Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19338] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I first of all want to acknowledge the people of Ngati Awa today. I realise this is a historic day for them and that they have fought hard over literally decades to achieve this settlement. But I also want to express my surprise at that bitter speech made by a former Minister of Maori Affairs. I have to say that speeches like that will keep him “ex” for a very long long time. That was just an extraordinarily wasted opportunity when he could have lifted aspirations and tones but instead lost that opportunity. I think that is fundamentally why Labour will lose the confidence of Maori voters up and down this country. In fact the risk is that the member will not be just a former Minister but will be a former member of Parliament as he gets booted out by the Maori voters in his electorate. 
I would like to turn my attention to firstly the fundamental goals of settlement. What are they? Why do we do this as a nation? It is hugely important that we recognise that we are doing these settlements as a nation and that it is no accident that when Governments either Labour or National enter into settlements we refer to the “Crown”. It is done quite deliberately because the settlements are intended to endure across generations. The integrity and honour of the Crown is placed on the record as a commitment by the people of this nation—both Maori and Pakeha—that these are solemn testaments to be honoured not just by the Crown but also by the Maori claimants and that they are enduring permanent and final settlements. The words are not just put in there as a kind of cosmetic dressing. When it is said that the settlements are final and when the claimants go through a very considered process of ratification consultation and so forth that is intended to be an enduring commitment not just for the current generation but also for future generations. We are settling our history in these claims; we are settling our past. We do that by recording the history. There will always be some disputes I acknowledge as to what happened who did what and whether something is a true and an accurate reflection of what occurred. Perhaps we should not get too bound up in such detail when deciding whether we support a settlement because what we are supposed to be doing is looking forward. 
I do want to note the comment made by Mr Shane Jones who I am sure will be a member of Parliament within a few months—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Dave Hereora and a number of other members on the Labour side will be displaced. The Labour Government will promote Mr Shane Jones and a number of current Labour members of Parliament should be looking in the “Situations Vacant” column. Mr Shane Jones made it very clear that these settlements are actually a 20th century business and that for the 21st century the aspirations of our country and of all the peoples in it should be to look forward. I thought the whole process of the Hui Taumata was very significant because of the way in which unlike the situation in 1984 there was much less focus on the problems of the past and much more focus on self-autonomy going into the future. Labour does not really understand what happened there ironically. Labour does not quite get it because Maori have signalled to Labour that they want to escape the clutches of dependency. They want to escape the clutches of the State and of social welfare and to build autonomy and independence— 
Ron Mark 
: And self-respect. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —and self-respect because progress does depend on self-respect both as a people and as individuals. 
I also want to say some other things about the nature of these settlements. This issue is not quite as evident in this bill as it is in the upcoming NgatiTuwharetoa bill and it is the issue about how we cast our legislation. I have looked at the legislation for Tainui for NgaiTahu and for a number of other settlements and what I see is a creeping insertion into our legislation of reference initially just to the words “spiritual values”—nothing more than that. It does not go much further than that in this bill. But I have to note by reference to the NgatiTuwharetoa bill that there is a complete recitation there of the myths and legends of NgatiTuwharetoa. Now I do not deny that those are important to NgatiTuwharetoa but there is a reason why I am referring to that bill here today. I do not deny that those legends are important. They are important not just to NgatiTuwharetoa. Every young New Zealander needs to understand the myths about the volcanoes coming from Hawaiki and the legends around Ngauruhoe. But we would not expect to see that kind of reference then recorded in legislation. The reason I say that is that it is not the business of this House when passing public legislation the law of the land to put mythology into statute. They exist by their own force of creation and by the commitment in the hearts and the aroha of the people. 
 We are going into dangerous territory I believe when we start inserting into our legislation reference to those kinds of myths and legends. 
Why do I make that point? I make it because this nation is founded on the basis that we are all equal under the law and that we are a secular society. That does not mean to say that we are an irreligious society and it does not mean to say that we have no respect for religion. Obviously we do—this House starts each and every day with a prayer. What it does do however is to say that that belongs in the public domain—in the civil society. Each person and each group is free to practise their religion their beliefs and their fundamental driving forces. Those things are part of civil society and we have very deliberately kept that aspect out of our public laws. That is what it means to be a secular society. It is rooted in the idea of equality—that we will all be treated equally that we are all free to practise our religions and our beliefs and that the State does not prefer any particular religion or belief. That is what a secular society means; it does not mean that we are an irreligious society. I give notice to Government members that if they keep putting that kind of reference into legislation they will break the consensus that rests around settlements. 
I want to conclude on this point. These settlements are crucially dependent on consensus. They endure because they have a consensus on them both from Maori and the general community alike. When we make reference to the Crown in the settlements it signifies that we want them to endure and that they are intended to record our past and allow people to build for the future. I want to acknowledge that I wish the people of Ngati Awa well in the use of their settlement. I am sure it will build confidence in the iwi and will allow people to move past the events of the past and into development for the future.