Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10173] 
Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
Because this is a bill on which I think all parties agree I wonder whether the House might give a direction to the Committee that it take one wide-ranging debate in Committee. I seek leave for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
In Committee 
Preamble  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
I intend to take only this call in the Committee stage but I would like to make some comments none the less that will probably range over a number of issues. I am pleased that the bill has now reached Committee stage. National supports the settlement and the swift passage of this bill. But I do express disappointment that it has taken 4 years to get to this point given that the heads of agreement was signed in September 1999. None the less it is good to see the bill here today and no doubt we will see its passage into law tomorrow.  
During the select committee stage National had a comment in the report back about those provisions that provide for preferential rights for the claimants to coastal space. I flag again the concern of the National caucus about the measures providing for preferential rights on coastal space proceeding at a time when major public policy decisions relating to aquaculture and the ownership of foreshore and seabed have yet to be made.  
As we said in our comment a specific settlement of a historic grievance should not of itself be seen as setting a general precedent. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and address that matter even by way of giving some reassurance that we are not creating for ourselves something difficult in the absence of any final decisions on the foreshore and seabed issues. Other than that as this Committee knows when settlement bills come before a select committee they are the subject of a deed of settlement between claimants and the Government. The select committee’s ability to make alterations is limited in the regard that if some major amendment were proposed then it would have to go back to the parties involved—both the Crown and claimants. On balance by the time it gets there it is always thought that after as long as this in negotiation the hope is that the best has been done by any particular group of claimants—in this case Ngati Tama—so in a sense the select committee’s job is to ensure that the provisions in the actual deed of settlement are properly accommodated in this legislation.  
In any event I take this opportunity to make one or two comments about why it is important that we all support a swift passage. I am repeating myself here but I think it is worth repeating that these settlements are about historic injustices. It behoves the leaders of this nation which we are when we come into this place to use the very best efforts we can to try to make the best reparation we can for those who have suffered this injustice. In the case of the Taranaki iwi—the eight iwi of Taranaki which obviously includes Ngati Tama—the background to their claims and the injustices that have occurred in their case have represented a blight on our past history.  
This always gives us the opportunity not only to make proper redress to those people but in a sense to restore the honour of the Crown because these injustices for as long as they exist call into question the honour of the Crown. As I say we parliamentarians are given the opportunity to restore the honour of the Crown in making sure that due reparation is made and that settlements are concluded.  
I am not certain but I think that the ACT party is opposing this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] It is opposing it. I express disappointment at that because I have heard members of that party say it is important that injustices be addressed. It is a most difficult thing that this Parliament does when it tries to repair the damage that has been done through the injustices that have occurred. We can only do the best we can. We can never make full reparation to claimants but we can do the best we possibly can.  
It is easy to pick a settlement to bits and flag all sorts of reasons why certain provisions may not be the best in the end. I think it is a lot harder first of all for a tribe to make a decision to settle and then for the Government whichever party is in power to try to piece together a settlement package that hopefully gives the particular tribe a basis on which to go forward.  
ACT I think agrees with the principle of setting right past injustices. If ACT does not agree then that says something about ACT. It shows that it is willing to let injustice lie. I ask ACT to give some further thought to this matter and maybe not in this stage but at a future stage to see fit to support these settlements. They are difficult and complex. New Zealanders are keen to see this all put behind us. Maori especially deserve proper recompense for injustices they have suffered. The settlement package represented in this bill is the best we can find. Perhaps ACT might reconsider its view and for once support a settlement package. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
I would like to bring to the notice of this House New Zealand First’s wholehearted support for the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill. This inquiry has come about only because of the enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. Issues going back to the 1800s had to come to the fore whereby there were complaints mainly about land that was confiscated during that period. In the Crown’s response to the Taranaki claims it acknowledged to the Waitangi Tribunal that the confiscation of land in Taranaki was an injustice and was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi that the confiscation had a severe impact on the economy and development of Taranaki iwi and that the delays contributed to the adverse effect of the confiscation.  
