Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10073] 
Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is an important milestone for the people of Te Roroa. It addresses the significant and longstanding grievances suffered by them as a result of acts and omissions by the Crown. It will not only enable Te Roroa and the Crown to move forward together in a positive Treaty relationship but also provide the foundation for Te Roroa to build a better future for its people. 
Te Roroa have travelled a long and difficult journey to get to this point and I want to underscore that for members: they have travelled a long and difficult journey to get to this point. I suggest to members—and I will return to this theme—that it is for Te Roroa to have determined that they were ready to reach this point and it is not for others to derail or attempt to derail. All Treaty settlement negotiations are complex and take time but Te Roroa know this better than any other group. Not only have they sought redress since 1861; they have been negotiating their Treaty settlement claim with the Crown since 1992. 
Settling this claim is another important step towards settling all historical Treaty claims. It continues the progress evidenced by other recent milestones such as the draft agreement in principle for the settlement of Waikato-Tainui’s Waikato River claims and the signing of terms of negotiation with Turanganui a Kiwa claimants recently in Gisborne. 
I encourage every member of this House to read the preamble to the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill with considerable care. It sets out the history of the claim and records how the Crown breached its Treaty obligations in respect of Te Roroa. It tells us why it is so important that this bill is before us today and why it should not be hindered by any in this House in its progress. 
The negotiations for this claim have covered a lot of ground. They have been wide ranging comprehensive and certainly challenging. Both parties have demonstrated commitment and I think tenacity in achieving a settlement despite the obstacles along the way. The people of Te Roroa themselves have demonstrated their support for the settlement with a ratification approval rate of 92 percent. 
I want to emphasise again to members of the House that in considering their position on this bill they remember that the people who are affected by the bill—the people to whom this settlement belongs—have ratified this settlement with an approval rate of 92 percent. 
I acknowledge the efforts of Te Roroa kaumatua and kuia who are no longer with us but who years ago sought redress for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. Ka huri atu ki nga mate o tena iwi o tena iwi haere haere haere. 
[ 
I turn to each of the tribes and acknowledge their deaths. Depart the dead farewell depart. 
] 
I also acknowledge the commitment of members of the Te Roroa negotiating team over the 13 years of negotiations and the members of the Te Roroa governance entity who have been working hard over the past 12 months in order to see this settlement go through to fruition. 
The Te Roroa settlement includes a wide range of redress designed to meet the interests of Te Roroa as well as to provide a foundation for their future. This includes financial redress of $9.5 million which Te Roroa have chosen to receive mostly as property; cultural redress including an overlay classification over the Waipoua Forest; protocols; statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition all designed to facilitate Te Roroa’s role in Crown decision-making and to enhance the Treaty relationship; and the gifting of 24 sites of cultural significance comprising an area of over 2000 hectares. 
The Maori Affairs Committee has considered this bill and has submitted its commentary to this House. The majority of the committee has recommended that the bill be passed with minor amendments. I thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the bill and I do believe that that consideration has been thorough. 
In their submission to the committee the trustees of the Te Roroa governance entity spoke of the pressure of exercising the first stage of the right of deferred selection. The Government was pleased to be able to address these concerns by offering to extend that for a further 6 months after the settlement date. I note that this change does not require an amendment to the claims settlement bill. However an amendment to the deed of settlement is being made by agreement. 
I am aware that concern is expressed by some that Kaharau and Te Taraire are not included in the land to be transferred to Te Roroa in the settlement. Kaharau is predominantly in private ownership which is a matter that members need to be clear about. It is predominantly in private ownership. The committee’s report states that some members find this unsatisfactory and they say that the quantum should be increased to allow Te Roroa to purchase both properties or to allow for the acquisition of those wahi tapu already identified within the two blocks. The National Party members say that the settlement is not durable because these properties are not being returned through the settlement. 
This settlement has also been criticised for not addressing issues raised by the Waitangi Tribunal in its reports. I remind members opposite that the Te Roroa report was released—and I remind members opposite of this—in 1992. In the report the tribunal made recommendations that affected private land including the area of Kaharau. It was the National Government of the day that determined the response to the Te Roroa report. I am sure that many members will remember the division and the dissent both in the local Dargaville community and indeed nationally when the Crown tried to purchase other private land that the tribunal had recommended be returned to Te Roroa. As a result the Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended by that Government shortly thereafter to prevent the tribunal from making recommendations in respect of private land. 
Kaharau is discussed extensively in the Te Roroa negotiations and as the people of Te Roroa know the fact that it is not part of the redress is not about the sufficiency of the quantum. Te Roroa have said that it is inappropriate for them to purchase Kaharau and that they do not want wahi tapu areas identified publicly. Thus in negotiations the parties focused on enabling Te Roroa to secure the return of the maximum amount of land while ensuring they were in the best possible position to obtain Kaharau themselves should it become available. The Crown is also gifting the one small part of Kaharau that it owns to Te Roroa as cultural redress through this settlement. 
We also strengthened other elements of the package in recognition of the fact that Kaharau is not being returned. For example Te Roroa is being gifted over 2000 hectares of land as cultural redress. I point out to members that that is the highest figure for land gifted in any settlement since that of Ngai Tahu. 
The Te Roroa settlement includes a wider range of redress than was recommended in the Te Roroa report. Additional redress includes the quantum much of the land being gifted as cultural redress the relationship redress such as the overlay classification of the Waipoua Forest and protocols issued by a number of Ministers. 
Te Roroa do not need others including politicians to tell them of the significance of the lands we have discussed. Ultimately the decision as to whether this settlement is acceptable to Te Roroa should be a decision for the people of Te Roroa. During the ratification process there was a vigorous debate about the merits of accepting this settlement. The overwhelming majority of Te Roroa chose to proceed. As I noted earlier 92 percent of those who voted voted to accept this settlement. 
We all know that settlements cannot and do not fully compensate Maori for the losses they have suffered either in economic or in cultural terms. We all know that for every wahi tapu on Crown land returned to tangata whenua there are many in private ownership that are not. But compromise on both sides has been a critical ingredient of every Treaty settlement since the 1990s—on both sides and of every Treaty settlement. Every settlement is about the Crown and Maori reaching a point where they can agree to shift their focus from the past to the future. So although Treaty settlements cannot be about full compensation they should be—and I believe that each has been since the early 1990s through to this day—an honest attempt to heal the past and provide for the future. The Te Roroa settlement is about Te Roroa making the decision to build to plan and to look to the future. 
