Smith Murray: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Murray: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21930] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This is a very positive day for Nga Rauru Kitahi. I therefore want to give a speech that is positive not dwell on the negatives. I cannot avoid making reference to the spiritual values clauses as it was my amendment that brought about so much debate on that issue last night. But I do want to be positive and congratulate Nga Rauru Kitahi on reaching this milestone. It certainly has been a great week for them with the passing of this bill at the same time as Michael Campbell won the US Open golf tournament. No doubt through his victory there has been an increase in the mana of Nga Rauru Kitahi as well. I congratulate them on that double hit this week. 
As I mentioned in the first reading of this bill I have historical connections with the Nga Rauru Kitahi area and in particular the infamously named town of Maxwell through my great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents who farmed in that area and who no doubt had connections with the ancestors of Nga Rauru Kitahi at that time. I have outlined in previous speeches the relationship there and some of the events at that time—the infamous Handley’s woolshed being one of those—and my sadness about those events. 
It is appropriate with the third reading of this bill that there is some reference to the history as it has been accepted by the Crown and Nga Rauru Kitahi in terms of the wrongs that were committed. There is a lengthy historical account in the deed of settlement which I am not going to read at length—partly because I would run out of time if I did so. But I do want to read an extract from it because I think it is important on this occasion when we are dealing with the third reading of the bill that at least some of the grievance that has been settled through this bill is put on the record. The deed of settlement states: “7.26 After Tauranga Ika Pa was abandoned as a defence stronghold in February of 1869 Crown forces pushed all Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi out of south Taranaki and pursued them into the interior destroying crops livestock and dwellings at every opportunity. Pursued by Crown forces and deprived of food and shelter Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi were forced to place themselves under the protection of Whanganui iwi. Prior to 1873 most were forbidden by the Crown to return to their land. This was in response to both settler fears of Maori attack after the war with Titokowaru and the desire of the Crown to settle military and colonial settlers on the land. 
“7.27 The confiscation which was to have such a long term and damaging impact on Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi was effected by the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The preamble stated that the North Island had been subject to ‘insurrections amongst the evil-disposed persons of the Native race’. There was no mention of the Crown’s role in initiating the wars. The Act was used to effect the confiscation of land of Maori whom the Crown assessed to have been engaged in rebellion against the authority of the Queen since 1 January 1863. Where the Governor in Council was satisfied that an iwi or a ‘considerable number’ of an iwi had since 1 January 1863 been engaged in rebellion he could declare the district available for confiscation. Subsequent settlement of those districts by colonists was considered the ‘best and most effectual means’ of achieving the three purposes of the Act: permanent protection and security; prevention of future rebellion; and maintaining the Queen’s authority. 
“7.28 The Act did not provide a definition of ‘rebel’. It did provide that no compensation would be given to those who had been ‘engaged in levying or making war or carrying arms against Her Majesty the Queen or Her Majesty’s Forces in New Zealand’ or those who had ‘aided assisted or comforted such persons’.” 
That is just a taste of some of the historical grievances. The deed of settlement goes on to talk about the Sim Commission and the inadequacy of that commission in dealing with the grievance that was there. It particularly reflects on the importance of the land to Nga Rauru Kitahi as it is important to all Maori and also on the importance of cultural redress. So it is important we note that and acknowledge the serious grievances that are there. We can rejoice that this bill and the deed of settlement are resolving those. 
I now want to talk about schedule 12 and the spiritual values matter because that has played a big part in the debate and because of the amendment to schedule 12 that I proposed. I would like to express my thanks to National New Zealand First and ACT for their support of my amendment and for the contribution to the debate they made. 
It seems to me that we were dealing with two issues with regard to this matter. The first is the appropriateness of any theological or doctrinal statements in legislation. I do not want to talk at length on that because it has been covered quite a lot in the debate in the House. I question whether it is appropriate even for a deed of settlement to include those sorts of theological statements but that is a matter between the Government and the iwi group concerned and is therefore not a matter that the House should be directly concerned with. This House is concerned with the matter of the legislation it is passing. 
What I intended to do and endeavoured to do with my amendment was to omit the relevant wording in schedule 12 that effectively will constitute a doctrinal statement. It has been rightly said that the difficulties in enforcing that statement are huge. No law should be passed in this House that is impossible to enforce. How can the High Court or the Waitangi Tribunal if that should be the forum determine whether the clauses that state that the Crown must acknowledge reflect and encourage Nga Rauru Kitahi values have been complied with without first defining their meaning in contemporary terms? The court has to take a doctrinal statement of origin and somehow bring it into a contemporary situation before it can determine whether that contemporary situation has been fulfilled in terms of the legislation’s provisions. What authority does such an institution have to interpret theological statements? That is just the beginning of the problems we have in regard to this. Mahara Okeroa said that if the iwi wants to tell their story they should be able to. I have no disagreement with that. Deeds of settlement have been the appropriate places for that to happen but it should not be embraced in legislation. 
The second issue is the specific language that is used and I thank the officials for being willing to come to talk with me to explain the rationale of how they got there. Thus I can enlighten the House on that. The point that was made in terms of the technical language is that clause 88 states that the “Crown acknowledges Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values”. But the term “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values” is then defined as being the statement made by Nga Rauru Kitahi of their cultural spiritual historical and traditional association. Therefore it is thought that effectively all that the Crown is doing is acknowledging a statement not those values. However it seems to me that when a statement is made in legislation then the drafting of the legislation—and I think that the Parliamentary Counsel Office should take note—needs not only to be precise but also clear. It needs to be clear to the lay person. The officials admit that it is confusing. I wanted to amend that by stating clearly that the Crown acknowledged the statement of Nga Rauru Kitahi values but it was felt by the Minister that it was impossible to go back and get Nga Rauru Kitahi consent to make that alteration at the last minute as would have been desirable. 
The Government has however in view of United Future’s approaches and concerns made a commitment to us. First of all the Government will make a public acknowledgment that it was a mistake to have the theological statement in the legislation and it will also make a commitment that doctrinal statements will not be included in future Crown settlement legislation as far as this Government is concerned. On that basis United Future has indicated that it will support the passing of this bill at its third reading. We do that not only because of that acknowledgment by the Government but also because settlements are important and ever since we arrived in this House we have been at the forefront of pushing for treaty settlements to be resolved as quickly as possible. We have been instrumental in getting more resources dedicated to the Office of Treaty Settlements in order for that to happen. 
We also think it is important if the legislation is to be passed that it be passed by a substantial majority and I note that Gerry Brownlee said the same thing. For that reason United Future will in fact support the third reading. I also note that the Government indicated that it did not want to rely on the Greens providing support which says something about them. So I congratulate Nga Rauru Kitahi on the passing of this legislation and express United Future’s best wishes for their future.