Turei Metiria: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa e Waitaha who are either here in the Chamber or listening to this debate. I am very pleased to stand in support of my colleagues and particularly of the iwi supporting this legislation the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill and the Supplementary Order Papers that will follow during the Committee stage. I just want to take a short call.I would just mention first that it is a shame that both Chris Finlayson and Shane Jones chose to use this debate to make personal attacks. The Green Party has a very clear position of support for settlement bills and we are also prepared to speak truths to the concerns and constraints that are contained in the process. The whole point of these debates is to be able to tell the full story not just that which the Government prefers—and its supporters potentially prefer—to hear. One of the examples of that I guess is in this bill. One of our concerns has always been that because of the nature of these deals they are negotiations. They are not about the genuine and full recompense and compensation for loss that was suffered. They are negotiations they are deals that are done and therefore there have to be compromises. Most of the compromises are made by the iwi because much of the process and the constraints around the restoration whether it is financial recompense or cultural recompense are already determined by the Crown when they enter into these discussions. That is described albeit briefly in this legislation as well with the concern over the Waiari Stream Conservation Area.I do just want to acknowledge for Waitaha that this deal does not meet all of their needs and that they are concerned about some of the provisions in this deal. They did not agree with the way that the Crown approached the issue of the Waiari Stream Conservation Area and they did not want this particular part of the proposal to be included in the legislation. There is nothing outrageous about that. There is nothing to attack other parts of the Government or the State over that. It is a fact and it is an important fact to note because this is the reality for the iwi—who do not have a voice in this Parliament. They are not here to tell this Parliament what they think about this deal. They are the receivers of it.So it is important for these stories to be told—this being one example of it—that iwi have to make compromises to get these settlement deals through. Those compromises come at a real cost to them—either a real cost to them culturally in terms of their stories or a real cost to them financially in terms of whether or not they can use these settlements for genuine financial stability in the future. It is very difficult often especially with smaller settlements to make sure that the financial recompense is able to be used in a real way long term. Often it is too small. That is another reality that iwi have to face. Chris Finlayson may want to attack the Greens for saying this but these are the realities of settlements.I agree with Catherine Delahunty on these issues but also I would note that one other way that the State can make recompense as she described is having a commitment to telling these stories as a Pākehā organisation to Pākehā in the local communities. I have been doing settlement bills for a very long time now and there is a constant concern from local people about the return of particular kinds of land. There is constant concern about whether it is conservation land reserve land or land that may be held by the council. What is happening? Why is it the case that this land is being returned? They do not know. They do not have access to the information and there is no agency in this country that is responsible for making sure that they do.If we are to have a settlement of the particular issues raised by the iwi or through the tribunal the claims that is one aspect of it. The other aspect is that at the end of the daythe iwi have to go back and live and work in these areas with their local community under these new circumstances. They should not be responsible for talking to Pākehā communities about these deals. It is not for them to explain what the Crown did wrong and how the Crown is trying to right that. It is the Crown’s job to do that. But there is no explicit process for doing that. There is no commitment. That alone would go a long way towards making sure that when iwi return to their communities to have to deal with the future consequences of these deals they are doing so in an environment of understanding and acceptance and not one often of fear and concern. That alone will help to make sure that these settlement deals do have long-term benefits for the iwi and for the community as a whole.Whether other parties choose to attack the Greens for talking about these issues is up to them. It is disappointing but it is also revealing. I did not quite realise that Chris Finlayson had such an interest in women’s fashion and if he would like I am quite happy to send to him the contact details for Adrienne Winkelmann if he would like a fitting at any time in the future. But I am most concerned to make sure that the iwi are having at least some of their concerns expressed as they are set out in this legislation.I welcome the bill. I welcome this settlement for them. I welcome the attempt to restore some mana to the Crown for the loss and for the harm that the Crown has caused to that iwi. In particular I want to acknowledge Tau Henare and his comment that genocide is a word that is reasonable to use in this Treaty settlement context and that we should not shy away from the fact that much of the Crown’s attitude to Māori in the past was a genocidal one and that iwi have suffered from that as a result. Again these are just the truths of our history which once dealt with openly can then be moved on from—for Pākehā communities as much as for iwi themselves. Tēnā koutou katoa.