Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill

I reiterate what my colleague Gerry Brownlee said. The Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill is pretty straightforward in terms of settlement legislation. We do not want to hold up the process, but we do want to make clear our intentions of bringing forward to the Committee a new Part 4, which hopefully the Government will take a look at—we hope the Minister of Māori Affairs will push play and get a copy of it. The amendment is an honest attempt to make sure that this process runs as smoothly as possible. I will not take up too much more of the Committee’s time, other than to say that the National Party is totally supportive of this legislation.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. In this part I want to talk specifically to references that are made to the word “principles” as it relates to the Treaty of Waitangi. I say from the outset that I have proposed a number of amendments and hope that this Committee might give some due regard to them. The stance that New Zealand First is taking on this issue should not come as any surprise to this Committee. Again I just want to take the opportunity of reiterating our concern, and that is the fact that first, there is no reference to principles stated in the Treaty, and second, while they appear in a number of pieces of legislation, none of those references actually define what those principles are. Again, that has been a concern to New Zealand First, and also the fact that it has been left up to people outside of this House and to institutions outside of this House to define what those principles are. It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to express our concern and also to seek their deletion from this bill.

I also reiterate a comment I made during the second reading when reporting back on comments made by claimants themselves in regard to this bill and during the course of hearing submissions from claimants. When asked about the importance of the principles of the Treaty in relation to this settlement, they did not have a view as to their importance for inclusion in this bill. But what they did say was that for them it was more important that recognition was given to the fact that a breach of the Treaty itself had taken place. So I reiterate the stance of New Zealand First and say that if this bill is passed it will be added to the list of legislation that includes those principles, when my colleague’s bill for the removal of those references from legislation comes up.

I have a few brief comments to make, and I foreshadow that I will be moving a number of amendments to the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill by way of introducing a new Part 4. That part will introduce a number of transitional provisions to deal with the dissolution of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority and changes consequent upon that, including the transfer of assets and liabilities, the position with taxes and duties, the requirement that the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority prepare a final report, and other miscellaneous matters such as registers, the status of contracts, and other instruments and matters that would not be affected by the transfer.

It is perhaps important that I state briefly now why I am seeking to introduce those amendments. It seems to me that the Māori Affairs Committee has got it wrong on page 23 of the commentary on the bill. Mention of the transfer of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority Board to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga begins on page 22, and sets out the arguments as to why Ngāti Mutunga wanted provisions to deal with the transfer of assets from the old board to the new governance arrangement. Page 23 of the commentary states: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” But that is not what is being proposed; in fact, that statement is simply wrong, because in July 2005 Ngāti Mutunga ratified a new governance arrangement to succeed the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority. It was never seeking, by legislation, to establish the new tribal arrangement; it was seeking to do what has been done in numerous pieces of settlement legislation—to effect a transfer from the old body to the new body and to effect the dissolution of the old body.

I am trying to make the point that the new entity, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga, was established on 21 December 2005. The establishment of that entity followed a Crown-approved ratification process that involved Ngāti Mutunga members over the age of 18. That structure was reviewed by the Crown prior to the ratification process, and was accepted as a suitable structure to replace the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority and to receive settlement assets.

In proposing these amendments I am seeking not to create a new entity but to recognise that there is this new entity that has been in existence for some months, that it is the appropriate body to take part in the settlement, and that the old body—the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority—could be appropriately dissolved. That is what I am seeking to do by proposing to insert a new Part 4. Although the proposed new Part 4 seems to have quite a few clauses in it, when the discussion is reduced to simple terms that is what is happening, and it is not different from the procedures that were adopted by this Committee in the Committee stage of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. If members look at Subpart 2 of Part 4 of that bill, which deals with various miscellaneous provisions, they will see that the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board was dissolved, and that all assets and liabilities were transferred to the new body. That process is no different from what happened with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in the 1996 Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act.

They are a simple set of amendments that reflect what Ngāti Mutunga wants, and I hope members of the Committee will reflect on them. It is not a question of playing party political games but of trying to achieve for Ngāti Mutunga a settlement that is appropriate and durable, and of making sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. I particularly refer Minister Burton to the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, because it seems to me that a mistake has been made in the report back. I am not seeking to do anything other than what happened in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill.

