Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) on behalf of theMinister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I would like to say that this bill is an important milestone both for Ngāti Mutunga and for the Crown. The bill addresses the significant and longstanding grievances suffered by Ngāti Mutunga as a result of actions of the Crown. The bill enables both parties to move forward together in a positive Treaty relationship.

I encourage each and every member of this House to read the preamble to the bill with care. The bill sets out a formal Crown apology to Ngāti Mutunga for the Crown’s past dealings with Ngāti Mutunga, which breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The preamble records that the Crown profoundly regrets, and unreservedly apologises for, the confiscation of Ngāti Mutunga land. This confiscation was unconscionable. The preamble also records that the Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for its unconscionable actions at Parihaka. I note that it was 125 years ago, on 5 November, that Crown troops occupied Parihaka and arrested its peaceful inhabitants. I would also reiterate the comments of my parliamentary colleague Mahara Okeroa in his first reading speech, when he stated that the Crown did not come alone.

The deed of settlement and this bill will enable Ngāti Mutunga to build a stronger ongoing relationship with the Crown and will help to dispel the sense of grief and loss Ngāti Mutunga has suffered. In summary, as well as a formal apology to Ngāti Mutunga, the settlement provides for financial redress of $14.9 million and cultural redress. That includes the vesting of 10 sites of cultural significance, totalling approximately 168 hectares, with relevant provisions to protect the natural values of the sites and public access where appropriate, and an acknowledgement by the Crown of the unique and enduring relationship that Ngāti Mutanga has with its land in its area of interest.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and has submitted its commentary on it to the House. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with minor amendments of an editorial and a technical nature. I note that the committee heard two submissions, both of which were in support of the bill. In its commentary on the bill, the committee highlighted two key concerns expressed by Ngāti Mutunga’s submissions to the committee. In terms of the fairness of the quantum, the committee noted the concerns expressed by Ngāti Mutunga about how the Crown valued Ngāti Mutunga’s claim and how it arrived at a quantum figure. The committee said that it did not believe that the settlement was a fair assessment of the severity of the breach. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that it is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Mutunga for all the losses and prejudice that Ngāti Mutunga has suffered. If claimant communities insisted on full compensation for what has been lost, there would be no settlements, and there would be no resolution to historical grievances.

I acknowledge that the people of Taranaki and of New Zealand generally have benefited from the land and other resources confiscated and otherwise alienated from Ngāti Mutunga. However, what has been negotiated and agreed with Ngāti Mutunga is a figure that is based on the severity of the breaches suffered by Ngāti Mutunga and relativity with previous benchmarks for other similar claims. I respect the committee’s view but do not agree with it. The Crown’s redress package as a whole is an offer that is fair in the circumstances, and it has been developed and agreed with Ngāti Mutunga. Ngāti Mutunga said in its submission to the committee that it is a pragmatic iwi and that settling this claim is another part of Ngāti Mutunga getting on with life so that the iwi can grow.

The committee referred to Ngāti Mutunga’s concern about the costs it had incurred related to the disestablishment of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority and the transfer of its assets to the newly established Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga. The process of establishing and disestablishing private trusts is not an appropriate use of public legislation. Settlement legislation addresses matters necessary to achieve the settlement that cannot be achieved with certainty under non-legislative processes. The Crown’s funding policy has recently been reviewed to include a sum for costs associated with governance, and Ngāti Mutunga has benefited from the review, receiving an additional $34,000. This Government will continue to take opportunities as appropriate to consider ways in which to make the settlement process and associated costs for claimants more efficient.

In conclusion, I say settlement negotiations have occurred between Ngāti Mutunga and the Crown over a number of years in order to reach this important point. The Crown considers the settlement to be a fair and reasonable settlement in the circumstances. The people of Ngāti Mutunga have ratified it, with some 95 percent of them in favour of it. The public have now had the opportunity to make submissions on the bill through the select committee process. I encourage all members to support the passage of this bill through the House. Kia ora.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : The National Party will be supporting the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, but I want to make a number of comments before we start.

Might I first acknowledge the long struggle that the people of Ngāti Mutunga have had since the events of Parihaka the century before last. It seems strange to me to describe the time of that event as being in the century before last, because it happened only some 75 years before I was born. Sometimes I think we forget just how short our history in this country is. There is no doubt that many young New Zealanders now look upon the historic event of Parihaka with quite a degree of pride in the way in which the passive resistance was carried out, and with some shame at the way in which those people who were protesting their own rights were so forcibly ejected from their lands. It is relevant, in discussing this bill’s ratification, that we remember those events, because the oral history of Ngāti Mutunga has conveyed the circumstances of those events to young people in the iwi today just as strongly as any of the whakapapa prior to that time has been conveyed to them.

I bring that up because the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said that today’s claim has been ratified by 95 percent of those eligible to do so. That is not right. The reality is that some 1,300 people were able to vote for or against this claim, and only just over 600 chose to do so. It is true that of those 600-odd, 94 percent said yes, but we can argue that that does not necessarily constitute a majority of the iwi. This causes me concern, because a grievance quite rightly has been held by the iwi over these last 140-odd years—130-odd years, I should say; I do not want to make myself sound too old—and there is no doubt that from today the story will continue to be carried on in the generations ahead of us. It would be unfortunate if in a future time some of those young people were able to say: “Well, my ancestors didn’t vote for that, so how can I be included in this full and final settlement?”. I want to make it clear and put it on the record that the National view is that this is problematic, but we accept that given the opportunity put before the people, it is reasonable to assume that those who did not choose to vote were, in fact, choosing for the settlement. In other words, their non-vote was an acceptance of the arrangement.

