Clendon David: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1020] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and to affirm the Green Party will continue to support the progress of this bill as we have done to date. We offer our respect and regards to nga hapu katoa o Ngati Porou to all of those on both the Crown side and on the Ngati Porou side who have worked very hard over many decades indeed to bring this settlement to fruition. However as is the case with so many of these bills our support is somewhat qualified. It is almost given with a degree of regret because we recognise there are so many inherent flaws in the process underpinning the settlement of these bills. As my colleague has just recently mentioned the danger is that these settlements rather than being true and just settlements are downgraded almost to the level of deals to the best deal that can be done on a given day given the pressure to accept what is on offer at a given time and place and the need to bring to an end the in many cases decades of suffering and recrimination. 
One primary problem with these settlements is the issue of large natural groupings. Since 1999 it has been Government policy to deal with iwi rather than hapu and whanau and more recently there is a clearly stated preference to deal with large natural groupings. This is no secret. In the Office of Treaty Settlements advice to claimants it is spelt out in the well-known so-called red book that the Crown strongly prefers to negotiate settlements with large natural groupings of tribal interests rather than individual hapu or whanau within a tribe. This is done on the basis we are told that it is easier to manage and work with them easier to deal with overlapping interests and reduces costs to both Crown and claimants. We are also told that in this way the issues become more workable around redress and cost-effective for these large natural groupings. It has been argued on many occasions in the court in the judiciary in the Waitangi Tribunal and elsewhere that policy processes based purely on Government definitions without seeking input into the most appropriate Maori social structure effectively can be seen as perpetuating breaches rather than resolving them. Choosing to adopt a blanket approach a very selective approach in the Government’s determining with whom it will negotiate has interfered with traditional relationships between iwi between hapu in ways that are not helpful and that continue to create new problems. 
A few days ago I presented to Parliament a petition relevant to this bill the petition of Barney Tupara and 1053 others who are highlighting that there is a community of people on the East Coast who feel completely excluded from the settlement that is being passed today. This community of people believe that their rights are being transgressed a continuation of transgressions going back at least to the mid - 19th century. It would be extremely unwise of me with my whakapapa to Ngapuhi to pretend any expertise or knowledge of the debates that are occurring on the coast about who has mana whenua whose rights are being dealt with but I do feel that as an MP I have a duty to put on record the fact that there is a significant community of people on the coast who feel they have been overlooked. Any failure of the Crown to deal properly in an inclusive way with all of the people with all Maori with all interests will lead to a degradation of respect for the Treaty process. We will see less than optimal outcomes and inevitably as Maori often say “We’ll be back.” Having said that the Greens continue to support this bill and we give our goodwill to Ngati Porou.