This settlement enables the people of Te Roroa to look forward with anticipation and to view the years ahead with optimism and enthusiasm. It provides them with a platform of their own building to grow and develop. This settlement establishes relationships to ensure Te Roroa are involved in the decision making that affects them and it returns land to them from which they have been separated for too long. 
Perhaps most important this bill gives effect to the settlement that Te Roroa have determined to ratify. Their decision should be recognised their decision should be respected and their decision should be honoured by this House. The Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill should proceed through this House without delay. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 National opposes the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and as we said in our minority report we do so with great regret. On other occasions in my short time in this place I have said that settlement legislation should be a cause of bipartisan celebration and of course I stand by that. But this bill represents a cause not for celebration but rather for regret. I note the Minister Mark Burton’s comments about National and other parties derailing or trying to derail the settlement. I tell the Minister that I have read not just the preamble to the legislation but the full Te Roroa report of 1992 known as Wai 38. I know what the issues are in this settlement process what needs to be addressed and what has not been addressed. 
I also know what the response of the Maori Affairs Committee is when dealing with settlement legislation. As we say in our minority report it is a very blunt instrument. We can say either yes or no and on this occasion National says no. The key reason why we cannot support this legislation is that this settlement is not durable. Admittedly the deferred selection process in the bill as reported back does represent an improvement on the bill as introduced but it is still not particularly good. Of greater moment is the failure to address key items of cultural redress. How can there be a durable settlement when the issues we have identified in our minority report have not been addressed? I am referring to the return of koiwi to Te Roroa and to the Kaharau and Te Taraire sites. National says that this settlement should have substantively addressed issues that were raised by the tribunal in its report but major issues remain unresolved. 
A word needs to be said about the course of the select committee hearings. There were a number of submissions and they fell into three categories. First there were those from representatives of the iwi. These were heard in Dargaville and I was touched by the depth of feeling surrounding the settlement. The preponderance of views seemed to be that the settlement was not really a cause for rejoicing. Some people grudgingly said it was the best they could get in the circumstances. Others contended that one cannot have a settlement when key issues remain outstanding. I must say that I had a tremendous sense of sympathy for all submitters on behalf of the iwi. Rather than the settlement process healing division this negotiation seems to have caused division. Secondly there were a number of independent submissions and I was very impressed by the submission made by Brendan Lyne of the firm of Grant Thornton in Auckland. Mr Lyne had given a great deal of assistance to Te Roroa over the years. As I understand it he also has a property in the area and his contribution was compelling and thoughtful. Finally some submissions were disgusting both in terms of content and language. Some of them had to be returned by the select committee because the language was so inappropriate. Once expurgated they were permitted to be re-filed and they were carefully considered by the committee. Whatever the depth of feeling about an issue select committees should not have to receive obscene submissions. 
At the end of the submission process my colleagues and I became very uneasy about the durability of the settlement because something seemed to have gone wrong. We also received a briefing on cross-claim issues. I must say I do not like the term “cross-claim”; I prefer the term “other tangata whenua claims”. We thought a real issue was involved here so I was less than impressed to be told shortly before we deliberated that a mediation that had resolved most of the issues had been held in 1997. How can the Office of Treaty Settlements simply come across a mediation agreement at such a late stage? As we say in our minority report this is unsatisfactory and confirms our belief that the Office of Treaty Settlements lacks ministerial leadership that it has inadequate institutional memory and that the whole settlement process has become bureaucratised and process-driven. 
I recall that in response to a question from my friend and colleague Mrs te Heuheu an officer of the Office of Treaty Settlements said that there had been five or six negotiating teams during the course of this inquiry. How can one expect the Office of Treaty Settlements to have a proper institutional memory when there is such a regular changing of the guard? How can one expect Maori to be other than extremely frustrated and disillusioned by a settlement process where the other side’s negotiating team changes as frequently as Italian Prime Ministers? If it were me I would become extremely annoyed at having to re-educate the new team on what were the principal issues that needed to be addressed or wait until the new team upskilled itself. 
Of course in recent days the whole process has been called into question with two scathing reports from the tribunal about the Crown’s approach to negotiations. How can there be anything other than a serious problem with the Crown’s approach when the tribunal has labelled the behaviour of the Office of Treaty Settlements as cavalier unfair generally uncooperative providing of only partial answers to questions and being less than open in its dealings with the tribunal? What sort of chaos is there when junior staff are making decisions about the relevance of documents and then Crown counsel are criticised by the tribunal and when employees of Crown Law have to go around to the Office of Treaty Settlements to spend a few days going back through documents to sort out what is relevant? This is simply unacceptable. It can be tolerated no longer. 
What is Labour’s response to all these concerns? As the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week would indicate the emerging theme seems to be that if we do it properly settlements could well be slowed up and the 2020 deadline will not be able to be achieved. So we have to be negligent and sloppy if we are to keep up with the deadlines. What an unacceptable approach to some of the most important negotiations that could possibly occur in contemporary New Zealand. Taking care to do things properly and eliminating slapdash clumsy and hopeless approaches to negotiations will have two benefits. First New Zealand will see durable settlements and secondly momentum will be gained. As Doug Graham and Jim Bolger showed in the 1990s the first few settlements take some time but then momentum is built up and things start to move. Under this hopeless Government the momentum has now been lost and it will behove a John Key administration to get that momentum back. 
I asked the Minister of Maori Affairs a question today about the Government’s botched approach to Treaty settlements and the fact that whereas of the 19 settlements reached to date 10 were started and completed by National in the 1990s and a further eight were started by National Labour has taken just one claim from initial negotiation to final settlement in 7½ years—just one. As the Minister said in response today this Government is all about expediency. Exactly! And it is so disappointing when one considers how much good work has been done in the past. So as I say it is with such great regret that we have to oppose the second reading of this bill. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity for a call in support of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. To start off with I thought I would raise a bit of the background to the deed of settlement. Te Roroa has sought redress on a range of issues since 1861. The Waitangi Tribunal heard the claims of Te Roroa from June 1989 to May 1991. The Te Roroa report was published in 1992 and in 1993 Te Roroa and the Crown signed a framework agreement to begin negotiations. In 1996 the Crown formally recognised the mandate of the Te Roroa negotiators and signed comprehensive terms of negotiation specifying the objectives and general procedure for negotiating. 