I endorse what my colleague Christopher Finlayson said and set out to the Committee—that it is pretty obvious that we have the ability to help Ngāti Mutunga, in terms of the old entity, to move seamlessly into the new entity, with basically a stroke of the pen. In fact, I do not think it will cost the Government at all in financial terms. My colleague Mr Finlayson put it succinctly when he mentioned what had happened in the Te Arawa lakes settlement—moving from the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board through to the new entity, Te Arawa Lakes Trust. So I do not think that it is too hard an ask for the Government to support the amendment put forward by my colleague Mr Finlayson. I do have some misgivings about the amendments from my whanaunga, my tuakana, over there from New Zealand First about the removal of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. As I said in the second reading, I was not too sure that it would be good politics at all to try to remove references to the Treaty principles from what is—

Pita Paraone: What are they? The member might be able to tell me.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, basically—I am not really here to help New Zealand First out. If the member really wants to know what they are, then maybe he should go home and do some homework.

However, I think it is a bit strange that we would remove references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from a Treaty settlement bill. I certainly agree with my colleague from New Zealand First that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi should not be in every bill, but I certainly think that references to the Treaty of Waitangi should be in what is, essentially, a Treaty of Waitangi settlement bill.

Darren Hughes: Except that’s not National Party policy.

Hon TAU HENARE: That member has just come out of school, he had his first drink in the pub not so long ago, and now he knows what National Party policy is.

Darren Hughes: Yes, I do—better than the member does.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, I see. This is where we get the spin from the biggest spinners out. They are such big spinners, they should be on the end of a fishing pole, for goodness’ sake! But I digress.

National Party policy is not to remove the Treaty of Waitangi principles from all legislation—unlike New Zealand First’s policy. I know that it is hard to differentiate between New Zealand First and National—

Pita Paraone: Which legislation, then, does it apply to?

Hon TAU HENARE: This legislation is a Treaty of Waitangi settlement, where we have, basically, bipartisan support for a settlement of a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Pita Paraone: That’s right.

Hon TAU HENARE: Right? OK! So why would we not have a mention of the thing that has been breached in the settlement bill.

Pita Paraone: It is mentioned—the Treaty.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is all the member wants. He does not even want the principles of the Treaty—

Pita Paraone: No. You don’t know what they are.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, I ask the member what they are.

Pita Paraone: I just want to know.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, come on! It is too easy, because it does not have any effect, whatsoever, on what we are talking about. It is just a play on the old superannuitants, who are New Zealand First’s support base, and whose numbers are dwindling ever so quickly.

Pita Paraone: Is that the same support base that put you in here?

Hon TAU HENARE: No, no. You see, in those days Māori did not get to be the age of a superannuitant, so all the people who voted for me from 1993 to 1999 were actually young people. But I digress again. All we are saying is that we think it is appropriate that we use this legislation for Ngāti Mutunga to move from the old to the new.

I thank the members for their contributions in terms of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. I also appreciate the amendments in the name of Chris Finlayson. Those amendments pertain to a proposed new Part 4 of the settlement bill, so I will acknowledge those points when we come to that stage of the debate. But I thank the member for his contribution.

Of course, the Government values the relationship it has established with Ngāti Mutunga, its negotiators, and its people. In saying that, I point out that we have advised Ngāti Mutunga that this is an inappropriate use of settlement legislation. It is not something we have done in the past, and it is not something we want to do in the future. Previous examples of such legislation have related to statutory bodies—for instance, trust boards—or have been introduced by way of private legislation, which we have seen in a number of cases such as with the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. But Chris Finlayson’s amendments have some merit. We value the relationship we have developed with Ngāti Mutunga, and, as I said, when the Committee comes to that stage of the debate I will speak to the matter in more detail. I thank the member for his contribution.

As for the amendments in the name of Pita Paraone, which seem to be part of a continuing saga, the member is well aware of Labour’s position in terms of the retention of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, particularly in settlement legislation. The member asked the previous speaker, the Hon Tau Henare, what those principles were. Well, I can offer some help to the member. It is pretty obvious that the Crown acknowledges in its apology that it failed to protect the property rights of Ngāti Mutunga. As a result of that failure, Ngāti Mutunga have not participated in the development of the local economy and in opportunities at the local level. In fact, they have been observers. They have been bystanders. Those two principles alone should satisfy us that the Crown was wrong in its actions and that it seeks to rectify that wrong—not in full, only in part, but it is certainly making a genuine attempt.

At the same time, I admire the member’s tenacity in continuing to promote the removal of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We have been generous in allowing New Zealand First’s legislation on this matter to go to a select committee, but I have to tell the member that after that—sayonara, ka kite anō. I needed to respond to that particular matter raised by the member, though I mean it when I say again that I admire his tenacity. I am sure that Ngāti Mutunga are listening carefully to his arguments and do not agree with any of them. Kia ora.

First, I apologise to the Committee. I missed the boat. I thought we were still on the title, so the Minister was very generous in not boxing my ears for being slow. But I do want to say something about clause 7, because the member for Otaki raised an interesting question about the National Party’s policy on the principles of the Treaty. I thought I had articulated them reasonably clearly when we debated the New Zealand First bill to deal with deleting references to the principles of the Treaty and, essentially, my friend Mr Henare has outlined them very well this afternoon.

