Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill

Again, there is a very technical Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 10. It is required for the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill to make amendments to certain transitional and other arrangements in Part 4 of the bill. In particular, amendments are required to clarify the status of the Porou Ariki Trust, after inclusion of the trust in Part 4. Those changes are to clarify the status of the trust and they are included in amendments to clauses 129, 132, and 151. The Supplementary Order Paper also addresses a number of other technical matters that have been identified, but nothing of great substance.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and to affirm the Green Party will continue to support the progress of this bill, as we have done to date. We offer our respect and regards to ngā hapū katoa o Ngati Porou, to all of those on both the Crown side and on the Ngati Porou side who have worked very hard over many decades, indeed, to bring this settlement to fruition. However, as is the case with so many of these bills, our support is somewhat qualified. It is almost given with a degree of regret, because we recognise there are so many inherent flaws in the process underpinning the settlement of these bills. As my colleague has just recently mentioned, the danger is that these settlements, rather than being true and just settlements, are downgraded almost to the level of deals, to the best deal that can be done on a given day given the pressure to accept what is on offer at a given time and place, and the need to bring to an end the, in many cases, decades of suffering and recrimination.

One primary problem with these settlements is the issue of large natural groupings. Since 1999 it has been Government policy to deal with iwi rather than hapū and whānau, and more recently there is a clearly stated preference to deal with large natural groupings. This is no secret. In the Office of Treaty Settlements advice to claimants it is spelt out in the well-known so-called red book that the Crown strongly prefers to negotiate settlements with large natural groupings of tribal interests, rather than individual hapū or whānau within a tribe. This is done on the basis, we are told, that it is easier to manage and work with them, easier to deal with overlapping interests, and reduces costs to both Crown and claimants. We are also told that in this way the issues become more workable around redress, and cost-effective for these large natural groupings. It has been argued on many occasions in the court, in the judiciary, in the Waitangi Tribunal, and elsewhere that policy processes based purely on Government definitions, without seeking input into the most appropriate Māori social structure, effectively can be seen as perpetuating breaches rather than resolving them. Choosing to adopt a blanket approach, a very selective approach, in the Government’s determining with whom it will negotiate has interfered with traditional relationships between iwi, between hapū, in ways that are not helpful and that continue to create new problems.

A few days ago I presented to Parliament a petition relevant to this bill, the petition of Barney Tūpara and 1,053 others who are highlighting that there is a community of people on the East Coast who feel completely excluded from the settlement that is being passed today. This community of people believe that their rights are being transgressed, a continuation of transgressions going back at least to the mid - 19th century. It would be extremely unwise of me, with my whakapapa to Ngāpuhi, to pretend any expertise, or knowledge of the debates that are occurring on the coast about who has mana whenua, whose rights are being dealt with, but I do feel that as an MP I have a duty to put on record the fact that there is a significant community of people on the coast who feel they have been overlooked. Any failure of the Crown to deal properly in an inclusive way with all of the people, with all Māori, with all interests will lead to a degradation of respect for the Treaty process. We will see less than optimal outcomes and inevitably, as Māori often say, “We’ll be back.” Having said that, the Greens continue to support this bill and we give our goodwill to Ngati Porou.

I know the last two speakers, Mr Finlayson and Mr Clendon, and respect their points of view on division, and that. Can I assure you that, having worked with the last three groups of iwi, Labour is supportive of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and we will support the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill as it goes all the way through. I think it is important for us to understand that people do not differentiate in this Whare here just on numbers or letters that they get. They have to live through the issues that are relevant to the hau kāinga. I just want to say that, with all due respect, and I accept what my learned colleague over there was saying. So we will be supporting this bill and the other bills.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into two bills; the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill with amendment; the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill with amendment; and the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.