Peters Winston: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18695. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):New Zealand First reiterates everything it said in the second reading of this Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. This is the judgment from Joe Williams and it is very clear what he has said. He said this: “I understand from Crown counsel it is expected that the bill will receive its third reading in July this year.” He goes on to say: “In those circumstances there is little now to be gained from requiring the tribunal to reconsider the application but perhaps to see the tribunal commence preparations for an inquiry into the effects of the Tūhoe deed on Ngāti Ruapani’s Treaty interests. The Government has signalled that in 2 months the bill will be law.” I noticed that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations rushed out to give an interpretation of that to the media and to hasten to assure Māoridom and the rest of the country who believe in true process that the Government had not made a mistake here.You see when the judge made that statement the Government had signalled that in 2 months the bill would be law. He himself had no confidence that the Government would be deterred from its course and its arranged deed of settlement. But that is not the case because this is the time—the Committee of the whole House stage—and this is the place for this matter to be corrected. It makes no sense surely to try to set right a long historical wrong that has been the fate of Tūhoe and yet create another one.Anyone who knows anything about legal process when it comes to Māori matters knows full well that once the boundaries have been set in a certain way all sorts of assurances of the type that the Minister has given both here and up in Ngāpuhi are not worth the air they pass on. That is the effect of those matters. As someone who has studied Māori Land Court cases going back 100 years I say that once the thing has been set in stone it largely remains there and it is only with enormous time cost and perseverance that someone can have that wrong corrected. This is the place in the Committee of the whole House stage to set this matter right. I think that lining up behind such an authority as Sir Apirana Ngata is more authoritative than the whole Treaty process and the settlement process and might I say the Minister’s officials and may I say also the Minister. If he is prepared to say now that he knows more about this matter than someone so esteemed in that part of the world—indeed in all of Māoridom—as Sir Apirana Ngata then it shows you just how sad parts of the Waitangi settlement process have become.I know that up north the Minister is now being besieged by fact. It is no use going out and saying “Well all you are doing New Zealand First is holding back these people from getting their rightful grievance settled and their compensation.” That of course is really a red herring. What is more important here is that two tribes recognised long before Ngata’s famous statement in 1929 are now today what they always were—tribes in that area. When I hear someone say to me that Tūhoe had rights to the Ōhiwa Harbour as someone who has lived on the coast in a tribe called Ngāti Wai all my life I know exactly what that means. What you have got is a customary tradition that was allowed to inland tribes and is now to become set in law as an ownership right.That is the fact and we are not falling for it. New Zealand First is not opposed in any way to the settlement to Tūhoe on this matter—not at all—but we are opposed to the boundaries being incorrect. When Justice Williams said the bill was going to be passed and would receive its third reading in July this year he himself with the greatest respect to him missed the point. This is Parliament. This is Parliament’s bill. This in the end will be given the authority and stamp of Parliament and Parliament can set it right.I do not have any desire to challenge those who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee but why did they not ask themselves that fundamental question? Are we doing the right thing here and are we impinging on the possibility of these two important tribes—[Bell rung] Thank you Mr Chair. This is a very important matter. Are we impinging on that possibility of getting their grievance fixed? Yes or no? We are. That is down in the history of Māoridom—the long tragic story of a settlement by a Government and by a court that was based on faulty information and not based on fact. Anyone who knows anything about Māoridom knows this.Of course it might be that Tūhoe got to New Zealand or to the centre of the North Island before the people I am talking about. Well of course they did. They must have come by helicopter or by spaceship because usually—[Interruption] No no. I see that woman from Christchurch over there who knows nothing about this issue frowning. It is appalling that they can be so darn arrogant. Unless they came by spaceship or by helicopter then it could be assumed that people left the coast later than the original settlement and went inland.Te Ururoa Flavell: Where’s your proof Winston?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Where is my proof? My proof is in historical travel. Do you think Ngāti Hine got to our part of the world before Ngāti Wai?Te Ururoa Flavell: I’m talking about Tūhoe. Talk about Tūhoe.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes. Do you think that the tribes at Ōhiwa got there before Tūhoe? Oh so obviously they came by spaceship. Usually people do not go inland from fish and the land of plenty to fewer fish—Te Ururoa Flavell: What about trade?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course there were trading arrangements. That is my very point. But the people on the coast never ever gave up their right. That is my evidence and there are quite a few more court cases in land law going back into the 1970s when this whole issue began. In fact I was there at the time that the Māori Land March started in a meeting up in Ngāti Wai by Whina Cooper when she said: “I know what I’ll do. I’ll start a Māori Land March.” I am talking of 1975 and we should not ignore history in any way shape or form.You see the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mr Finlayson is correct. There has been a misunderstanding about the Tūhoe settlement and he is right that there is confusion. But the Minister is the one who is confused on this issue and with the greatest respect how is he going to confront those other two tribes in the future and say he has done his duty by them? How can you come along and say: “Oh look don’t worry. None of this impinges upon your rights in any way shape or form.”We wrote to the Minister when this bill first came along saying by way of inquiry: “Are you not concerned about this boundary issue?”. Of course we got the usual reply: “There’s nothing for those people to worry about because none of their rights or claims are in any way upset.” Really? Well why do you not go to ask those people how they feel because they do not feel like you do Minister? With the greatest respect to those people who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee why did they not listen to what these people had to say? Why did they not listen to that message that passed down through history from someone as esteemed as Sir Apirana Ngata when he recognised them for what they were? So how can they be now today because of this legislation and because of this Parliament’s attitude a lesser people?