I am reminded that at that time the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863 was enacted and provided for the confiscation by the Crown of Maori land belonging to those it judged to be guilty of an act of rebellion. I suppose if I had been living at that time I would have been asking myself as an owner of that land what was meant by an act of rebellion. No land was sold they walked over their land they nurtured their land and then next minute the New Zealand Settlements Act was put into place. Of course the people of Parihaka at the time did not raise an arm yet still the land was confiscated.  
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: Who? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: The people of Parihaka. A compensation court was set up in 1863 to compensate some of those whose land was confiscated by the Crown. Those people considered to be rebels were not compensated and of the 74000 acres confiscated only 3450 acres were awarded to individuals. It has been a long long time for this legislation to come about and I am reminded of kinsfolk of my own Mokena Kohere translated as the “gatherer of lands” and Sir Apirana Ngata’s grandfather when the Hauhau movement was moving around the East Coast and they had to deal with it in their own way. What happened is that the Crown tried to use that as an excuse to confiscate the land. Mokena Kohere and Ropata Wahawaha in unmeasured terms told the Crown to keep its nose out of it—it was an internal settlement that had to be settled. Otherwise what would have happened? They probably would have been in the same situation as Ngati Tama have been in the past few years.  
So New Zealand First accepts without any doubt the research that has taken place. Unfortunately there will never be compensation for everything that was taken but at least the Government and the Crown have endeavoured to please and satisfy the people of this nation.  
When I look at the title “Ngati Tama” I ask myself why that has come about. “Ngati” means “people” of Tama or “descendants” of Tama. It has been a long road for them and different committees have been set up to be heard. Today the majority of this House has accepted the claim and supports Ngati Tama. But one challenge I have and I mentioned it yesterday concerns the mandating process. Too many discrepancies have arisen because of this and that and different people making claims to this and that. It has caused confusion and even contention amongst the people of Ngati Tama. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
The ACT party has signalled that it feels obliged to vote against this bill not because it has any particular opposition to the way in which the claim has been negotiated or any particular concern that Ngati Tama’s claim is in any way less meritorious than any other or that Ngati Tama did not suffer grievous injustice in the last century. But we believe that this House should not be a rubber stamp that there is no point in going through this legislative process if we do not address ourselves to what the Crown has done. The Parliament is not the Crown. Parliament is supposed to look after the interests—if we go right back into the mists of time Parliament was the assembly of taxpayers looking to make sure that when the Crown spent their money it did so in accordance with sound law and sound objectives.  
The title of this bill says that it is a settlement but when we look at this bill which is in a form that the Government has brought to the House before and undoubtedly expects to bring to the House again there are elements that do not settle the claims. There are elements of these bills that deliberately leave open scope for future grievance. There are statements in them that we believe it is wrong for the Crown to be making.  
For example there is a long recital in the preamble to the record that is part of the deed of settlement. If the House does not take the opportunity when it is discussing the detail as we are now to say: “Please don’t bring back future deeds of settlement in that form to us because we’re very uncomfortable about them.” then it never will. I believe that the ACT party as so often is actually raising concerns that all or many New Zealanders feel about the treaty claim process but most parties have been too politically correct to touch. Indeed I think that until the last 18 months this House has not been performing its duty. It has treated most of these issues as if they were beyond debate. There has been a tacit consensus between—it may even have been explicit for all I know—the two dominant parties National and Labour that these matters would go through as if they were not contentious; they were to go through in a hush without anyone questioning them.  
We believe that New Zealand First and the other parties that have found their tongue recently should be very concerned about a bill whose preamble recites I think seven times the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The right honourable leader of New Zealand First has made a great play in the House of the non-answers he has had from the Minister—the Hon Margaret Wilson—and from the Prime Minister and from all other Ministers when he has asked what the principles are. I have asked what those principles are. I have asked the Parliamentary Library what those principles are and have been given 13 different versions of documents produced at various times and for various purposes. They are largely consistent but they are largely also statements of pious aspiration. They are not suitable for putting in as legal obligations. 