 Negotiations intensified in 2003 with substantial progress being made during 2004. In December 2004 Te Roroa and the Crown signed a non-binding agreement in principle which recorded that in principle Te Roroa was willing to settle its historical claims on the basis of the Crown’s settlement proposal as set out in the agreement. In June 2005 the Government approved the proposed settlement package for Te Roroa and invited the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to initial the deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown. A deed of settlement for presentation to the Te Roroa claimant community was confirmed by an exchange of letters of 10 September 2005 and following ratification by the Te Roroa claimant community the deed of settlement was signed on 17 December 2005. 
I thought it was important just to place on the record the background to the process that led to the signing of the deed at which I was present late last year. I recall the discussions held at that signing and particularly the issues raised by Judge Joe Williams who spoke of his early involvement in the process as a young graduate lawyer at the time. He felt he had been shunted into what was then considered to be a controversial grievance settlement process but it was certainly according to him a steep learning curve for a young graduate. More important he acknowledged a lot of the Te Roroa settlement group and the kaumatua and kuia who had spearheaded and platformed the claim some 10 years previously. Having raised that point he said that because a lot of them had not survived the process they were unable to witness the final stages of this bill. He spoke emotionally about his association with the claimant group obviously having been a young graduate lawyer at the time. He spoke about the trust and the willingness of the group to try to strive towards a settlement which to it represented a positive change in direction. 
I do think it is important when we hear from the Opposition that this settlement is not durable to place on record that the deed of agreement and indeed the bill now before us are signs of an agreement between Te Roroa and the Crown and that they have not been influenced by an outside group. If that is the case then surely we must accept on the basis of trust and goodwill that this bill strikes a position of acceptance for us to be able to move on in the passage of this legislation. 
The other matter that I want to raise relates to the issues that the Maori Affairs Committee handled. We heard from the Minister about the area of deferred selection. Although committee members raised concern about what the committee could and could not achieve in this particular case we have managed to have some substantial movement by extending the deferred selection time frame by a further 6 months. Although that does not have an effect on any changes or alterations to this bill we have learnt from the Minister that there has indeed been some agreement on and acceptance of it from Te Roroa as well. 
All in all having heard a cross-section of concerns from submitters when the committee travelled to Dargaville at the end of this process and following the report back of the bill to the House as chair of the committee I want to take this opportunity to extend thanks to committee members for the work they have conducted throughout this process and also to acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements. Mr Finlayson raised the issue of the change in the number of negotiators who have come through that office. I understand he mentioned about five or six teams within that office over that period of time and given that there had been some changes he raised that as a question of durability. 
I do think though it is important to look at the other side and to acknowledge the claimant group’s team—the Te Roroa negotiating team—and the vast changes that it must have experienced in just trying to keep up with the process. But again I want to reiterate that Judge Joe Williams in his address on the day that the deed of settlement was signed was very careful to say he wanted to acknowledge all those negotiators from Te Roroa who had not survived the process. It would have indeed been an opportunity for them had they survived it to be here to participate in this final stage. 
Finally I want to say that because Treaty claims settlements are agreements between claimant groups and the Crown we are keen to know that they have both accepted them. On that basis we know that this settlement will be durable that it does represent a positive change in direction for this claimant group and that Te Roroa is getting on with the business. Kia ora. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 It is with mixed emotion that I rise to speak on the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. When the bill was introduced to the House in March earlier this year along with other colleagues of this House I expressed my congratulations on and support for the fact that Te Roroa had after many many years in negotiations—not to mention the generations over which they had carried this burden—finally secured a settlement. I remain supportive of them for making the decision to settle with the Crown. To make such a decision after carrying a burden for generations is a big thing. I think we probably saw that at the first major tribal settlement back in 1995 when Tainui and Sir Robert Mahuta as leader finally took the step to settle with the Crown. 
Like all settlements of course Maori achieve a fraction only of what they claim. We accept that. But it does seem that in this case Te Roroa has had to accept much less and maybe the size of the tribe highlights this. They seem to have had to accept much less than they deserve. But the mixed emotion that I feel comes from the fact that although I respect entirely the right of Te Roroa as an exercise of their rangatiratanga to settle their longstanding grievance with the Crown National cannot support the legislation because we believe that this Labour Government has failed utterly to ensure durability for the settlement. 
I mentioned that I rise with some mixed emotion. Of course on the day that we rise to support the introduction of a bill until we have a chance to scrutinise the legislation and to meet face to face with the claimants and all others who believe they have an interest in the settlement we are not to know that the settlement might fall short of what Te Roroa are entitled to. That is the value of the select committee process which enables closer scrutiny of the settlement. But there is the qualification in this case—and this is the downside when we are examining settlement bills—that there is no opportunity to change the bill because it results from a deed signed by two parties one of which is outside of this place. So a committee cannot make any change unless the two parties to the deed of settlement which forms the basis of such legislation agree to any such change. 
We in National are not unaware of these matters. For goodness’ sake! It was our party in Government that introduced for the first time proper Treaty settlements—real Treaty settlements. It is our party that will go down in history as being the party in Government for the first time ever to embark on a Treaty settlement process. So we are not unaware of the issues that members on the other side of the House raise. We are intimately acquainted with all of the detail of how these settlements work. 
But as my colleague Christopher Finlayson has said we find that we do not support this settlement. We acknowledge that an improvement was made to the deferred selection process as a result of representations to the Minister but we do not believe that that is enough. As my colleague has already said and I will repeat it there remain other issues that have not been resolved. Those relate to the return of koiwi to Te Roroa and to the Kaharau and Te Taraire sites. We think that as long as these issues remain unresolved this settlement runs the risk of not being durable. We hope that it will be obviously but we think that those two issues in particular are real flaws in this settlement. 
I suppose that when one has the opportunity to sit on the select committee and when one bears in mind the issues that sit behind this legislation one is reminded again of the Waitangi Tribunal report published in 1992. Those findings were that the Crown used unfair methods to purchase Te Roroa lands and failed to make proper provision for reserves for Te Roroa; the Crown adopted unprincipled land-purchase methods in acquiring interest in the Waipoua No. 2 block; the Crown through its land purchases and land administration destroyed the sense of community of Te Roroa at Waipoua; the Crown through its land purchases and economic policies denied Te Roroa the benefits of borrowing for development enjoyed by other New Zealanders at the time of the settlement of this country; the Crown failed to protect Te Roroa wahi tapu and allowed their taonga to be violated; and the Crown failed to listen to their grievances or act on recommendations for redress. That is what sits behind this settlement. It is a damning indictment on the behaviour of the Crown way back during the time when Te Roroa were dispossessed. 
