Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18857] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports this bill. I know that other parties in this Committee do not support the bill and I guess I refer in particular to New Zealand First in relation to its explanation for not supporting the bill. I ask New Zealand First members this question: would they take the same approach if they knew that National were not supporting the bill? Would they be actually willing to say to Ngati Awa who have been in negotiation for many many years as National well knows: “No; go back to the beginning; spend another 10 maybe 15 years to arrive at a settlement.”?—notwithstanding the imperfections in the bill and I acknowledge those as indeed do my colleagues—because that is the choice we are really confronted with. 
I just wonder whether New Zealand First is taking the luxury so to speak of voting against the bill because it knows that in reality the bill will be passed. It is one of those cases where one’s vote does not actually count and therefore one takes a position for other reasons knowing perhaps that in private conversations with Ngati Awa which I am sure various members of that party have had one is saying: “Oh well it is going to be passed anyway”. 
We in National say that we support the bill because we support the process of completing treaty settlements. We want those settlements to be created—finished in fact—by 2010. I appreciate that that is an ambitious goal. But if one intends to achieve that goal one actually has to vote for the settlements as and when they are. 
Certainly we have voted for the amendments by New Zealand First in relation to the principles of the treaty. So when we vote we are saying two things to Maori. We actually want to help Maori move forward—to move as that well known saying expresses it “from grievance mode to development mode.” 
It is appropriate tonight to make reference to the Hui Taumata which I guess is a review of how Maori have progressed in the last 20 years since the first Hui Taumata in 1984. In fact one of the things one hears about in the current debate is a new degree of innovation. For instance it is the first time I can recall in my lifetime that Maori themselves have questioned the relevancy of the Maori Land Court—whether it really serves Maori interests well in looking forward to the future. 
That raises the question as to whether it is actually appropriate or sensible for Maori to hold on to every single scrap of land valuable or not or whether the process of development requires a more nuanced approach. I appreciate that Maori would say and I am sure that Ngati Awa would say: “But the land is our taonga. It is our foundation. It is our turangawaewae.” 
Of course that is true of some parts but it is not necessarily true of every commercial property for instance many of which are referred to in this bill. So I would like to think that from the Hui Taumata the Government takes on board the need to reform at a fundamental level the structures and principles of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which was actually developed at another time that did not necessarily reflect the needs of the 21st century. 
The second reason we support the settlements is around building the unity of our country. We know that our country has spent literally a quarter of a century in this area dealing with historic grievances and I may certainly have mentioned some concerns about the historical record in relation to this settlement. But on a broader level I am aware that this whole settlement process is about coming to terms with and addressing our past as a nation. We actually have to get through that; we cannot just get mired in it or forever immersed in it. 
So this is about building the unity of our country which can only be achieved if we complete the settlement process because in many respects that process is actually knitting together old wounds and fissures. That is another reason why I say to New Zealand First and indeed to the ACT party which rarely votes for settlements that if we want to heal the past we actually have to facilitate that healing. That means voting for settlements. That is what it means irrespective of the various concerns we may have about particular issues. 
I want to close on this point. Much of the debate tonight has been about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty. National has made it very clear that we wish to move past that debate and we say that we should not be referring to the principles of the treaty any more in our legislation. That has led us into error. In particular it has led the Labour Government into error by its obsessive references to consultation and partnership throughout its legislation of a general nature. 
That situation can be solved only if we go back to first principles and look at the compact that was actually entered into in 1840. As I have said before it is quite simple: firstly the surrender of sovereignty or kawanatanga depending on which text one takes that in essence are the same thing; secondly the protection of property or taonga which again are essentially the same idea; and thirdly the inclusion of citizenship for all New Zealanders irrespective of ethnicity. 
Those are the foundations of our country; those foundations found our modern democratic State; and the treaty has to fit within that concept. So we should not be making specious references to dividing our democracy on the basis of ethnicity by the spurious use of the word “partnership”. That would end up harming our democracy. 
In this speech I am giving a sense of where National will go. Firstly we wish to conclude the settlement process because it is designed to help Maori move forward. Secondly we want to build the unity of our nation by looking at the basic principles of our democracy which are about the equality of all our citizens. On that basis we can build a united future together.