This Committee should not be recording a deed of settlement without reflecting when it becomes legislation that pious aspiration can be very dangerous. Because this bill which claims to be a settlement bill may well in future be the evidence that the next generation uses to enable it to come along and say as this generation is saying “The last crowd didn’t do it right.”  
The Sim Commission went through these processes. Peter Fraser supported that 60 years ago to try to do justice for Maori in what everyone has acknowledged was grave injustice. But that settlement turned out to be not as worthwhile as everyone thought. Properties went up and money value went down. The wrong beneficiaries were found. These are all elements we can see in this current settlement.  
New Zealanders believe that these settlements are intended to be permanent. Indeed we were told this morning in an open session in the Maori Affairs Committee that the Office of Treaty Settlements does intend to sign up to only durable settlements. Unfortunately the Ngati Tama claim settlement as with others of this pattern is highly unlikely to be durable when it has elements in it that we cannot understand and neither side knows what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I wish to address two or three points raised by previous speakers. I want to assure the previous speaker that yes the settlements are intended to be full final and durable. But it is also true that the only thing in life that is full final and durable is death. So we do the best that we can with goodwill from all parties and that is the way in which we have approached this legislation as have the claimants.  
I also address the point made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who sought assurances in reference to the National Party’s view in the report back. I want to assure her that the provision she was referring to relating to the provision for coastal space and preferential rights thereto to Ngati Tama are similar to those provided in previous settlements of Ngai Tahu and Ngati Ruanui. So there is a consistency there and there is nothing new about that.  
Finally on the comment that was made by my colleague from New Zealand First relating to the mandating process: we would agree with that and I think we have improved the processes enormously since that was undertaken. I do not want to be party political about it but it was undertaken under a previous Government that was also gaining experience at the time. We have learnt from that experience and I think at the moment certainly the mandating processes do take a lot longer. They are more rigorous and I would expect in future we would not have similar problems but I would be very surprised if there were ever a settlement that someone was not slightly unhappy with. We addressed that as I have said before by ensuring that everyone has a place at the table and will benefit. 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
I am pleased to rise to support this part of the bill. I was a member of the ACT board of trustees in 1996 when we signed off on a treaty policy that said we would support any settlement that was fair full and final. By anyone’s reading of this bill this is as fair as full and as final as I believe any Parliament can achieve in these difficult times of trying to negotiate with competing interests trying to get mandate and trying to be as fair to everyone as possible.  
I believe that it is in full accordance with ACT policy that every settlement be as fair as possible. It is a very modest settlement given the recital that I read of the events that these people have endured over the years. It is very modest. It is as full as one can expect given that of course future generations will want to relitigate these matters in the light of the sheer modesty of the settlement. It is really a koha—an acknowledgment—that wrongs have been done but it is certainly not a full financial repayment. So of course one could expect that in future other generations will want to relitigate it. But it is as full and final as I believe any Parliament can achieve.  
I was part of the ACT list that went into the 1999 election and into the 2002 election arguing again that any settlement be fair full and final. So I am happy to support a part in a bill that is in my view fully in accordance with the policies of the ACT party. As ACT is a party that prides itself on supporting the sanctity of property rights I believe that too compels me to support this bill so I will be voting in favour of it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Clause 1Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1Preliminary provisions and acknowledgements and apology by the Crown to Ngati Tama  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
Part 1 contains the recital of purposes and the acknowledgments by the Crown of the wrongs done at Parihaka and elsewhere in the rohe of Ngati Tama so many years ago. The ACT party does not wish to be seen to treat lightly the wrongs that were done and we do not wish to be seen as arguing that there is no case for a settlement along the lines of the settlement signed in the deed of settlement and recorded in the acknowledgements in clause 6.  