So when it came to looking at the settlement the Minister unlike those of us who were on the committee did not have to sit there and listen to the submissions from the iwi. They were heartfelt. The pain was still real. They were very mindful of what the tribunal had recommended and very mindful as well that the settlement falls far short of the recommendations of the tribunal. That is what the Minister does not know that is what he did not hear and that is what he does not have to live with now. Regardless of the fact that they have signed this settlement the feeling was—and we felt strongly about this—that they had no choice. They had no choice; that was what they told us. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I met with them far more than you did. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That was what they told us at the committee. As I say the Minister was not there so he really did not have to face it. He really did not have to face it. It is like when we ask the Office of Treaty Settlements who came up with that quantum and it says that the claimants accepted it. But can anyone imagine given the findings of the tribunal that Te Roroa would go along to the Government and say that they are happy to settle for $9 million? Rubbish! It is absolute rubbish. They would not say that and you can bet your life that if they have finally settled for this they have been beaten down and beaten down. They are a small iwi. They are a small iwi but they are an important iwi. Like all iwi they are an important iwi. 
I have already said that I respect entirely their exercise of their rangatiratanga in signing this deed. I will just make one last comment. Settlements are not the end of the process; they could never be regarded as the end. They are more likely to be regarded as a beginning. I hope that the iwi’s hurt—which was on show genuinely to the committee when we travelled to Dargaville to hear their submissions—for what they have been forced to accept will in time subside. I hope that they will see that this settlement can represent a beginning for them and that they will be able to build on this settlement as modest as it is and build a future for those young people who also showed up when we went to hear the iwi submissions. 
Settlements are not the end. They are certainly the end of a phase of grievance and again we trust that that feeling of grievance subsides as well. They are a beginning and I hope that the Crown uses its best endeavours to make sure that this settlement is implemented in a timely fashion so that the sense of loss that has been there for so long begins to subside. As I say we cannot support this settlement. It is a disappointment to me personally that we cannot. I was a member of the tribunal for 10 years in my past career and I know how important it is that this House be in agreement with these settlements but this one we cannot be in agreement with. I certainly acknowledge the rangatiratanga of Te Roroa and their right to make a decision to move this to the next phase. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi maku kei te mihi atu ki nga whanaunga o Te Roroa na ratou nei tenei taumahatanga e Tari mai ra ano i te tau 1882. 
I am just paying tribute to and acknowledging the people of Te Roroa in terms of this resolution to the injustice that they have been fighting for since 1882. Of course we acknowledge the negotiations and the Waitangi Tribunal’s report in 1992 and a lot of things have happened between those dates. But I say to the House that I am certainly amazed at and very interested in some of the contributions that have been made tonight by members of the Maori Affairs Committee and specifically the National members. I remember the negotiations and the discussions that took place in terms of the Ngai Tahu settlement when Doug Graham said that the integrity of the settlement agreement that has been negotiated by two parties cannot be undermined. I want to repeat that. This was from a member of Parliament whom Maoridom has a lot of respect for—Sir Douglas Graham—and I think that he made this statement before he became the honoured Sir Douglas. He said that it is not the role for this Parliament or any of its members to play political humbug with a settlement that has been made by two parties and in that case it was between Ngai Tahu and the Crown. 
I remember very very vividly that that message was endorsed by the chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee which I was a member of at that time. That chairperson was none other than the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. So sometimes in the affairs of Maoridom some of the words that we say beforehand come back to haunt us afterwards. There is a reference to that in terms of Maori whakapapa but sadly I am not permitted to utter those types of references in the House this evening. 
I was also interested to hear the heart-touching contribution from Chris Finlayson when he said that he was “touched” by the genuine contribution from the submitters who had made submissions to the select committee. I would say to that member that Maoridom deserves to be touched by more than just some sort of throwaway line to say that he as a member of the select committee was touched by the integrity and the emotional depth of the submissions made to the select committee. Let me say that if the member was so touched by it he would change the policy of the National Party when the National Party is committed to demolishing the Maori voice in this Parliament. How touched can the member be? You see one is examined and scrutinised by Maoridom in terms of one’s whole attitude and whole approach to the issues that involve Maori people not in terms of just one part of it. 
 But I want to acknowledge the process and I want to acknowledge the commitment of Te Roroa and many of them are whanaunga of myself Tau Henare and Shane Jones. For us who live in the realms of Ngapuhi in Tai Tokerau I want to congratulate them. Kia kaha kia manawa nui. 
[ 
Be strong and stout-hearted. 
] 
It does not matter where we go in terms of the settlement process with regard to treaty claims; not unlike Pakeha we will never ever get 100 percent consensus. That is an impossibility. It is a dream and a fantasy. But what we can do is give commitment and encourage and salute the people who have made a commitment to resolving this ongoing process and this ongoing injustice when we reflect that it started back in 1882. We come to the issue of wahi tapu such as Te Taraire which are sacred areas for Maoridom and sacred areas for Te Roroa. Kaharau is another area that is very sacred and significant to the people of Te Roroa. Yet they recognise that in fact parts of that land are not owned by the Crown. 
Let me say that when I read the preamble and I read the contribution as to the reasons that members of the National Party are opposing the settlement they say it is because those pieces of land were not returned to Te Roroa in terms of the settlement. But who proposed the legislation to prohibit private land being part of any Treaty redress? Who did it? It was not this side of the House. I want to remind the honourable Chris Finlayson— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So do you agree with the policy or not? Are you going to change it? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: —and Tau Henare the captain of the waka jumpers. He has forgotten. [ 
Interruption 
] Hang on; we are talking about the integrity of the Te Roroa people. If it were permitted in law for the tribunal and for the Crown arbitrarily to take private land then we would have some very interesting ongoing discussions between that side of the House and this side. We support the view that the taking of private land should not be allowed. But if there is an opportunity for the people of Te Roroa to negotiate a private sale between a willing buyer and a willing vendor kei te pai. But which party was it that introduced legislation prohibiting the Waitangi Tribunal or the Crown from acquiring compulsorily land to be able to satisfy Treaty claims? It was not this side; it was that side. Unfortunately Chris Finlayson just dropped down in the last shower and he does not know. I thought he would know. He is a man of integrity. I appreciate his thoroughness because like him I have actually read the report. 
