CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National)
: When I was concluding my 1 minute 20 second contribution last night I said that an important question we should always ask ourselves as legislators is whether the legislation is necessary. But it seems that in this case, as in many other cases, the Labour Ministers have not stopped to ask this basic question, or to ask themselves the question about whether the issue they are seeking to address is already covered by a statute. They have to be seen to be doing something, whether it is proposing a review or having an inquiry. They always look to control, to regulate, and to prescribe. Indeed, it seems they are never happier than when they are here in the Chamber introducing prescriptive legislation like this crummy effort.
The National Party says that the need for the legislation has not been demonstrated. We do not subscribe to the theory that Parliament can legislate and then we can all try to work out what the law is and why we need it. The Minister said there was a pressing need for the bill, but he really gave us no compelling reasons. Instead, we had his usual recitation of words like, “Well, there is a clear need.”, or “There is a pressing need.” But repetition of phrases like that, like a mantra, does not prove, indeed, that there is a need. As I said last night, when I quoted from what Mr Peters said when he was Minister of Māori Affairs—and I emphasise what he said—“Maoridom, statutory organisations, trust boards, community development committees, Maori incorporations, and the Maori Congress do not need to be inundated with a further 50 incorporated runanga, or, possibly, 72 quasi-governmental authorities disbursing funds from the taxpayer.” That is what he said on 19 December 1990 in the context of the Runanga Iwi Act Repeal Bill. What he said then applies with equal force to this particular legislation.
That highlights the difference between the National Party and Labour. Labour likes control and regulation. Its members like to pass unintelligible legislation so that they can try to keep control, and we can see that with the disgusting Electoral Finance Bill. Our view, of course, is quite different. Why not let Māori choose whatever structure they like—whatever structure they think is appropriate and will work? I have not seen any evidence that iwi have been demanding or requesting the establishment of a body like a waka umanga. So where is the demonstrated need? We say it is simply not there.
Secondly, as one of my colleagues said last night, this is a structure proposed by the Law Commission, and then further developed by bureaucrats in Wellington and sent out to iwi. It is so typical of this know-all Labour Government. It believes it knows what Māori want. It says to iwi “Look, we’re here to help.”, but we all know that the most terrifying sentence in the English language is “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” Why cannot Māori decide for themselves how they will manage their affairs? If legislative intervention is required to assist a particular iwi, then Parliament can help out. That is the way Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996 was developed.
But let us look at what is proposed here. Once a waka has been recognised by the Māori Land Court, if the Crown intends to settle historic grievances with iwi, then it has
to do so through this Government-imposed waka structure, not with the body Māori choose for themselves. I refer members to clause 11(1), which states: “If a waka pū is the legitimate representative of a tribal group for the purpose of entering into negotiations to settle a Treaty of Waitangi claim with the Crown, the Crown must not negotiate or settle with any other person or body claiming to represent the tribal group in relation to that claim, except as authorised by the waka pū in accordance with its charter.” I also note as an aside Clause 11(2), which provides that “To avoid doubt, nothing in this Act requires—(a) the Crown to negotiate in relation to, or settle, a Treaty of Waitangi claim;”.
I should not have thought that that was going to be necessary, at least in relation to this Government, because the Government does not know how to negotiate or settle claims. Its record over the last 8 years has been disgusting, and no belated flurry of activity in the 9th and final year of its term will be of any moment whatsoever. The arrogance and superciliousness of this Government is best exemplified by a statement from its solicitors, the Law Commission, in its paper on waka umanga. “Registration under the proposed Act provides tribes and general-Māori groups with a stamp of approval;”. Well, why should Māori require some kind of official stamp of approval from that lot? Māori do not need a stamp of approval from the Government. They know that. As Mr Henare said last night, their social organisations have been around for thousands of years. It is only this Government that thinks that some kind of stamp of approval is required.
So National will not be supporting this bill. Let me make the position of the National Party clear beyond doubt: iwi should be free to develop their own structures, with their own administrative procedures and measures of performance, so that iwi can make their own decisions about what is important to them. National considers that iwi must be independent of the Government. Māori should be in control of their own future. They should not be subjected to a paternalistic Government whose Government-knows-best approach is rooted in colonial times. So for these reasons National intends to oppose the first reading of this bill.