The position is this. We say that there are some pieces of legislation—for example, the Conservation Act—that are of general application, where sections that state that the Act is to be interpreted in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi can be deleted, because we say that they are statutes of general application and those sorts of vague references do not necessarily help in the interpretation of the Act. I drew a distinction, however, between general legislation and settlement legislation. I think that it is very dangerous and unnecessary, in the context of settlement legislation, to delete references to the principles of the Treaty. Particularly, clause 7 of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, has, in English, the text of the various acknowledgments entered into between Ngāti Mutunga and the Crown in the deed of settlement, and the Crown acknowledges certain things.

I do not think that it is very clever, in the context of a debate in Committee or in the House, for Parliament to be deleting references in the context of a deed that has already been agreed between the settling party, in this case Ngāti Mutunga, and the Crown.

And that is why the National Party’s position, which I outlined in the first reading debate on the member’s very own Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, was that we would not interfere with those clauses; nor would we interfere with clauses in legislation like Te Rununga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996. But, as I said earlier, we would interfere and delete provisions that are of general application. Further, I said that if there were clauses in legislation where we thought there ought to be some kind of Treaty clause, we would draft that clause with some precision and detail, and not rely upon the generalist phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

So there we have it; it is not an unprincipled approach, at all. That is the National Party policy as articulated most recently in the context of the debate on that member’s bill, and that is the approach we will adopt when the bill comes before the Justice and Electoral Committee. I know that we have had quite a number of submissions, and I am very much looking forward to the debate on that issue. But I thought for the benefit of the member for Otaki I should make it quite clear that everything Mr Henare said this afternoon—as we would expect—was completely and utterly correct.

I want to have a crack, have a lick, at the text of the acknowledgments in English contained in clause 7: “The text of the acknowledgements in English as set out in the deed of settlement is as follows: (1) The Crown acknowledges that—(a) the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions in purchasing land in Taranaki created tensions that led to the outbreak of war;”. Just that particular paragraph, that part of the English acknowledgment, rather downplays what actually happened. I suppose that it should really be saying the “out and out theft and confiscation”, particularly in that part of New Zealand.

When the text talks about “the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions in purchasing land in Taranaki”, I agree that, OK, some land in Taranaki was purchased—through the back door, and after confiscation and all sorts of skulduggery. As I said in my speech to the House during the second reading, the particular issues we are dealing with today, in terms of Taranaki, have to be, I suppose, the results of the worst confiscation this country has ever seen. I do not want to belittle the settlements of Tainui, Ngāi Tahu, and so on, and so forth, but I am of the opinion that the acknowledgments in this bill, although acknowledging the Crown’s position, and although acknowledging that things that happened in Taranaki were dire, do not go far enough in terms of actually acknowledging what happened. I think it is important for us in Parliament that we do acknowledge exactly what happened. Yes, they were not in rebellion, but what does that really mean? Crikey, if someone came on to my property I would be in rebellion, and I would not care who knew it.

When we look at the effects on the remnants of Ngāti Mutunga of the so-called purchasing of land in Taranaki by the Crown, then I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves whether the language used in the acknowledgment is for the wider public consumption, or is it there to tell a story. I think that an acknowledgment of what has gone on should contain the whole story—the story should be told, warts and all—so that people in years to come can refer to the written acknowledgments of what happened, and why there was a settlement. It may not be the best settlement that could have happened, but there was a settlement, and somewhere along the line there should be some acknowledgment of what actually happened.

I will not comment on the text in Māori. I will leave that to better scholars than myself. We also move on to the text of the apology. There is nothing wrong with the text of the apology, but I do not think we can put into words an apology for what has happened. I always think that the people who produce such things have a far better time of it in looking for particular words and what they mean, because no apology could compensate for the seriousness of all that, and for the series of confiscations meted out on Ngāti Mutunga and on Taranaki.

Although I commend the Government, the Crown, and the officials who have done the job in getting this legislation to Parliament, I think there are still a number of holes in such pieces of legislation. Maybe one day we will do the job right, in terms of giving an apology, and of acknowledging the people and what actually went on. Maybe one day we will even have a list of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi inserted in a settlement bill.

The amendments in the name of Pita Paraone to clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10, to omit references to the principles of Treaty of Waitangi, are ruled out of order because they purport to amend the text of the deed of settlement. The clauses quote directly from the deed; I advise members to look at Speakers’ ruling 110/2.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause 1(a)(i)(A), the words “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi)”.