I thank my relation here Tau for saying: “Old man; well old man.” I am proud of that because he acknowledges me as his elder. I have to say that one day he might get there. He may achieve that maturity. I am hopeful for him. In fact after the contribution I am making tonight I will have a karakia to make sure that one day he will reach the age of 69 and 70. I thank him very much for the compliment because in our culture when one acknowledges one’s elders one is in fact acknowledging that there is wisdom in the words of one’s elders. 
At the end of the day I expect that every Maori in this House would support the settlement and do members know the reason why? Because it is a settlement that has been negotiated between Te Roroa and the Crown. 
Na reira kei te mihi whanui atu ki a koutou katoa mo tenei po hakawhitiwhiti korero nei ki a tatou i roto i tenei Whare a Mr Deputy Speaker te rangatira te kaiwhakahaere o te Whare huri ana tena koutou tena koutou tena ano tatou katoa. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
So I acknowledge you all broadly in this evening’s debate in the House including you Mr Deputy Speaker chief and judge greetings. To us all throughout the House greetings greetings and greetings again to all of us. Thank you. 
] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Given what appears to be a reluctance on the part of some other members to stand and participate in the second reading debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill I on behalf of New Zealand First will take this opportunity to do so. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o tenei o aku korero e tika ana kia mihi atu ki nga hunga o Te Roroa e noho tonu ki te wa kainga ki te hakarongo i te ahuatanga o nga korero i puta mai i roto i te Whare nei e pa ana ki ta koutou pire. Na reira tena koutou. 
[ 
But before I continue with my address it is fitting that I acknowledge those ones of Te Roroa who remained at home to listen to how this debate relating to your bill fares. Greetings to you. 
] 
First of all I just say that I declare a vested interest in this bill and I do so for the simple reason that by whakapapa I am linked to Te Roroa although I will not be a beneficiary to this settlement. 
On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to take a call in the second reading debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. The bill has come back from the Maori Affairs Committee where we heard from submitters most of whom were linked by whakapapa to Te Roroa. I want to say that some disquiet was expressed by a number if not all of the submitters on a number of issues and all of this was in spite of their being part of the process that gave Te Roroa negotiators a mandate to accept the settlement with the Crown. 
Although some may disagree with what I am about to say certainly the feeling that some Te Roroa people presently have is that the quantum to settle this claim and all subsequent claims of Tainui and Ngai Tahu has in fact been affected by the terms of those two settlements—that is Tainui and Ngai Tahu. This gives rise to the thought of whether settlement quanta may not be as durable as they could be. However I am mindful that the negotiators have obtained the mandate from their people to accept the quantum in terms of this settlement and like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu I recognise the tino rangatiratanga of Te Roroa to do so. Some members of Te Roroa have mentioned to me on the side that they felt aggrieved that the negotiators had accepted the terms of settlement and that they had a sense of there being a fait accompli in terms of the offer made to them. 
I remind the House that this claim is the second from the north to actually reach this stage of settlement—the first of course being that of Te Uri o Hau. I also want to remind the House that the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on this claim was issued back in 1992 which is a reminder as to how long the people of Te Roroa have had to wait. In addition the 1992 report gave rise to the issue surrounding the “acquisition” of privately owned land for settlement. Of course that recommendation led to subsequent legislation ensuring that this did not occur. Notwithstanding that it ought to be noted that some of the lands that make up this particular settlement were once in private ownership and the owners of those lands are still feeling aggrieved by that. I ought to say that during the select committee’s hearing of submissions two submitters whom my comment applies to wanted to make submissions but for various reasons the committee judged not to accept their submissions. 
However this bill is about the claim from Te Roroa and it gives effect to the deed of settlement agreed to by the Crown and Te Roroa and signed by them on 17 December 2005. This bill legislates for a full and final settlement of all of Te Roroa’s historical claims and after listening to the tenor of some of the contributions made to the debate so far this evening I can see quite clearly that there is some doubt as to the durability of those settlements. I have come to realise that unless there is a willingness on the part of the Crown to take heed of whatever might be recommended by the select committee on the issue of quantum whatever we might think in terms of its fairness we are somewhat hamstrung. However I will acknowledge that in this instance some latitude was extended to allow for the extension to the deferred selection provisions that essentially will give Te Roroa up to 6 months after settlement date to purchase those properties included in the agreement at the date of the deed of settlement. If we consider that the time frame is roughly 2 years we see that the value of those lands would of course have increased in that time so I thank those who are responsible for making that decision in extending that time frame to Te Roroa. 
I want to comment on what the settlement provides for Te Roroa. In this settlement the quantum is regarded by some as one that places into question the durability of this settlement. In particular I make reference to the Waipoua commercial forest and the Kaharau block. In regards to the Kaharau block and the significance to Te Roroa of the wahi tapu status in which they regard this block there are some who feel that this settlement does not come anywhere near the heart of the Te Roroa claim. Although the opportunity for Te Roroa to acquire the total block may lie somewhere in the future the reality is that their financial resources are limited in terms of what cash resources they will have at their disposal following this settlement. I would have thought that a possibility could be for the Crown to take responsibility for the purchase of this block now or sometime in the future at least when the present landholders were prepared to sell. As the Rev. Daniel Ambler mentioned in his submission “Until this is settled Te Roroa elders will continue to feel enslaved.” 
Another submitter commented that enacting the proposed legislation would change the present iwi state of depression and grief mixed with hope to a state of a permanent sense of tangi once the Act removed the obligation of the Crown to address this grave injustice. 
The other part of the settlement I would like to comment on which is described in the bill is that of the commercial forest. The settlement must be reasonably acceptable to Te Roroa and it must be fair if the Crown’s stance is to hold on to land or profit from its sale and to continue to use returned Te Roroa land for another generation. I make reference specifically to the Waipoua commercial forest which will be returned to Te Roroa after the present forest has been felled. I would have thought that there might be an opportunity for the Crown to include those forests when returning it to Te Roroa. 
Quite clearly there is some doubt not only amongst the wider community but certainly within Te Roroa about the durability of this settlement. I take on board exactly what the Minister has said about the right of Te Roroa to make their decisions and for the right of Te Roroa alone to decide whether to accept this settlement. I know for a fact that the leader of the negotiators Mr Alex Nathan was not available to provide a submission when the select committee met in Dargaville for various reasons. I would have liked to hear him make his submission in public in order to gain an idea as to how the negotiators felt when dealing with this settlement and in particular how those who represented the Crown felt during the negotiations. 
