Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21922] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party is very proud to have been the first party in New Zealand’s parliamentary history to settle in a full and final way grievances that have arisen out of treatment that reflected a lack of understanding of Treaty of Waitangi rights. We have both in Government and in Opposition participated in the process of settling grievances with good faith. We strongly believe that for these grievances to be settled in a way a manner and a style that is enduring they should receive the overwhelming support of Parliament. That is why we are very annoyed to be put in the position we are in today. 
We recognise that Nga Rauru Kitahi have had a long wait for this settlement. But we find it amazing that at this point things had to become rushed. Throughout the select committee process the report back to the House and the Committee stage we raised an important issue about this settlement bill with the Government. We still do not know whether the Government went back to Nga Rauru Kitahi and asked whether there was something they could talk further about. We suspect it did not. The issue I raise is that of the points put forward in schedule 12. 
Let me say before I turn to that schedule that we think it is appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi is the document of reference when it comes to settling treaty claims. It may seem self-evident but it does not appear to be all that evident in this case. One of the things the treaty did under article 2 was to guarantee to all New Zealanders—and Maori if one wants to make that separation—that there was freedom in this country to hold close to oneself things that were taonga. Surely the most obvious thing for all people in that regard would be their spiritual and religious beliefs. A Government has no business in a country like this either putting down spiritual beliefs or for that matter promoting one particular type. The problem with schedule 12 is that that is exactly what the Government proposes to do. 
I argue that if there are people inside the iwi who do not want to believe some of this their treaty rights are being trampled on because once this bill is passed the law of the country will prescribe this as being their belief and will determine that this is what their origin is. If that were not a big enough outrage the law will also prescribe the idea that if one is of Nga Rauru Kitahi one is no different from the land the sea or the sky. That is what schedule 12 says. We know that in other settlement bills various iwi have said that they have a special spiritual connection. None of those bills has said that the connections are such that there is no difference. 
I urge people to read very carefully all the aspects of schedule 12. There would be no problem at all with this statement being in a settlement deed but there is a big problem with putting it into the law. As unbelievable as it might seem schedule 12 states—and will cause the law to accept—that anyone who is of Nga Rauru Kitahi is of demigod status. That has to be quite unacceptable. People might like to say: “Oh no that’s not right. That man’s being silly.” but it is right here in the proposed law. I am very disappointed that those who were responsible for negotiating this particular settlement bill did not have this put into its right context. It means that this settlement will not endure and it may be the first to come back to Parliament so we can have another look at it because no sane Government will allow this sort of provision to exist in law. 
I say again to those who think this is some sort of joke that it is in fact a breach of treaty rights to prescribe this in law. I see on the other side of the Chamber various people shaking their heads. By and large they are people who do not respect the law. That is my observation. So I am unconcerned by the tut-tutting and finger-waving. This is an enormous decision for the National Party and not one that anyone should think is taken lightly. We asked Ministers repeatedly through the Committee stage for answers and we got silence or we got some sort of addressing of the question which in this Parliament is acceptable even though it may not in fact be an answer. So we are left in the very uncomfortable position of having to vote against a settlement bill. 
 We are voting against it because it will not achieve settlement. There cannot be a significant number of New Zealanders marginalised in a settlement bill. I thought the reason we settled these issues was that all of us in this country have rights before the law and that where those rights are trampled on and we have the appropriate historical reports there is redress. But redress cannot go as far as conferring additional rights on some but not on others. These are not relatively small things like customary rights which everybody understands; these are very strong rights inside the law. I thought that the Hon Richard Prebble made a very good point last night when he asked how a judge in a court would deal with something like this. We might like to speculate but the only real conclusion that can be reached is that the judge would struggle and the decisions would cause trouble. So there cannot be a concept of settlement whereby people in this Parliament know that what they are doing will cause further trouble. 
For that reason with deep and sincere regret the National Party cannot vote for this bill. We want settlements. We want iwi to get their assets. We want redress. We want acknowledgment of past grievances. But this has to be one of the most poorly negotiated bills ever to hit the floor of the House. We are saddened to be put in this position by a Government that seems to be in an awful rush to pass this bill.