te Heuheu Georgina: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10079] 
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.