Having expressed some disquiet about the settlement I want to place on record that New Zealand First will support this bill recognising the tino rangatiratanga of Te Roroa in the decision they have made to settle with the Crown. Kia ora. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will vote for the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and we will see how the Committee stage goes but we reserve our position on further stages of the legislation. 
Te Roroa have sought redress on a wide range of issues since 1861. The Crown has successively failed to appropriately deal with the grievances of Te Roroa prior to and I think including this settlement. This settlement provides some redress to them but it does not provide real justice. Lands stolen are not being returned. 
One of the primary purposes of the 1992 Waitangi Tribunal claim by Te Roroa and the subsequent settlement was to remedy the Crown’s failure to set aside Kaharau Te Taraire Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki from the lands that were purchased in 1875 and 1876. Protest over Kaharau Te Taraire and other smaller Waimamaku wahi tapu is as old as 1887. It was 120 years ago when a surveyor began the process of cutting the area up. The iwi were consistent in their understanding that those areas were to be set aside from any sales but the Crown rejected that and would accept only that “any old graves on the block a few acres surrounding them could perhaps be reserved under the provisions of The Land Act without causing any inconvenience.” And that title would remain in the hands of the Crown. Indeed the Kaharau block with its very long history of dispute will not be returned to iwi not even in this settlement 120 years after the first cutting up. 
I do not accept Minister Burton’s comment made earlier in the process of this legislation: “the settlement falls shorts of your desires in relation to Kaharau. It is my hope that you are able to be reunited with Kaharau at some time in the future.” In fact it is the Minister’s job to reunite Te Roroa with Kaharau and he has failed to do that. I know that the Government argues that Te Roroa could have used the settlement quantum to buy the land but this disguises the fact that Te Roroa need to acquire a number of other Crown-owned properties to make sure that the settlement is economically viable into the future. Kaharau is an area of about 600 hectares with an approximate rateable value of over $1.5 million. The residue of the quantum that Te Roroa have left after they purchase the other Crown-owned properties that they have to purchase is $70000. They have no hope of getting this land back with that. 
The Government’s position on Kaharau and Te Taraire was neither fair nor in good faith. The point of the settlement was the return of those lands. The settlement quantum should have been sufficient to include the purchase of those two key properties and it was not. The Government simply did not consider that the return of those properties was of sufficient importance to increase the quantum. If it had it would have made sure that those properties were returned. 
This is one of the key problems with the Office of Treaty Settlements and with the settlement process: claimants and their needs are simply not taken seriously enough by this Government or I think previous Governments. I think this is obvious in the recent critiques against the department in the Waitangi Tribunal report on Ngati Whatua o Orakei. The Office of Treaty Settlements was severely criticised for failing to engage with tangata whenua groups failing to give them accurate information and failing to communicate with them in any meaningful way. The Office of Treaty Settlements would not assist Ngati Whatua in dealing with cross-claimants and left them to manage the problems that the Office of Treaty Settlements had caused by its failure to engage properly in the first place. In effect the Office of Treaty Settlements has become complacent to a point where it simply ignores what it does not want to engage with or does not need to engage with and instead uses its considerable resources to bulldoze settlements through. 
I understand that the Government probably thinks that it is meeting the needs of the public by its unseemly haste to conclude settlements regardless of the inherent unfairness of them. I think it has been driven by focus groups and by the resonances of the racism from the last election. But the fact is that the New Zealand public do not all think like Don Brash. So before I conclude my speech tonight I want to read some quite long extracts from a letter from Stephen King a founding trustee of the Waipoua Forest Trust which established the Millennium Kauri Forest and a member of the Pakeha community who lives within the Te Roroa rohe. 
He says this: “Tena koutou katoa as you are aware our trust and the parent NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust have been working for 22 years working hard to restore the Waipoua Kauri Forest for which Te Roroa are the kaitiaki. We have invested more than $4m in land protection and restoration and for the past 9 years worked in a formal partnership with Te Roroa to restore this national treasure. I have lived at the forest and worked with Te Roroa for more than 13 years. During this time in the community I have observed the grief of Te Roroa and been to claims hui and to the tangi of numbers of kaumatua and kuia who did not survive the negotiation process. I have shared the pain of two negotiators who suffered heart attacks as a direct result of the crippling and heartless negotiating terms and process. 
I have seen the sacrifice of 18 years of prime leadership particularly of Rev. Daniel Ambler and Alex Nathan whose outstanding abilities would have been better invested in forwarding Te Roroa and our community than being bogged down in unnecessarily protracted negotiations. During 15 years of protracted negotiations the crown has continued to take logs and profit from Te Roroa land amounting to a sum substantially more than that offered to settle the claim. Now the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill is set to consign another generation of Te Roroa to economic hardship (having to borrow money to purchase back its lands) while the crown continues to profit from another full rotation (27 years) of log extractions. It is impossible”—he says—“to see how the crown has acted fairly or sincerely in settling this claim. 
… Following parliamentary submissions commencing 1907 the court awarded in their favour in 1932 and then endorsed by Wai 38 in 1992. Signing and enacting a deal won’t erase this issue from the community. Despite signed agreements I advise the government that this is unresolved and will remain so until a provision is made for crown purchase now or in future when landholders are ready. One landholder has been awaiting an approach from the crown for the last 10 years. The other major landholder is receptive to future acquisition or acquisition with lifetime use. … 
Until this is settled Te Roroa elders will continue to feel ‘enslaved’ ”—as my colleague has referred to—“… because they do not have control of the bones and resting places of their ancestors. Further their mana will be eroded within Northland for failing to deliver on a core of the claim something that generations before have fought for and they carry the mantle for. … 
I implore you to address the situation. Failure to do so will affect not only Te Roroa but the pakeha community as well particularly the farmers whose land will always be affected by the knowledge within the community it is stolen land that rightfully belongs to Te Roroa. Te Roroa will always feel they belong to that land. Legislation will not break the link or expectation for resolution.” 