We should also remember in that context that any treaty settlement is only as good as what can be offered at the time, and never really reflects the great losses that some of these iwi suffered. In the case of Ngāti Mutunga, at least 75,000 undisputed acres were confiscated from them because they were considered to be in rebellion, when, as I said before, the history of Parihaka would show that that was hardly a reasonable conclusion.

The bill acknowledges a number of cultural sites for Ngāti Mutunga. It requires that the Geographic Board consult with Ngāti Mutunga over names in that particular area, it sets aside some particular parts of the rohe for their exclusive use at various times, and it gives the opportunity for the iwi to pick up subsequent properties at an agreed valuation should they become surplus to Crown requirements. That is in addition to the $14 million of cash in compensation. National members say to Ngāti Mutunga that this settlement is a significant step forward. Its acceptance by the tribe is generous given the circumstances it was put through, and that at least has to be acknowledged.

The issue of governance from this point on, which was raised by the Associate Minister, is an interesting one. We have received from Ngāti Mutunga a proposal that their transition from an iwi authority to a private trust be put into this legislation in order to facilitate it. We will consider that document over the coming weeks before we go into the Committee stage, but I make the point that under the current structure that Ngāti Mutunga has, there is no legislative impediment to their moving to the new structure. There are some legal requirements, and those requirements will have a cost, but, as the Minister said, much of that cost has been met by the extra grant that the Crown made to the iwi in the settlement process.

I also ask why any organisation in this country that has been brought together to collectively advance the betterment of the people for whose benefit it exists would want to be bound by statute. Why does Ngāti Mutunga want to have the Parliament of New Zealand decide what its iwi structure and organisation should be? Surely that is a choice for the 2,000-odd members of this iwi. I ask the leaders of Ngāti Mutunga who have advanced this Supplementary Order Paper idea to give us an answer to that over the next few days. I do not think there is any advantage in their accepting from the Crown, after so many years, a cash settlement—with all the other bits that go with it—that will allow the iwi to be more self-determining and more able to do things for the people who have a claim upon that iwi, then binding themselves immediately into an organisational structure determined by this House.

As members we regularly have before us private bills from other organisations throughout the country whose governance organisation is statutorily confirmed. As time moves on, that arrangement often does not fit, so those organisations come here to ask us to give them new legislation, free them from those shackles, and let them go on their way. By and large, that is what happens. So I think the leaders of Ngāti Mutunga need to think very, very carefully about whether they really want that proposal to be advanced, because there is much greater opportunity if the organisation, which in this case is Ngāti Mutunga, is freed from the clutches—or the claws, if you like; the direct leash—of this House, and that is also much more relevant to self-determination,.

National looks forward to the Committee stage of this bill. There are a number of points that I am sure both sides of the House will wish to make as we progress towards a conclusion. This reading marks a further step on the way for Ngāti Mutunga in a process that started in 1996, and is now, after 10 years, looking as if it may soon reach some conclusion. I am pleased to state again that National will support this settlement bill—albeit with our reservations about the mandating process.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I take this opportunity to take a call in this second reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, in support of that bill, and as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee this gives me the opportunity to raise some of the issues we were faced with in our deliberations on this bill.

I thought three essential components were actually necessary to the bill reaching this point and, obviously, in talking about the bill’s agreed settlement surrounding these historical claims. I define that in three categories. The first is in relation to the parties. There has to be some willingness in relation to negotiating within the spirit of cooperation, simply because in these historical grievances there is a lot of hurt involved, and there is a lot of resolution sought. On that basis, the spirit of cooperation becomes very important while negotiating in that frame of mind towards seeking a settlement resolve. I recall, of the two submitters in support of this bill, that Ngāti Mutunga made it very clear to the select committee that they were pragmatic in their thinking, and felt because of that that it was necessary to reach that point so that iwi could move on. Their having embraced that value and principle suggested to me, as chair of the committee, that there was a need on their part to, I suppose, step over some historical barriers, in order to achieve this settlement.

Having said that, I tell members that in relation to negotiation it is about two parties coming together—the other party, obviously, being the Crown—and about the Crown having to complement that attitude in some way, which can be difficult, given the circumstances. The Crown, in fulfilling its responsibilities, has had to ensure that it was gaining the trust and the confidence of the iwi group, so that they could manage this process to indeed arrive at a deed of settlement in the first instance, then arrive at this bill at this time. If we consider the history of the claim, we see that in the first instance it was submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1990. From there the Crown picked up the claim, I think in 1996, and took it from that point on to reach a deed of settlement. In those negotiations, I think it is important to acknowledge the relationship that has been built between Ngāti Mutunga and the Crown over these issues.

The second important component I have found, in relation to the settlement being a prosperous one, is the elements of the package. We heard from the Minister Mita Ririnui earlier about some of those, but I would like to try to identify a few more of them. The original deed of settlement included commercial and financial redress with an aggregate value of over $14 million, and that aggregate value included a cash settlement amount of over $14 million, of which $400,000 had already been paid to the iwi authority in advance to assist with negotiations.

The components of the package include a right of first refusal, in favour of the trustees, to buy at market value certain surplus Crown-owned properties and the deeds of recognition in relation to 12 statutory areas. It includes a shellfish right of first refusal, under which the Crown must offer the trustees a certain percentage of quota, with specified shellfish and quota management, and the appointment of the trustees to act as an advisory committee to the Minister of Fisheries. I suppose that is for the Minister to give some recognition to, and permission for, the customary non-commercial interests of Ngāti Mutunga. There is additional fisheries-related redress, including a prohibition on the taking of certain species for commercial purposes within the area.

