Finlayson Christopher: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7852] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to say to Mr Samuels who has just spoken in the debate that I endorse much of what he said in his speech and I can assure him that that is the spirit in which the Maori Affairs Committee will look at this bill. I can also assure him that there is a great deal of enthusiasm—as my friend Mr Henare would say: “Get on with the job.” Indeed I think we have booked our flights to Dargaville for 4 April. So I can assure him that we are going to get on to it notwithstanding that in the first reading speeches there is some discord. That is because some things need to be said about the Treaty settlements process. But we will certainly work as a team on this legislation and get it back to the House as the Minister has requested within 3 months. 
As my friends on the National Party side have said we support the first reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. It records acknowledgments and the apology given by the Crown in the 17 December 2005 deed of settlement and gives effect to the deed of settlement which is the final settlement itself. We will go through the legislation very carefully in the Maori Affairs Committee cut to the chase and get it back to the House. 
I begin by offering my congratulations to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mark Burton because until the Minister of Maori Affairs spoke I was unaware that Mark Burton had a doctorate. I am sure it is an honorary doctorate in prevarication and bewilderment and I would be interested to know whether he will use the term part time as in Dr Jekyll or full time as in Dr Cullen. Both terms are equally frightening. 
I do need to say something about the history of the claim. I always enjoy Treaty settlement bills because for one thing I find it is a very good historical exercise to go through the preamble and see the background to the claim. In the case of the Ngati Mutunga claims settlement legislation pretty horrific events in New Zealand’s past are recounted and it shows the reason we need to have Treaty settlement legislation. But the history of the claim here is pretty unimpressive. 
Between 1987 and 1990 the claims were lodged in the Waitangi Tribunal. I checked the records; it is Wai 38. But what is interesting is that the Ngai Tahu claim was Wai 27. The deed of settlement for Ngai Tahu was signed on 21 November 1997 the settlement legislation was pushed through the House under the Bolger and Shipley administrations and Georgina te Heuheu was in the select committee overseeing the committee stages at that stage. So between 1987 and 1990 claims were lodged. The report was provided to the claimants and the Ministry of Maori Affairs on 3 April 1992. Then there were discussions through the 1990s. 
Something seems to have gone wrong between 1999 and 2005 because negotiations seem to have been conducted at an absolute snail’s pace. Then on 17 December 2005 the deed of settlement was signed. In my opinion that is a timetable a chronology that shows that very little energy and enthusiasm has gone into the resolution of this matter. That is partly why the Maori Affairs Committee will cut to the chase and really deal with this thing as quickly as it can because that is what the people deserve. 
 Just the other day I was reading a speech given by Douglas Graham a former Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations which was dated August 1997. That was in the good old days when we had a real Minister who was not a slave to process but a real leader who was genuinely concerned to achieve just and durable settlements as quickly as possible. He outlined the background to how we got to the Treaty settlement process then he said that sometimes people say that these things are all too hard and that we should just go back and play football. 
I will read this great man’s speech for the record of the House: “It cannot be done. It just cannot be done. So we need patience and we need tolerance as a society. We need a maturity of outlook. We need to know what it is we are trying to do”—members should listen to this—“and a time frame hopefully showing how best to do it as best we can with all the problems. And we have to understand and accept that this period which appears divisive as people come up to speed on both sides is difficult. Nobody doubts that. But it is a period that is divisive and it will end in the first decade of the next century and the next millennium. If—God willing—we can put the sadnesses of the past behind us get Maori into development mode instead of grievance mode they will no longer have to pass the grievance on to another generation yet again.” 
In closing Doug Graham expressed the hope that this country had more chance of resolving these matters fairly quickly and calmly than any other country in the world as well. He said in conclusion: “But we have got to take that up and there will be moments when you get very annoyed and angry and frustrated. So do I because I’m the one who has to sell it. So if you get angry multiply it by 10 and that is me. But I have got to say: ‘Look I am not listening to that nonsense. What we want to do is get these things resolved and move ahead. That’s what we’re going to do. We’re not giving up when the going gets a bit tough because that is the sign of a great political party.’ ” 
I ask the House to compare that practical idealism from an outstanding New Zealander with the approach of this Minister who is responsible for this legislation and the shambles that the Government has got into in recent days over Whenuakite Station. It is simply unacceptable. I make a solemn commitment to all Maori and to this House that a Key administration will re-energise the settlement process and bring to it the same practical idealism of the National Party in the 1990s. 
The Minister should be disgusted that it has taken this legislation so long to come back to the House. He cannot be impressed with what he has done but we will get on to it. [ 
Interruption 
] In the Minister’s 7 years he and his predecessor should be disgusted with their lack of performance. 
We support his legislation but it needs to be noted that the performance of this Government is lamentable. We started the process this Government has mucked around—and a Key administration is going to finish it properly.