He goes on: “2008 will mark exactly 100 years since a Waipoua Kauri National Park was first promulgated to parliament by govt. ecologist … Waipoua was the site of NZ’s first lowland forest conservation battle in the 1940s. For 20 years successive politicians and public have patiently awaited the settlement of Wai 38 to enable the formation of a Kauri National Park. After years of work and careful thought we have a new style of park which the trust will be putting to government and key leaders for acceptance in 2008. The first priority however is ensuring that the Wai 38 settlement bill does in fact lay a secure foundation upon which Te Roroa can plan progress and afford the space to embrace a project which will become an internationally recognised natural wonder. Whatever form the park takes it is imperative that it is founded on a healthy relationship with Te Roroa and a proud recognition of their kaitiakitanga together with the guardianship role of the ordinary kiwi constituency … This is all part of our heritage and sense of national identity. Being fair to our tangata whenua partners is an essential part of bringing integrity to our proudly espoused kiwi values and moving forward together.” 
This is the view of the Pakeha community which the Government should be listening to. Kia ora. 
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. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker; tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Me mihi ake ki a koutou katoa e oku whanaunga i tu mai ki te korero ki tenei kaupapa i te po nei. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to all of us in the House. My acknowledgments to those relatives of mine who rose to speak to this matter tonight. 
] 
We are debating the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. The submission from Te Roroa Mana Whenua Trust and Te Roroa Whatu Ora Trust on the settlement was six pages long and four of those pages were a list of the names and signatures of those who had died during the prosecution of this claim—a graphic and solemn testimony to the suffering of Te Roroa in its quest for a just settlement. No reira e Te Roroa anei to mokopuna e mihi atu ana e tangi atu ana ki a ratou kua ngaro atu ki tua o te arai te utu mo nga mahi tahae mahi morikarika a te kawanatanga. 
[ 
So to you Te Roroa here am I your grandchild acknowledging you and grieving for those who have passed away as a consequence of the thieving and abominable actions of the Government. 
] 
Another submission from the Reverend Daniel Ambler described in some painful eloquence the grief he felt for the mana of his tupuna and at their wahi tapu being ripped out of their arms by the Crown—a grief he says “which has left us feeling so diminished and incomplete.” One can almost touch the sense of defeat and emptiness that runs right through the 25 submissions received by the Maori Affairs Committee. The people of Te Roroa—nga uri o Ngati Kawa Ngati Whiu and Te Kuihi—did not deserve to be treated in such a callous and an uncaring way. The descendants of Manumanu of Ngakuru Pana of Rangitauwawaro of Parore Te Awha of Hapakuku Moetara of Kohuru Te Whata of Tiopira Kinaki and Marara Mahuhu and many many others are worthy of far more respect than this Government is showing them. 
To Te Roroa I say this: “I greet you today and those who stand with you—you whose spiritual and physical home runs from the Kaipara up to the Hokianga; you who have fought to protect those sacred lands and who have guarded and preserved the significance of Waipoua for us all to enjoy; you who stood strong like Tane Mahuta trying to shield and defend your future descendants from any further grievance and wrongdoing. Your honour is evident in the way you have fought for your mokopunas’ future in the same way that your fathers and grandfathers fought for the future of the whole of Aotearoa in the First and Second World Wars. What cost does the price of citizenship have? I acknowledge in particular those who have fought to protect the sacred sites of Kaharau and Te Taraire which the Government has refused to return. For what it is worth Te Roroa this moment is yours.” 
But in acknowledging the significance of Te Roroa’s efforts since claims were first lodged with the tribunal way back in the 1980s we must also look at the part the Crown has played in reaching the deed of settlement in December 2005. The submissions describe that part in vivid detail. Gary Hooker highlighted the lack of sincerity in the Crown apology by pointing out the Government’s continuing attempts to sanitise Te Roroa’s history and its own crimes against Te Roroa. Sheena Ross spoke of the unsatisfactory registration and voting procedures of defects in the proposed cultural redress and of the pathetically inadequate quantum offered to Te Roroa. The Waipoua Forest Trust said it was critically important that the settlement be finalised so that the present generation could move forward economically while also restoring the unique character of the landscape but it concluded rightly that the present deal failed to do that and failed to create a sense of settlement. 
It seems that those words continue to fall on deaf ears. Indeed less than a week ago the Waitangi Tribunal itself stated: “The burden on both Maori and Pakeha of the great wrongs that were done in the past will not be lifted if the process of settling creates new wrongs. We consider that the process for settling now being followed is creating divisions within Maori society that are very damaging. Damage to whanaungatanga to te taura tangata is a great wrong: it affects Maori society at its very core. It also goes to the heart of the Treaty guarantees in article two.” That was said just last Friday. Three days later the tribunal reported again that it was “left fearing for the customary future of Te Arawa Waka” because of the “ ‘serious flaws’ in the way the Crown consulted with ‘non-settling Te Arawa groups’ ”. 
Yesterday we were told that the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill would not be coming up today and then at the last minute bam it is back on the Order Paper. It seems as though the Government is determined to rid itself of all three disasters at once by ramming through another seriously flawed settlement. 
Brendan Lyne head of the New Zealand corporate finance division for one of the world’s largest accounting firms Grant Thornton is Pakeha and he is hardly the type one would think to want to bother himself with the Te Roroa settlement. But even he felt moved to make a submission noting that like past attempts at settling that were later seen to be unfair this one too would be unlikely to endure. He described himself as “a New Zealander who passionately believes that all within this country should be treated fairly and justly” and his assessment of the Te Roroa settlement was that: “The failure of the Crown to return Kaharau is an injustice perpetuated on the back of the original injustice. Adding insult to injury the Crown appears to be inviting Te Roroa through its own resources to attempt the impossible task of seeking to acquire Kaharau”. 
As well as the grievances created by the exclusion of Kaharau and Te Taraire the Hokianga whanua hapu land and resource claims collective also raised the concern about overlapping claims. Will Ngakuru described the cost of this process in his submission when he said: “The settlement process has divided Te Roroa. … Trustees need time to communicate with the whanau and involve them in the process. OTS have indicated a July settlement this would place a large amount of stress on Te Roroa and lead to further division.” 
Over and over again the submissions have spoken of a flawed process of scepticism about the integrity of the registration and voting procedures of the anguish experienced over the exclusion of Kaharau and Te Taraire and of an insultingly low quantum that fails to recognise the seriousness and extent of the Crown’s Treaty breaches against Te Roroa. 
So the Maori Party will be splitting our vote on this bill. We will give one of our votes towards respecting the right of Te Roroa to seek justice for its claims but our other three votes will be abstentions. We will not vote against Te Roroa for it deserves redress and it deserves an immediate response. But we will not vote for the disgraceful way that the Crown forced Te Roroa to the wall. We will not vote for a process that is driven by the Government’s tight-fisted attitude to Treaty claims and we will not vote for a process that has led to a serious miscarriage of justice for Te Roroa. 