The package includes a commitment that at the request of the trustees, officials from the Ministry for the Environment will run a workshop on preparing an iwi management plan. There is an acknowledgement that the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister of Local Government have written to the Taranaki Regional Council and the New Plymouth District Council, encouraging them to enter into a moratorium of understanding, or similar document, with the trustees in relation to interaction between the council and Ngāti Mutunga.

There is also an acknowledgment that the Minister of Conservation has written to the Taranaki-Wanganui Conservation Board, encouraging the board to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the trustees; an acknowledgment that the Minister of Conservation has written to the Taranaki Fish and Game Council, encouraging the council to enter into a memorandum of understanding; and an acknowledgment by the Crown of the unique and enduring relationship that Ngāti Mutunga has with the land in its area of interest. So I do believe that, as a second part of this package, the elements of settlement are quite important in terms of firming up whether this settlement will be long-lasting.

The third part of it is quite important, as well. It is the recognition of the grievance and the historical problems through the apology from the Crown. I suppose, in some respects, an apology represents some spiritual moving on, as well. The Crown’s acknowledgment of the grievances—its apology—is the sealing, I think, towards ensuring that the settlement is long-lasting. It allows Ngāti Mutunga, as it submitted to the select committee, to move on and get on with running the business of the iwi for the future. It gives me great delight to be part of the process, particularly in this process that gives recognition for this settlement. As I said earlier, I take the opportunity to take the stand in support of this bill.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. I have had the privilege of taking calls in the debates on a number of settlement bills in my 10 years in Parliament—although it does seem that progress has slowed in the last 6 years. None the less, when the Labour Government finally gets settlement bills to this House, I am very pleased to take part in the debate. I just want to say “tēnā koutou” to those of Ngāti Mutunga, and others who have an interest in their settlement, who are here in the gallery today; also to my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, albeit we are from different parties.

Very, very often in these matters we tend to demonstrate, whether or not we like to admit it, that Māori ties are longstanding, historical, and binding. They are enduring. All of us Māori MPs have ties that were in existence when we came into this Parliament, and they will remain and endure long after we leave. Actually, as soon as some of our Pākehā colleagues understand that, we might make a lot of progress in this place.

In essence, even though on the face of it the bill is a simple one, in that it follows the format of previous legislation, and even though there is a big mamae, or hurt, in the hearts of the iwi to settle, there is also the wish on the part of Ngāti Mutunga to move forward. So, as I think I said in the first reading, the leaders of the iwi made the decision that it was time to move on.

It is a privilege when one is in this place and has had the opportunity to move around New Zealand and participate in the hui of our people—people of all description—to see the impact a settlement has on tribes who have settled to date. For a lot of reasons, it is always great to see progress on settlement bills such as this one.

I want to raise two matters in relation to the select committee process. The first is the definition of Ngāti Mutunga. This issue of definition always comes up, and it will continue to come up because many Māori have reservations or anxieties—I certainly do—about who the settling iwi are as finally defined in a piece of legislation. The Office of Treaty Settlements, the Crown, requires that Ngāti Mutunga tikanga be overridden by a number of Acts, including the Adoption Act. In a sense, for many Māori, that is anathema. It is an absolute no-no. The reason is that inheritance in Te Ao Māori proceeds on the basis of genealogical ties—blood ties—and adoption, in the traditional way, very often does not include blood relationships. We have come to accept that this will become part of settlements, but it does not mean to say that we all like it.

Sure, there is a point at which the Crown can say that these settlements were negotiated with iwi and that the iwi are happy, and the Crown is happy to a greater or lesser degree, but they are always pepper-potted with various provisions that essentially cut across tikanga—in this case, Ngāti Mutunga tikanga. However, it is there. The wishes of Ngāti Mutunga are overridden by the fact that the definition of who they are includes children who are adopted getting the same rights as those who were born and bred Ngāti Mutunga. That is one point.

The other point is the matter that my colleague Gerry Brownlee referred to, and about which National may propose a Supplementary Order Paper. The issue is one that revolves round the Crown’s requirement, which is a reasonable one—and I am not saying that this is just the Crown in its current form, because this was developed when National was in Government—that claimant groups have an established governance entity to receive and manage their settlement assets and that this entity must be representative, accountable to the claimant community, and have transparent decision-making and dispute resolution processes.

Some claimant groups, namely those who settled under the previous National Government and National - New Zealand First Government, have used private legislation to fulfil this requirement. But currently, it seems to be the policy of the Labour Government that they are not supportive of this and so the reality is that Ngāti Mutunga have to go through this pretty convoluted process of disestablishing their current tribal entity and going through the cost, time, and effort in the process that that entails. Really, their desired course was that private legislation would be available to them in the way that it was available to Tainui; Ngāi Tahu, with their Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act; to Ngāti Awa, who also had Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act, and one under the current Government in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act. They have been denied this; instead they were given a slightly increased sum to offset some of the costs of disestablishing their rūnanga, but ultimately it does seem they have been somewhat discriminated against by not being given the availability of private legislation, which invariably, on the face of it, makes the process a lot simpler.

I want to flag that, and Gerry Brownlee certainly flagged it. He did say, though, that he would like to know why Ngāti Mutunga are asking for a Supplementary Order Paper that accommodates their wish. Basically it boils down to a significant saving in cash in the transaction costs.

It is not about the establishment of an entity bound to Parliament; most definitely it is not that. I would not have a part of it if it were. I know that they are smart enough not to want that. So it is an issue about the significant transaction costs, acknowledging the contribution that Office of Treaty Settlements has made, and an ease of process that ultimately seems to be much more sensible than what they are being asked to do now.

