlements and on the ratchet clauses in both those two settlements.

I want to take a call just to make some comments on the observations that were made by our colleague across the Chamber, Pita Paraone, who, of course, and rightly so, always feels compelled to raise the issue of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and I, in turn, always feel compelled to make some comment on his raising that issue. Of course, these claims are brought under the mandate or brief of the Waitangi Tribunal, which has to look at a claim to see whether it breaches the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. That notion or measurement is to be found in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. As I say, it is the measure by which the tribunal must measure all the claims. So of course when we come to settle a claim, there has to be some acknowledgment in there that that claim has been well founded, in that there has been found to be a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Aroha mai, I feel sometimes for New Zealand First and for our associates across the way, who still seem to be in the dark after all these years as to what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are.

💬 Pita Paraone: Tell us! Tell us what they are.

First of all, there is the principle of good faith—the duty upon the Crown to negotiate with claimants in a spirit of partnership and good faith. Secondly, there is the principle of protection. I can go through these, but, really, I would have thought that after that party has been in Parliament this long, supporting settlements, as it does—unlike ACT, which used to, and probably still does, oppose everything to do with Treaty settlements—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Rodney’s got the tan now. Rodney’s got the spray-on tan.

That might make a difference as to whether ACT supports a Treaty settlement. It probably will.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s a bad spray-on tan.

Bad or not, we wait with anticipation to see whether ACT will support this Treaty settlement.

But coming back to New Zealand First, I say that I would have thought, for a party that considers itself, despite its numbers, a big party, equal to National and Labour, that after all this time someone there might have taken the time to comb through the Court of Appeal and Waitangi Tribunal decisions, because the principles are to be found in the judgments and the reports of both those organisations. As I say, I have talked about the principle of the Crown acting in good faith and in the spirit of partnership towards claimants. That is an underlying one. This settlement is meant to embody those principles, and that is why, earlier, I talked about the apology. That is why it is important that reference to the principles is here, so that we all know, and New Zealanders know, that, yes, this claim has been properly investigated, and, yes, a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi has been found. That phrase was integrated into legislation back in 1975 by that member’s relative, probably, the Hon Matiu Rata—

💬 Pita Paraone: Yes.

—yes—who came up with that phrase, because, as we know, the Treaty is in English and in Māori, and if we were to say “the Treaty”, people would ask which Treaty. So using the phrase “principles of the Treaty” enables the tribunal to look at both versions and distil from both versions what the underlying principles, thoughts, and thinking of the signatories to the Treaty were at the time. So aroha mai to our colleague in New Zealand First. He should not worry; the principles are there. They are talked about constantly, particularly in the Waitangi Tribunal reports, because they have to be. The Waitangi Tribunal has to set out how it has found a claim to be well founded because it is in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So those principles are easily gleaned, if the member were to take the time, along with his party, to find them.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to omit clause 14 and substitute new clause 14 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Cultural Redress

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.