Ryall Tony: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Ryall Tony: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16458] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I too take a moment to acknowledge the people from Kawerau who are present. Many of them are known to me—in fact I went to school in Kawerau with Mrs Adlam’s children and one of Canon Schuster’s whanaunga was my teacher at intermediate school so is no doubt responsible in terms of my education for much of what everyone is about to hear. 
I think that National’s deputy leader Gerry Brownlee raised an important issue in terms of how this House deals with the matter of overlapping claims. Throughout the entire process of the treaty claims since it was started by Sir Douglas Graham in the 1990s we have had overlapping claims. In my own area we have the overlapping claims of Ngati Awa and the Tuhoe people on a particular track towards the Ohiwa harbour. Closer to Tauranga we have issues with Te Arawa and the Tauranga Maori about some of the beaches etc. near Maketu. So dealing with overlapping claims is something that is part and parcel of dealing with treaty claims. 
But what makes this legislation somewhat more challenging is the fact that the overlap is total. If one looks at a map of what Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau has been talking about one sees that it is within what Ngati Awa has been talking about—it is hand in glove. So the point that Mr Brownlee raised which was so quickly dismissed by the Government requires examination by the select committee because—and Mr Brownlee is right—Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau was represented on the Ngati Awa Trust Board for some years and left in the 1980s. I do not know the story behind its departure from that board in the 1980s and the setting up of the charitable trust at that time but I would have thought that it is valuable for the select committee to look into where that springs from. What about the issues being raised about the hand in glove nature of the overlapping claims and where does the previous association with Ngati Awa fit in? Those points are well worth being looked into by the select committee but they are not the responsibility of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau because the decision to negotiate is that of the Government. It is the Government’s decision to deal with Ngati Awa in one way and with Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau in another way. It is up to the Government to come before the select committee and I hope that questions will be asked about how it is dealing with that issue. 
The whole overlapping situation is further complicated by the admission from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that none of the memorials will be removed from any of the titles. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s the whole point of the settlement. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well it may be the whole point of the settlement but it comes down to the points that Mr Brownlee talked about at the very beginning—that is the overlapping claims and how the issue of memorials will be dealt with by the Government in relation to both Ngati Awa and Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. I am certain that once the Ngati Awa settlement goes through finally and that of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau those memorials must be wiped. So the two settlements run on parallel lines whether or not we like it and the points that Mr Brownlee raised are completely valid and should be looked at by the select committee. 
I also have some concerns about where the Government is going in this bill because I think it is political correctness gone mad. Are we serious? I do not believe for one minute that Tuwharetoa came to the Government and asked for an apology for the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains. I could tell this House about the number of Maori and Pakeha people who have become incredibly successful and wealthy farmers as a result of the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains including many who would count themselves as Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. I simply do not believe that the Government can seriously expect to stand up and apologise for the draining of those plains when we look at the wealth that has been created there. Sure maybe it can acknowledge some of the difficulties caused by that and the fact that some traditional fishing areas might have disappeared but does the Government seriously want to apologise for the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains? 
And what do members feel about this one? Does the Government seriously want to apologise for building the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. in Kawerau? I cannot believe that Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau would come and ask for an apology because the Government built that company. 
Stephen Franks 
: Where would they have worked otherwise? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well that is the very point. Many people in the Eastern Bay of Plenty both Pakeha and Maori have become very successful because of the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co.—very successful. Mr Paraone talked about—and I wrote the words down—the advancement of Maori in terms of wealth jobs education and economic development. That paper mill along with the dairy industry has been the basis of prosperity in the Eastern Bay of Plenty for 50 years and I do not believe that the Government was ever asked to apologise for that. Sure there are some issues about the pollution of the river and its colouration that need to be discussed but does the Government really expect to apologise for building the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co.? Was it asked to do so? I do not think so. Yet here we are with a whole lot of hand-wringing in the Government’s preamble to this bill about the problems caused by the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains and by the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. 
Is it not time that the Government actually took a balanced approach with regard to these treaty settlements? Instead of the Government saying that everything the Crown does is wrong it could actually acknowledge that there are some significant benefits to the people of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and the Eastern Bay of Plenty because of what happened in the past. We do not see any of that in this bill. We do not see anything about the jobs wealth and prosperity created because of some of the Government’s actions in that area. But the Government is very happy to wring its hands and to be full of apologies for stuff that has actually benefited the very people who will benefit from the passing of this bill. I think that that should have been acknowledged. The leadership of Sir William Sullivan in securing that paper mill in Kawerau is something that this Government should have acknowledged in this deal because it has been the basis of wealth and prosperity in that region and for many of the people of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau for 50 years. That should be recognised in this legislation. 
At the select committee I am also looking forward to discussion of the issues associated with geothermal energy and the fact that the Geothermal Energy Act of 1953 took geothermal rights from Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. Well the fact is that the Act took geothermal rights from everybody in 1953. 
Stephen Franks 
: Just like oil and gas. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Geothermal energy is just like oil and gas but the Prime Minister says that she is not going to entertain claims to rights in relation to oil and gas. So I will be interested to see what the thinking process was behind recognising the geothermal issue. I think that it is perfectly valid to say that it would be a fair form of commercial compensation or redress to give Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau or NgatiTuwharetoa the rights that are in this deal. That is fine but do we have to say necessarily that the passing of the Geothermal Energy Act was wrong? Was it wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights to the ownership of the geothermal resource? The Prime Minister said that it was not wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights over oil and gas so why are we saying—or even suggesting—that it is wrong in this case? It is fine to do the deal on the geothermal stuff but it does not need to be wrapped up in language that states it was wrong to pass the Act in 1953. It was not wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights with regard to oil and gas so why is it wrong in this case now? 
I think that a number of issues will be raised at the select committee. The National Party supports the progress of this bill but its deputy leader raised some legitimate issues about dealing with overlapping claims and about how this settlement inter-relates with the Ngati Awa settlement. When we consider that the memorials are not being removed—and I suspect that the only way they will be removed is with the passing of the other Eastern Bay of Plenty settlement—then that is a legitimate issue. That is what Gerry Brownlee was talking about. It is all too easy for the Government to dismiss what I think was a well-thought-out view on a number of issues that are important to resolve.