This is a phase that gets us closer to the third reading of this bill. I hope it is the Government’s intention to see that occur before the end of the year—that would be great. It would add to the things that make a parliamentarian feel good when coming to the end of a parliamentary year. So I would like to feel good. National will certainly support the timely passage of the bill to its third reading. As I say, I hope it is the Government’s intention to do that. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Ā, tēnā koe Madam Speaker; tēnā anō tātou o te Whare nei. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o te wāhanga i riro mai ki a au, e mihi tonu ki tēnā o ngā hunga mai i Ngāti Mutunga, koutou i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou. Ā, tēnā hoki koutou o Ngāti Mutunga e noho tonu i te wā kāinga, i whakarongo mai i ēnei o ngā kōrero i puta mai i roto o te Whare i te rā nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

Madam Assistant Speaker, by way of explanation, I acknowledge not only yourself and members of the House but also those of Ngāti Mutunga who are in the precincts of this Chamber and those who are at home listening to this debate.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say it is a pleasure to be able to participate in the second reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. The bill is a continuation of the whole settlement process involving Treaty of Waitangi claims.

What is more pleasurable about this particular bill is that it will help to bring some closure to the events of the 19th century that saw the people of Ngāti Mutunga, and, of course, other iwi of Taranaki, experience one of the darkest hours in the history of our country. In respect of this claim and other Taranaki claims, the Waitangi Tribunal commented that there may be no others where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time. I also reiterate what I said during the first reading of this bill, which was that any latter-day settlement will not change the events of the past.

However, what is expected of Treaty settlement legislation is that it will help to compensate claimants, such as Ngāti Mutunga, by providing some form of redress, both financial and, of course, cultural. I say that in the context of the view expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal that “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori, to restore the honour of the Government, to ensure cultural survival, and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.”

We heard comments from the member from the National Party who alluded to the issue of the impact that the Adoption Act will have on the future identity of those who can claim, or will be able to claim, descent from Ngāti Mutunga. I need to support the comments that she made, because when we are talking about any particular Māori hapū or iwi, we are actually talking about whakapapa—genealogy—and we are talking about blood genealogy. Unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on people’s viewpoint—the Adoption Act does not necessarily provide for that, unless the adoptee is a member of the wider whānau.

The second reading of this bill progresses the claims made by Ngāti Mutunga—that is, the descendants of Mutunga—and follows the consideration of submissions made to the Māori Affairs Committee. As a matter of history, the day that the committee met, 6 September this year, was 1 day after the 140th anniversary of the confiscation of the lands that have led us to the House today. With the exception of one submitter, whose opposition was to a clause that provides for the vesting of the fee simple estate in reserved land presently under its purview, all submitters were in support of the bill. The particular submitter that was opposed to part of the bill was the New Plymouth District Council, which was concerned that its proprietary interest would be a lesser interest than the interest it currently holds. The support for the bill was further evidenced by the iwi ballot to accept the negotiated settlement and the new body to accept the proceeds from the settlement. I say that, notwithstanding the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson on Māori affairs. I suggest we will never ever get it perfect in terms of having 100 percent support for any settlement that iwi representatives enter into on behalf of their iwi.

During the hearing of submissions on the bill, representatives from Ngāti Mutunga, although having completed a deed of settlement, entered into negotiations and accepted that the settlement was “fair in the circumstances”, expressed some disquiet about elements of the final settlement. Not the least of that disquiet was about the formula used by the Crown negotiators to arrive at the quantum that was used to reach this settlement. They asserted that the total area of Ngāti Mutunga’s land that was originally confiscated actually amounted to 150,000 acres. That figure was confirmed on a digital calculation. However, for the purposes of this and other Taranaki claims, the Crown has used calculations drawn from the Sim Commission evidence and findings as a source of information in developing the quantum offer.

Another point of disquiet was the apparent reluctance to provide the claimants with the full formula used to arrive at the quantum for this claim. An earlier speaker alluded to that issue. We did, however, ascertain that the size or population of an iwi contributes to the overall quantum for each claim, notwithstanding the value or the size of the confiscation, or the breach of the Treaty, that affected that particular iwi. It was also suggested by Ngāti Mutunga—and I think this does have some credibility—that had its negotiators, or tribal representatives, included people with a high profile, then perhaps the quantum would have been more favourable to Ngāti Mutunga. I say that as someone who comes from an iwi group—a hapū, some might say—that does not necessarily have people of the ilk that I described. Probably that will have some impact when we come to this House with our settlement.

Notwithstanding all of that, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga did stress that the settlement quantum was fair in the circumstances, or in context, but that it did not regard it as fair in reality. Its desire to accept this settlement for the sake of its future was, it considered, practical and pragmatic. An earlier speaker referred to the pragmatism that was exercised by the negotiators for Ngāti Mutunga. They ought to be lauded, but because of their youthful age compared with other negotiators acting on behalf of other tribes, I suggest to the House that their acceptance of what has been offered to Ngāti Mutunga will be a load that not only will they have to bear but also all their descendants will have to bear in the years to come. As the people of Ngāti Mutunga reflect on this settlement, none of us need to guess who will get the blame if there is any criticism of the settlement.

From a political party viewpoint and to ensure there is consistency on our part, I want to refer to the inclusion in the bill of references to the terms “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” or “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles”. As the House well knows, my colleague Doug Woolerton has sponsored a member’s bill, which has been referred to a select committee, to have references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi deleted from the 30-odd pieces of legislation in which they appear at the moment. When I raised this issue regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi at the select committee hearing with the applicants, I was led to understand from them that the principles were not an issue for them but rather the issue was the fact that there were, indeed, breaches of the Treaty. That then gives rise to the question of why it has been so important for the Crown to include references to Treaty principles in any settlement. New Zealand First has always maintained that in the absence of any clear definition of Treaty principles, and given their absence from the Treaty itself, the failure of anyone, particularly Māori, to request that the non-existent principles be included in legislation, and the fact that the term was originally inserted to provide a mere flourish to the State-Owned Enterprises Act, we do not see any need to include references to those principles. I signal to the House that during the Committee stage we will certainly be issuing a Supplementary Order Paper to seek the deletion of those references from this bill.