Stephen Naera’s submission summed the situation up well when he said: “Take anything out of this Bill that reflects full and final settlement… Return our taonga and koiwi at crown expense… Remove reference to the crown acting with honour during this process.” To Te Roroa I say this: “We do not believe that this is a full and final settlement. We do not believe that justice has been done and we do not hesitate to say to you and to your descendants: kahore ano kia ea to koutou tono. A tona wa me hoki mai kia oti tuturu ai. Your request has not been honoured. When you are ready come back and complete the job.” No reira e te Whare tena koutou tena koutou huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Thankfully there will be a reshuffle on that side of the House. I say that because that Minister and his predecessor have not given all their heart and all their will to a job that deserves a hundred percent. I do not believe that if when one is given a job and when one takes that job one does not give a hundred and fifty percent of one’s heart and will then there is no legacy. Quite frankly that Minister and his predecessor leave no legacy whatsoever. 
Is the settlement of Te Roroa durable? No it is not. Is it fair? No it is not. There are two questions in any settlement. It does not matter where the settlement is—whether it is in Te Roroa whether it is in Taranaki or whether it is in Ngai Tahu. Is it durable and is it fair? Those are the two questions that I ask myself more often than not. And more often than not the answers to those two questions are “Yes”. Yes it is durable. Yes it is fair. Unfortunately this settlement is neither durable nor fair. 
There has been talk tonight about whether the settlement was signed and agreed upon under a certain amount of duress. After 13 years or so the settlement was absolutely signed under duress. 
I do not mean that the Minister or people from the Office of Treaty Settlements sat there with a big hammer and knocked the participants around. But 13 years of a process is enough for anybody to one day say: “OK I agree; let’s get on with it. Hopefully we will get something out of it.” That is what I mean by duress. 
I turn to the issue of cultural redress the return of koiwi. I heard my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui speaking about that. Yes I did repatriate some taonga and I am still as proud as punch for that even though I think I got a bad rap for it when it happened. But that is water under the bridge. I want to say that it would be very very easy for any Government—not only Labour but any Government—to get a meeting with the museum and work something out about repatriation. Because that is essentially what happened when I went overseas; I sat down with a couple of museums and talked about repatriation. It is easy when one puts one heart and soul into it. 
As my learned colleague Chris Finlayson said the submissions on this bill were interesting. The ones from Te Roroa were heartfelt and one could see the pain and the struggle of years gone by. These submissions were not from people who in the last 3 or 4 months had written a submission and produced 25 copies to the select committee. They were from a group of people who had worked tirelessly for more than 13 years. One could see the weathered look of those people who had survived the process of negotiation. Their submissions were ones that I think we will all remember. 
There were the submissions from the independents and yes there was the submission by Stephen King—not the author of horror novels although when he walked into the select committee I thought he was out of a horror movie. I had always heard of this bloke; I had seen him on the TV. I too share the sentiments of the Hon Mita Ririnui that when Stephen King cut the tree only a baby tree I felt so sorry for the tree. 
Then there were the ugly submissions—the ugly submissioners. In all my time in the House—to some it is not long; to some it may be far too long—I had never ever seen submissions like I saw in the Te Roroa settlement process. These ugly submissions were full of language that even I—from South Auckland from Otara—baulked at when I read them. Not a lot worries me; not a lot phases me. Those submissions from Allan Titford and the One New Zealand Foundation did. I am glad to say there was a unanimous decision in the select committee to make sure that we would not hear those submissions because of the language. So I say kia ora to my colleagues on the select committee. 
I know that my colleague Chris Finlayson does not like the term “cross-claims” but I suppose it is what I have been brought up with. There are issues about cross-claims in this settlement—as there certainly are in Ngati Whatua and Te Arawa—which tell me that the processes this Government has are not particularly right. If the processes were right then there would be no problems things would move smoothly and we would all be in favour of a durable and fair settlement. Because some things have not been done properly we say no; we say that we cannot support a settlement where a number of things have not been signed off properly. I respect my colleagues from New Zealand First and Labour for wanting to get this bill through but I also reserve the right to say that National will not stand by and see people treated in such a manner that they do not get a hell of a lot out of this deal. Nine million dollars—OK that is a couple of Saturday wins in Lotto. That may be good; that may be bad. But what really riles me is the fact that after all that has been said and done the cash that Te Roroa gets to purchase other lands—such as maybe some of Kaharau some of Te Taraire—is only $74000. I think that when we put it in those terms—and this is a settlement to say sorry to apologise for the past—we see that it does not go anywhere near it. I do not want to be a member of a party that wants to unpick settlements along the way and we will not. We will not unpick settlements that have been done in good faith. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: What are you doing? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What are we doing? The member asks what we are doing. Well he does not know—“Old Spanky” does not know. He has most probably never even once in his whole career in Parliament sat down with a bunch of Maori and actually discussed the issue of settlements. Never have I seen that man on the marae talking about settlements—never ever—having his 5c worth because that is all it is worth 5c. And they got rid of the 5c coin a long time ago. 
But let me get back to the whole issue. From that side of the House tonight I have heard a speech from a Minister who was as pious as I have ever heard a Minister talking in this House. I have never heard such a condescending and pious speech in all my days. Yes the quantum is not enough to purchase—[ 
Interruption 
] Look I tell that member not to mind about us. National was in power without me for a while and then it was in power for 3 more years and we did a whole lot. We did a whole lot in terms of Treaty settlements so that member should not bother going there. Labour will lose in an argument or discussion about what National has done in terms of Treaty settlements. I mentioned before a legacy. Well the legacy for National in terms of Treaty settlements is Sir Douglas Graham. The party he belonged to was National. The party he belongs to is National. 
Lastly I want to say that I am dumbfounded at the ability of a select committee not to be able to make changes in a settlement process and I think that that is something this House must address in the very near future. 
 It does not say to the Crown that it must do this; all it says is that the select committee proposes or wishes the Government to take a course of action. It does not hold a power of veto and it certainly does not say to the Minister that he must listen to the select committee. So I urge the House shortly to have a discussion and come up with a better way of dealing with Treaty settlements when they appear before a select committee. Kia Ora. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 2; Progressive 1;. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Abstentions 3 
Maori Party 3 (Flavell Harawira Sharples). 
Bill read a second time.