Delahunty Catherine: Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Delahunty Catherine: Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5470. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. He mihi nui ki a Ngati Whatua o Kaipara no reira tena koutou. It is a privilege to speak on the first reading of this very important bill the Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill and this is a very important day. Reading any of the background and knowing any of the people this has been a long journey. It has been a journey that takes us to the heart of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They are all unique settlements but this one strikes the Green Party as having a particularly deep relationship with the actual te Tiriti signing itself—and what price loyalty to the Crown and what price loyalty too to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
In fact with colonisation we would say that you are damned if you do and damned if you do not because Ngati Whatua o Kaipara iwi did not fight the Crown did not oppose te Tiriti and they lost everything. So it is a very interesting historical account that we need to take into our minds when thinking about what is acceptable redress. People lost everything even though they gave everything. 
We have heard settlements in this House that have been about direct raupatu about warfare and about confiscations in many ways but this particular place and these particular stories remind us that in 1840 these people stood alongside their Pakeha visitors manuhiri if you like and said “We will be generous and we will negotiate a relationship in our whenua in the Kaipara.” And in exchange what they got was the complete loss of their lands their well-being and their resources. 
I think it is important to go back to the historical account because it is part of the unique story of how Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been breached in a very literal way. Promises have very literally been broken. I am quoting from the deed: “A meeting was held at Manukau where concerns were raised by Maori as to the Crown’s intentions.”—we are having these meetings today as well; nothing has really changed in some ways—“Symonds sought to dispel these doubts and at a second meeting on 20 March 1840 the Ngati Whatua paramount chief Apihai Te Kawau with Te Tinana and Te Reweti signed a copy of the Maori text of the Treaty.” They did not sign no Pakeha text and they did not sign no text that said “forests fisheries only”; they signed the text that guaranteed in article 2 tino rangatiratanga. 
It continues: “Symonds reported that among the chiefs who signed he found ‘the best disposition displayed towards Her Majesty’s Government but at the same time that their expectations are raised very high as to the immediate benefits which they are to derive from its establishment in their country’.” And what happened next? How well were their expectations met? Clearly this settlement process shows that they were failed on every count. 
 I want to quote from another part of this deed of settlement because I think it also typifies the failure to meet those agreements and expectations: “Ngati Whatua provided resources and protection for the development of the new colony.” Every time a racist writes to me and says: “Those Maoris would only be in grass skirts if it wasn’t for us and our brilliant technology.” it would be great if they could recall that some of the people in the Kaipara were going to starve to death if it had not been for the people of the Kaipara literally giving them kai and teaching them how to land a boat in that fabulous harbour. So it is very important to recognise that resources and protection for the development of the new colony were provided. “In September 1840 Crown officials made arrangements with Ngati Whatua for the transfer of approximately 3000 acres of land at Tamaki. One of the principal chiefs expressed fears that the Queen of England would take all their land from them and that they would have none to live on.” 
Hone Harawira 
: They were right. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: They were right. That fear was realised in full maybe not the next day but after the next day and the next day. “Crown officials reassured him”—as we do Crown officials—“ ‘that the Governor was come to see that neither Pakeha nor Mauris … were wronged …’ ”. That is a shameful statement in the context of what has happened. “Ngati Whatua [again] consider that the transaction was a tuku a customary gifting carried out with the intention of cementing their relationship with the Crown and underpinned by broader concepts of reciprocity and ongoing mutual obligation.” 
I think those phrases respect the spirit in which these tupuna signed the Treaty. It was a broader concept of reciprocity an ongoing mutual obligation not: “We will provide for you. We will allow the development of the new colony in the Kaipara Tamaki rohe and then you are going to rip us off.” and then a hundred and something years later they are still going to have to wait for 169 years for the possibility of the first right of purchase of some other parts of their own whenua. 
The ironies in this settlement are multiple. The progress is good and we are supporting the settlement but we cannot ignore that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the critical foundation of our nation and these stories of the abuse of promises made are very important. They are so important today so that we do not repeat them—so that there is no more double-speak raupatu and manipulation when the Crown has an engagement with tangata whenua. That is why these settlements are important not only in their own terms but also in the context of the debates that we are having in this Whare and around the motu right now about resources and indigenous peoples’ rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi because loyalty to the Crown was repaid by an enormous loss of resources and the expectations of health wealth and education were not fulfilled. 
The ironies of the stories of Te Awaroa where 10 acres was gifted for Helensville and there was going to be an acre set aside and there was such mean-spirited greed whereby everything was taken. Anything that was reserved was eaten into. It is just embarrassing and shameful to read how their generosity and respect for the Treaty was repaid by the ancestors of some of us Pakeha and how little the people who come from Auckland know about the true history of what went down. It shows how important it is that we actually address the multiplicity of issues. 
This is a big settlement in terms of work. You can see how much work has gone into it and I would like to acknowledge all the negotiators from Ngati Whatua o Kaipara and the leadership of many many people including Margaret Kawharu and others who have shown intergenerational consistency generosity and willingness to negotiate as did their tupuna. 
The duty on the Kawana and all of us represented by the Kawana is to do our best to make amends and there are some settlement elements that are very positive in this unique story of betrayal. However we do have to remember that the Native Land Court was first established in the Kaipara. In the place where there was the most generosity and the most willingness to work with the Crown the Native Land Court the instrument of individualisation and land loss was established in the Kaipara. I think in acknowledging that the settlement must be generous. It is great to see things like Parakai to see Atuanui maunga acknowledged and to see some of the reserves and wahi tapu and I would agree with others in the House that the naming of names is critical. We must name the truth here and honour the history and do the right thing by Ngati Whatua o Kaipara. Tena koutou.