Notwithstanding that, New Zealand First will certainly support this bill moving to the next stage of the process. Kia ora.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei and the Green Party, I congratulate Ngāti Mutunga on their settlement. Although we state regularly our objection to Government policy on the settlement process, there is no doubt that extraordinary work and effort by the iwi have gone into this settlement, and we acknowledge and applaud that work.

Ngāti Mutunga is one of the eight Taranaki iwi to bring their settlement to the House. Their history, similarly, is one of dispossession and disenfranchisement at the hands of the New Zealand settler Government, which unlawfully confiscated their lands and imprisoned their people. The confiscations were indiscriminate, and the entirety of Ngāti Mutunga’s rohe was stolen from them. The compensation process established to mitigate the thefts was never implemented. Ngāti Mutunga rightly supported the acts of passive resistance organised by the prophets Te Whiti and Tohu at Parihaka. The subsequent military invasion of Parihaka led to the destruction of homes, the confiscation of assets like stock, imprisonment, and the forced removal of some 1,600 women, men, and children. Māori were effectively made refugees in their own country. It was one of the most shameful episodes in our history.

During the select committee process for this bill, there were no objections to this settlement. I thank those who made submissions, particularly the rūnanga and negotiators for Ngāti Mutunga. Their submission was very powerful. I will refer to two issues they raised.

The first issue was around the quantum of the settlement. Ngāti Mutunga raised very serious concerns about the quantum effectively being a fait accompli. When they talked to the Office of Treaty Settlements about the quantum, the office refused to reveal how it had come to the initial amount. It told the committee that it does not go into a negotiation with a quantum in mind, but after further questioning it conceded that it does have a figure as a starting point. But the office set it all up before the negotiation. In the case of Ngāti Mutunga, the initial figure proposed by the office changed by only a fraction in the final settlement. The office argued that commercial sensitivity prevented it from disclosing how it came to the initial figure. That is not good enough. The office must demonstrate clear and transparent processes for determining its initial offer. To do anything less puts the claimants at a very serious disadvantage and makes the process a pay-off, not a negotiation.

The second issue was a reflection on the phrase “fair in the circumstances”. Although the iwi were prepared to accept that statement in the settlement as a pragmatic concession, it is clear that “fair in the circumstances” really means “in accordance with the political circumstances”, not what is just. Again, this creates a fallacy around the settlements being a genuine negotiation for the purpose of righting serious wrongs and providing restitution. We must remember that Māori are extremely generous in accepting these settlements. Like Taranaki iwi before them, Ngāti Mutunga have agreed to accept less than they would otherwise be entitled to for the significant losses they have suffered. They have agreed to cooperate with the Government, and within a Government process that does not recognise their tikanga but requires them to operate within a Pākehā framework. Only about 1 percent of the potential value of compensation is paid in Treaty settlements, and any initiatives designed to lift Māori to any kind of equal footing with the rest of the community are considered by far too many politicians in this House as being too generous.

The Green Party has in the past been very clear that but for the work of the iwi in concluding these settlements, and the costs in time, money, and people that this awful process requires, we would vote against settlements. We remain in complete opposition to a process by which the Government dictates the way in which things should be done in the tangata whenua domain, and in complete opposition to a process by which the wronged party is expected to submit to terms imposed by the wrongdoer.

The Greens believe that the Government should develop with Māori a diversity of models for restitution that is premised on the tino rangatiratanga of hapū as the first principle. Clearly, hapū must not be punished for choosing not to participate in a Crown process that is extensively designed for their benefit but that fails to recognise their needs and concerns. Crown policy could be changed to engage with individual hapū, as set out in Te Tiriti. The Crown could engage in a resolution process that focuses more closely on ongoing relationships, and less on fiscal and time constraints. It could accept alternative models through resolution that are determined by Māori themselves. This method of dealing with injustices of the past could achieve a real resolution. Meanwhile, we will be voting for this reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou. E te Raukura, e te Maunga Tītōhea, nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare nei.

[Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us. Welcome to you, the Raukura and Mount Tītōhea, welcome to this House.]

The timing of select committee hearings is often simply a matter of scheduling. But this was not the case with Ngāti Mutunga. Wednesday, 6 September 2006 was a marker in Ngāti Mutunga history. It was the first time that Ngāti Mutunga had ever dealt directly with an arm of Parliament. It was also on that exact day 141 years earlier that the Crown had wrongfully confiscated all of Ngāti Mutunga’s land. And what was the nature of the argument put by Ngāti Mutunga on this day of all days? The argument is captured in the following words: “Ultimately Ngati Mutunga’s concerns fell on deaf ears and we were put in the position of having to cede to the Crown’s view”.

So what does it do to a people, who for 141 years have suffered the consequences of confiscation and military assault, to be greeted by a Government that says: “Here it is; take it or dip out.”? As one of the iwi of Taranaki whānui, Ngāti Mutunga lives every day with the aftermath of land deprivation and disempowerment. Having married into the Taranaki people and lived there for around 6 years—a very short period of time when one considers what has happened in Taranaki regarding confiscation—I heard regularly how the people feel about muru me te raupatu—confiscation. You see, they sing about it, they haka about it—confiscation is etched as part of their history. Mr Mahara Okeroa knows their songs; he is from there—from Waitara, from Parihaka, which are symbols of the legacy of land confiscation. Every day on the drive from Urenui to Ngāmotu in New Plymouth, members of Ngāti Mutunga face the impact of perpetual leases, and the promises of the reserves made in the confiscations of the 1860s that are still not given effect.

