Ririnui Mita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10087] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Otira kia ora tatou e te Whare. Tena hoki koe kai te Kaihautu o te Whare nau tonu e arahi nei i nga korero e pa ana ki tenei pire kua takoto kei waenganui i a tatou i tenei po. Ki a koutou nga mema ahakoa kei tehea kokonga o te Whare e noho ana mai ra i Te Tai Tokerau ko koutou nga mea i whawhahia ai hoki i nga taumahatanga o te Karauna i nga rau tau kua pahemo ake nei. No reira tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings indeed to us the House; to you also Mr Deputy Speaker of the House as you guide us through our debate tonight on this bill before us. Also to you the members regardless of seating greetings to you as well. Especially to those of you from the north touched by the burdens of the past 100 years upon the Crown greetings. Greetings indeed to you collectively. 
] 
Before speaking to this bill I want to acknowledge the contributions of all members in particular the members from the Tai Tokerau the Hon Dover Samuels and Pita Paraone and the contributions soon to come of the Hon Tau Henare and Hone Harawira. It is important to acknowledge them because they are close to this claimant community not only are they part of the whakapapa but they are also part of the history that has been spoken about in the House today. It is important to acknowledge that. I also acknowledge your affiliation with that area Mr Deputy Speaker and that too is quite often understated in this House. 
I am impressed by the contributions but there are some aspects of the speeches this evening that I am not impressed with at all. Without being too unkind to the previous speaker I wonder when people like Stephen King are quoted on behalf of the Pakeha community why it is that in spite of that man’s acknowledgment of Te Roroa’s history and its association with the Waipoua Forest and the hills valleys and coastlines of the north he has not in the past gone out and advocated for the acknowledgment and return of these lands and assets. 
Metiria Turei 
: He has. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: No he has not. In fact he came before the Maori Affairs Committee and in my view he spoke with a lack of sincerity. He also made a very very unforgivable gesture. He brought in one of the mighty kauri of the north and when he had finished his speech he chopped it up. He chopped it up as if it were a piece of kindling. Now that is the sincerity of this person for whom I have absolutely no time and I have no time for those types of gestures. [ 
Interruption 
] One would think that Green members would be totally opposed to those sorts of actions but it seems that they are not. So what is the story? Is it that they are “green” out there but they are a different colour in here? They should make up their minds where their kaupapa is otherwise they will get themselves confused. 
Metiria Turei 
: What about the bill? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Speaking of the bill I think that a lot of the issues raised by the submitters who appeared before the select committee in Dargaville were quite relevant but what was lacking were the explanations behind a lot of the decisions made. Although the National Party says that it will not support this bill and gives us reasons why I am thinking hard as to whether it has ever supported any settlement legislation in this House in the past 9 years. I cannot think of one example but maybe someone can. I think that all that National is doing is following its traditional line of opposing everything whatever it is that this Government does. 
Pita Paraone 
: That’s what happens when you spend so much time on that side of the House. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: That is right; after 9 years in isolation one tends to think like an isolated person. 
I also wonder about the contribution made by Chris Finlayson—and at the select committee he has proven to be quite an intelligent person—and why he would refer at this point in time to the Waitangi Tribunal reports pertaining to Ngati Whatua and Te Arawa given that he must know the consequences of those reports on the Ngai Tahu settlements and other claims settled by National when it was in Government. The member has his fingerprints all over the Ngai Tahu settlement in his role as legal counsel. He is well aware of the overlapping issues raised by other claimant groups at that time but he made no mention of those in the House this evening and I wonder whether there was any sincerity in his statements or in his concerns. I doubt it very much. 
That member also mentioned National’s record for dealing with claims. He said that during the time of the National Government it initiated eight claims—it started them. I am not quite sure what he was saying. Were they starters but not finishers or were they just weak starters and even weaker finishers? When we picked up those claims all they had were Wai numbers. There had been no progress on them whatsoever. 
If National members are talking about instruments to progress the settlement of outstanding claims then they should look right back to 1975 when the first bold moves were made by the then Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Mat Rata. I am sure that Hone Harawira will agree with me at this particular point in time—it may be one of the only times—but certainly his kaumatua Mat Rata played a significant role in ensuring that the right legal instruments were in place so that future Governments could deal with claims in terms of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1984 more advances were made. The tribunal was able to hear claims back to 1840. But it seems in recent days in light of the tribunal’s decision in terms of Ngati Whatua and Te Arawa the Crown may have to go even further back. I wonder whether there is any common sense in that because how far back do we go? 
Many of the submitters who came before the select committee in Dargaville had a number of issues that they felt should have received a better hearing. We asked them questions as we normally would have and at this point I want to acknowledge the commitment of the negotiators in particular Alex Nathan and David Ambler. David gave us the history of Te Kaharau and Te Taraire and the significance of these two areas of land to their people. What was difficult to get him to understand was that because of the decisions made by previous Governments this Government is not in a position to acquire private lands for the purposes of settling grievances. 
Those blocks are very important to this particular iwi of Te Roroa but at the same time acquiring those properties by statute or by any other means when they are not on the market for sale would essentially be described as raupatu. Regardless of who those owners are it would still be raupatu. We did not want to venture down that avenue because this is about settling grievances—rectifying to some degree the actions of the Crown—and one cannot do that by perpetuating more grievances although there are members in this House who say that that is exactly what has been achieved. I do not agree with them at all. 
The Hon Dover Samuels made comments in relation to the statements by Sir Douglas Graham when he ventured into his policy on Treaty settlements which were supported by the then chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu. Those statements set the platform for the settling of claims into the future. 
On hearing the submissions I say that it was interesting to note also that although many of the submitters who were there acknowledged that the Te Roroa claim has a very long history—as has been spoken about by a number of members in this House today—they wanted to see an end to this process. They basically wanted to settle their historical claims so that they themselves could get on with building a future for their tamariki and their mokopuna. In their view this was made difficult because of a number of outstanding issues. 
I am confident that some of the issues they raised are issues that they themselves need to settle. The repatriation of koiwi cannot be the responsibility of anyone else but Te Roroa. This is a very very sensitive area and for anyone to suggest that the Crown repatriate those koiwi is basically a ridiculous suggestion. Only Te Roroa—including the members in this House with affiliations to that area—know of the sensitivities around that type of activity. I recall the Hon Tau Henare as Minister of Maori Affairs repatriating taonga belonging to our tupuna back to this country for proper burial. He adopted an appropriate process at that stage and I certainly hope that he will not suggest that a different process be adopted for the repatriation of koiwi particularly in relation to Te Roroa. 
I also need to acknowledge the work undertaken by the Office of Treaty Settlements. It has taken quite a bit of punishment in the last few days in the light of the tribunal report. It is also important for this House to acknowledge that officials are instruments of Government. They are there to act on behalf of the Government and I am not aware of any case at all during the time we have been in Government where officials have been the negotiators. In my time as Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I myself and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Mark Burton have been the front-line negotiators in every case. To suggest that officials have usurped that role is absolutely ridiculous.