The Taranaki situation is unique. In the 1996 Taranaki report, the Waitangi Tribunal concluded: “It is a further consequence of this extraordinary record of expropriation and deprivation that there is not one hectare of Taranaki land that is now held entirely on Maori terms and by Maori rules. All that could have been done was done to destroy the land base for Maori autonomy and representation. In the governance of the Taranaki province, since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, land has been reserved for the bush and the birds but not one acre could be guaranteed as a haven for Māori.” Not one acre. Imagine the consequences of living with that reality—promises reneged on, justice denied—and of every day living with the legacy of extensive land loss and debilitating land reform. Finally, on the day when Ngāti Mutunga had the generosity to meet with the Crown, once more the Crown failed to respect their authority.

The Māori Party strongly endorses the notion that tikanga should take preference in such matters as definition of who is whom, and that it must be for iwi to define themselves. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga asked the Crown to define it in a manner consistent with Ngāti Mutungatanga, but, no, the Crown insisted that the Adoption Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the Human Rights Act should usurp and override Ngāti Mutunga tikanga. Historical hapū that are no longer included within the iwi community were placed in the settlement by the Crown. I mean, what is up with that? This House should by now be well aware of the conflict and internal divisions attached to the process of Treaty settlements, yet here is the Crown willingly marching in, like troops storming Parihaka, to set up scenarios that could threaten the internal unity of the iwi. Why do it?

Once the Crown redefined the iwi, it proceeded with the ultimate offence, by pulling a figure out of the air—$14.9 million—and expecting Ngāti Mutunga to be grateful. No explanation was given as to the methodology for calculating the quantum. There was no transparency—zilch. Speaker after speaker—from the Government, at least—mentioned the incredible gesture of Ngāti Mutunga in taking the pittance as being in the best interests of the country, while talking up a rugby stadium and a financial surplus of $11.5 billion. But the country does not seem to be able to afford this settlement. Kātahi te mahi, hōhā ko tera.

The revelation to the Māori Affairs Committee from the Office of Treaty Settlements that the Crown enters Treaty settlements with a predetermined quantum in mind, while not earth-shattering news, was more definitive proof that the fiscal cap lives and that good-faith bargaining is only ever one way. The thief consistently expects to be received in good faith. The committee concluded, as do we, that there could be no confidence that the offer of settlement was a fair assessment of the severity of the breach.

In particular, Ngāti Mutunga remain aggrieved that the reduction of the 150,000 acres to the 75,000 presented by the Sim Commission was not reflected in the quantum. This is a massive difference, yet, as always, the Crown authority prevails. Although the minimisation of Ngāti Mutunga’s traditional boundaries was acknowledged in writing, the injustice remains for Ngāti Mutunga. I suppose Ngāti Mutunga went into the negotiations with eyes open. They knew that the commercial redress reflects less than 1 percent of the value of the land confiscated.

The pain of the alienation has not been lessened by this settlement, of that I am sure. The Department of Conversation estate remains in Crown hands. All lands within Ngāti Mutunga’s traditional rohe have been lost. I suspect that the inevitable contrast with other settlements that Ngāti Mutunga perceive as having included significant commercial assets, such as Crown forest licensed land, leaves Ngāti Mutunga with more questions. To top it off, Ngāti Mutunga incurred substantial costs in even getting to the point of settlement. It is no wonder that they describe the process as outrageous when we consider that these are the uri of tūpuna who suffered the worst excesses of war and raupatu and are now forced to struggle to find resources to make ends meet.

Yet despite all of this, and despite the sense of resentment and injustice heaped upon injustice, Ngāti Mutunga was required to agree that the settlement was fair under the circumstances. What could possibly be fair about Ngāti Mutunga being denied their right to develop their potential? What is fair about the fact that although redress has not been negotiated for their tupuna maunga, a fiscal element has already been calculated as a part of the settlement quantum? What is fair about the quantum being based on a figure that most understand as having been plucked out of the air, or by someone saying: “Oh, one percent sounds good.”?

I know Ngāti Mutunga to be a proud people, despite the long-lasting effects of land confiscation. They and the other tribes of Taranaki are a source of personal inspiration in terms of their tenacity in hanging in there with their claims. Many tell us about the toll that the process takes on people, but their descendants yet to be born will know of their determination and united resolve to do what they could in the best interests of the people. We pay tribute to the efforts in reconnecting the ahi kā with Ngāti Mutunga uri spread throughout ngā hau e whā. We of the Māori Party will support any amendment that relates to the liquidation and wind-up of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority incorporated society and the transfer of its assets and functions to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga private trust, if this is what is wanted.

We note the disappointment expressed by the select committee that the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority had to incur costs of up to $20,000 to transfer the assets and functions to the post-governance entity Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga. We of the Māori Party will not relent from exposing the arrogant approach taken by the Crown in its dealing with Ngāti Mutunga. Hansard will record, for example, our shock at the Crown not initially disclosing these sorts of costs to them.

I must say that we understand that Ngāti Mutunga must be practical and make the best of the disastrous situation. The pitiful quantum allocated to the settlement and the directive to establish the rūnanga in the place of the iwi authority as a requirement of the settlement are in themselves sufficient to explain to this House the expectation that the liquidation of the iwi authority will be effected as a part of this settlement process. We agree that there is already well-established precedent for the use of legislation to effect the liquidation of an existing iwi representative entity and its replacement with a new entity.

I attended a number of the Taranaki tribunal hearings. The 1996 Waitangi report stated: “If war is the absence of peace, the war has never ended in Taranaki, because that essential prerequisite for peace among peoples, that each should be able to live with dignity on their own lands, is still absent …”. This bill does nothing to advance the peacemaking process. One would assume that giving an apology might mean that the Crown would not breach again, yet the Crown continues to do so. Ngāti Mutunga survive, but an enduring conflict remains. Such is the nature of Treaty settlements.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Right, let us cut to the chase. We have heard lovely speeches so far in this debate. This must be one of the worst cases of confiscation the country has ever seen. We can put this issue up alongside those of Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. At the end of the day, what we saw in the Taranaki district is no less than abhorrent to most right-thinking people. Is the settlement of $14 million decent enough? Absolutely not. It does not even scratch the surface. My colleague before me mentioned the stadium that the country is besotted with at the moment. One billion dollars is proposed for a national stadium; $14 million is being provided in redress for an unholy war that was brought upon the Taranaki people.

I hate to say this, but we will be supporting this legislation. I hate to say it because I want more to be provided in compensation for the people who suffered.

Pita Paraone: We tried to help them, remember? We helped them a bit.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yeah, we tried to help. Governments always try to help. But let us be serious about this. This quantum is pathetic, given what the Crown did and what Taranaki went through. We all think that what we are doing is good. My heart and soul are in the right place, in terms of wanting to reach a settlement and support the Government. But let us get serious about this matter.

I want to raise a number of issues today. One issue is what Ngāti Mutunga wants the Government to look at, in terms of moving from the old entity to the new entity. The Māori Affairs Committee report states about that issue: “The Crown requires that claimant groups have an established governance entity to receive and manage their settlement assets.” But then we turn around and say that they cannot have that move from the old entity to the new one in this legislation. Why not? The iwi is required to move from an old to a new entity—certain things are required to happen—but the legislation does not include how that should happen. So I have huge sympathy with Ngāti Mutunga on that. [Interruption] Here is the issue. Ngāti Mutunga was given a quantum of money, but I found out today that that was only in the transition from the old entity, not the move to the new entity. I want to go on record today as saying that we have to sort that issue out before the Committee stage, not during the Committee stage. The Office of Treaty Settlements representatives and the Crown negotiators need to front up and get the matter straight. They should not leave it to New Zealand First, the National Party, and the Māori Party to do that sort of work. It is up to the Minister and it is up to the Office of Treaty Settlements to do that business and make sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed before they come back to the House.

Another issue concerns the mandate. I will always go on about the mandate, as I have a really big issue about that. The select committee report states: “In the ratification vote on the deed of settlement, from thetotal 2,000 members of Ngāti Mutunga, 48 percent (635 people) of the 1,313 eligible members voted validly. Of these,94 percent (597 people) voted in favour of accepting the deedof settlement.” That is actually less than 50 percent of the tribe. Why put a figure of 94 percent there? It gives the impression that 94 percent of the 2,000 are in favour of the deed of settlement, when less than 50 percent of the 2,000 are actually in favour of it. I am not casting aspersions on Ngāti Mutunga; I am just saying that if we are to have anything written about mandates, then please let us not try to hide the size of a mandate in a figure like 94 percent. That makes a lie of the settlement. It suggests to everyone who is interested that 94 percent of the iwi actually support the legislation.

What worries me as well, in terms of settlement legislation, is the question of who knows about it. We do; Ngāti Mutunga does. The rest of the nation will go about their business tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that, not even knowing the history of what has happened. When one talks about passive resistance, the name that one conjures up is of that of Mahatma Gandhi from the 1930s. But hey, what about Parihaka? Why have we not been upfront with regard to our own history? Why have we not revelled in the mana of Parihaka? We should revel in the mana of Taranaki, in terms of the way Māori there handled their dispute with the Crown. If the Government wants to talk about national identity, why does it not start there? If the Government wants to talk about national identity on a world stage, let it talk about national identity in terms of where and what in our history contributes to that.

We can have settlements that are lasting. But $14 million for 150,000 acres that were confiscated? Come on, let us be serious! I think that is a scandal. We should be able to fix that scandal and we should be looking at doing so, instead of saying: “Well, that’s all we can afford, boys and girls. You either take it or leave it.” My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell said that that is exactly what has happened—take it or leave it. People say that a Treaty settlement is a negotiated settlement. We can only negotiate so far. When we keep saying to the Crown that its offer is not enough, we have two choices. One choice is to thank the Crown very much for its kind donation and go on with the settlement, and the other is to say no and move to the back of the bus. I do not think that is fair on anybody.

I am afraid that all the apology says is that the Government is sorry. This legislation does not say why the Government is sorry, and it does not give the historical reasons why it should be sorry. It does not say that anywhere in the legislation. Will the settlement be full and final? Who knows whether in 100 years’ time the uri of the people who have signed the deed of settlement and signed up for the settlement will not come knocking on the door again and say it ain’t good enough? Who knows? Quite frankly, I will not be here to see it, so let us concentrate on the now. We believe that it is a full and final settlement, the Crown believes it is a full and final settlement, and maybe some of Ngāti Mutunga believe it is a full and final settlement. There are four things about this bill: redress, apology, cooperation, and reconciliation. I hope that one day we do get to the stage where we can reconcile what has happened—reconcile the differences.

Lastly, and very briefly, I say that to not have reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in what is essentially a Treaty of Waitangi settlement is absurd. It is stupid, it is silly, and it is time New Zealand First got off the horse and did things properly. I agree with New Zealand First members that a Treaty reference should not be in all legislation, but it should be in Treaty settlement legislation.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) : Ā, ka tū mai au i runga i te taumata roimata hekeheke iho i ngā kanohi o koutou rā, Ngāti Mutunga. Ko tēnei tū, e tū poroporoaki ki tētehi o koutou kua whakawairua i taua wā, arā, tētehi o ngā wahine poupou e whakaarahi mai i te ara mō koutou, mai rā anō. Nā, ka mate taua wahine rā i te ngārara kaitangata, i ngaungau mai i tana tinana. Nā, ko taua wahine rā, ko Teresa. I a au e kite mai i ō koutou nei kanohi, ā, ka hoki mahara mai ki taua wahine e takoto mai rā i roto i tētehi o ngā urupā o roto o Te Āti Awa, me kī pēnei pea, e ngaungau noke te ingoa tawhito o tēnā, i takoto ngātahi ai a ia i a rātou rā. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

Ka mihi mai ahau ki te Whare nei, i a koutou nei e tū i runga i te marae ātea, e whakapuaki ai koutou i ngā kōrero mai i ō koutou nei kaingākau. Arā, ki a koe te uri o Te Rangiwewehi, e whakahuatia mai i ngā nawe mai i nehenehe nui, ā, i runga i a rātou rā, i raro i te maunga waiwai kope a Taranaki. Tae noa atu ki tēnā nā o Ngāti Hine, e hāmama ā-waha i ngā āhuatanga i whakahē pea i ngā wawata i runga i te pokohiwi o ngā uri o tētehi. Nā, i runga i te pokohiwi o koutou rā e noho i runga. Nō reira Mutunga mai i Tītoki ki Te Rau o te huia, hoki ngā kamo ki te tuawhenua nā, ki taua pou whenua a Tara mōku, i te taha o te awa o Waitara, e piki, e rere mai i tana tīmatatanga tae noa atu ki te ngutu awa ki taua rohe. Tēnā koutou.

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

[I rise in terms of the tears that you have shed, Ngāti Mutunga, and to farewell one of your number who has passed away. She was a pillar who paved the way for you from the outset, and succumbed to that dreaded disease, cancer. Teresa was that woman. Memories of her at rest in one of Te Āti Awa’s graveyards came flooding back as I looked at your faces. So, greetings to us.

I acknowledge this House and those of you who have spoken and expressed your views; indeed, to you the relative from Rangiwewehi and your references to longstanding grievances upon those from beneath Mount Taranaki. I also acknowledge the contributions from the member of Ngāti Hine. And so to you, Mutunga, from Tītoki to the Plume of the Huia, into the hinterland and along the banks of the Waitara River from its source to its outlet, greetings to you. ]

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and also, as was said by the honourable member over there, as Te Uri o Taranaki. In the discussion so far, without doubt there is an opportunity to express a whole range of issues that people perceive as not being of assistance to a claims process.

Tau Henare, the National Party member, spent a lot of time talking about the quantum in terms of dollars and cents. Yet he was a Minister of Māori Affairs when those of us who were in Te Puni Kōkiri at the time had to take around all the rohe Māori the notion about the $1 billion cap. We are seeing here, I suppose, in terms of a policy matter, the implications of two issues that have affected claims after the Ngāi Tahu claim and the Waikato claim—first, the policy about the $1 billion cap; second, the issue that tends to, in my view, limit the value of the claim, which is termed the ratchet clause. So every claim that has come subsequent to that is, in my view, valued in a framework with those two major issues that still resonate in every claims process.

So I would suggest to the honourable member Mr Tau Henare, as he waxes glorious about the quantum for Ngāti Mutunga, that he reflect on the implication of what his political regime did with regard to Treaty claims.

As the last speaker, I take on board all issues that were expressed today, and the honesty with which those issues were articulated. In a sense they need to be kept being articulated. For example, the policy concerning what I would call whakataurimatanga—other people would refer to that as whāngai—in a sense is counter to the whole issue about settlements based on whakapapa. Because often our descendants are not only Aotearoa based, they are a part of a global village, and as such they often form alliances with people who are non-Māori. But under the legislation, as at present existing, they have an equal right in terms of claimants. Yet in the Māori land tenure we have a principle under law that means that the alienation of Māori-owned land can be transferred only to what they call the preferred class of alienee, which means one has to be part of the original whakapapa in order to inherit particular land rights.

So those questions that have been asked do bear further discussion. In spite of that, and in spite of those well articulated issues being put before this House, I commend Mutunga for their persistence and consistency in taking a pathway forward, which they describe as being pragmatic.

Now whatever my thoughts were with regard to the pragmatic approach, in essence I suppose, for the iwi that makes the decision about whether to accept, that is a responsibility and an issue that it must come to terms with. So, Mutunga, me ō koutou nei raukura titiā, [Mutunga and your feather adornments] this is only the second reading. There is one further reading plus a Committee stage where no doubt we will seek to address one major issue that has been brought up, and that is in regard to the translocation or transference of assets from one point to another.

I think this second reading has been thoughtful, and definitely not adversarial, because each member has taken a stance to express a particular view. Having done that, members of this House must also take into consideration as well that Mutunga has accepted the offer. Nā koutou kē te mana, ehara i a mātou. Ahakoa te teitei hoki o ngā ngaru papaki mai. Ahakoa te koropūpū hoki ai ō tō koutou kaingākau, tangi ai. Nā koutou kē e whakaaengia kia haere tika ai. Anei te tihi o ngā whakataukītanga kōrero mai i a Taranaki: “To mua anō ki mua.” Ahakoa rā ngā āhuatanga ō muri ake. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[The authority is yours, not ours. Regardless how high the waves are that crash on the shore, regardless what bubbles up from within you and cries, it was you who agreed what is appropriate. Here is a saying of all sayings from Taranaki, regardless of the circumstances to follow: “What must be to the fore should be foremost.” So, greetings to you and to all of us.]

• Bill read a second time.