But the effect of the settlement and the effect of clause 6 appear to us to be quite significant in a way that nearly all New Zealanders now want this Committee to address. We believe that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as a phrase in legislation are thoroughly discredited. They have been used as talisman words—sacred words—that are supposed to shut down all debate. They are supposed to prevent further questioning. They are words that are used to show good intention in a way that has covered up all sorts of foolishness. They have in the opinion of the ACT party produced bad outcomes for Maori. They have led Maori into a preoccupation with the past and with redress for wrongs that can never be satisfied.  
The acknowledgement in clause 6(1) states: “The Crown acknowledges that the wars in Taranaki constituted an injustice and were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi” which we agree with “and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” which we challenge anyone to be able to establish. The treaty was a simple document that did not have principles; it had provisions and they were sound provisions. Article 2 stated that property rights should be assured and that the Crown could not and should not take land without paying for it.  
What happened in Taranaki was a very clear breach of article 2. That was all that was needed but instead this document goes on to talk about the principles. As far as we know they can mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. They have been made to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean in political debate. Accordingly we think it is time for the Crown to know that it will not be acceptable for these kinds of things to appear in future documents. The only way to tell the Crown—because this Government does not care if it misuses legislation to put in slogan words—is to vote against the bill. To make it plain we will keep voting against it until we pass legislation that can stand the sniff test. The first sniff test for legislation is: “Do you know what it means?”. We do not know what it means.  
We also see other acknowledgments in subclause (4) and subclause (5). In each case our position is the same. Accordingly we have moved an amendment to insert a clause 6A. They would record that although the deed of settlement and the recitals refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi for statutory purposes this Parliament is not attempting to require anyone to pay attention to them. That is something this Parliament can do even if the Crown cannot. If the Crown signed the deed and wants to stick with the deed it can. My amendment tries to say that the deed is amended. I have been advised that that could be challenged by the Chairman. Accordingly my colleague Heather Roy has submitted a fresh proposal so that it simply records that for statutory purposes those words can be treated as if they were not there because no one knows what they are.  
This may well mean that our approach is misdescribed. Four years ago we were described as racist for suggesting that there should be an end date to treaty claims. When Derek Quigley’s bill went into that purpose every party in this House screamed “racist” including New Zealand First. Now it is settled wisdom. The National Party adopted for the end date the year 2008 which we had seen as an end date for claims. In its election policy last year New Zealand First talked of an end date as did the Progressive party.  
New Zealand First adopted a policy that treaty claims must end that they should be full and final and that there should be a stipulated date for them to end. We know that in this Chamber there are people who think that this should be a permanent process that the treaty will always speak that it will always divide New Zealanders on the basis of their ethnic inheritance and that there will always be privilege conferred by the treaty on people who can trace the colour of their skin back to the earliest immigrants or to the near-earliest immigrants.  
We think it is time for this Parliament to say that cannot be the basis of any durable settlement and that this part and the other parts must be consistent with the view that this is it. Thereafter the members of the iwi benefiting from the settlements will see themselves as New Zealanders who have had a wrongful property claim settled. They must not approach their local councils or any of their neighbours from then on saying: “We have the rights that you don’t have and we can influence the Resource Management Act in ways that you can’t. We can fish in a way that you’ll never be able to.” Those are race privileges and ACT stands against race privilege.  
This bill sets out to entrench privileges. I have to be fair. It is not right to say that in this case they are race privileges because they are privileges to the governance entity for Ngati Tama. It is Ngati Tama that will decide who gets the benefit. Effectively it is equivalent to a family incorporation getting a set of privileges. However they will be perceived in the community as a form of race privilege. They will be perceived in the community in essence as special rights that transcend the powers and rights of the democratically elected bodies. Accordingly even though our amendment at this point is to Part 1 which sets out the purposes and the acknowledgments we want that amendment to infuse the approach to the whole bill so it is recognised that this bill marks the stage when New Zealand decided to stop using empty slogans and to turn instead to using the plain and fine words of the treaty. The treaty itself is something we can all welcome and be proud of. The so-called principles have been used as weapons in the hands of the politically correct to beat everyone else into submission and to prevent proper scrutiny of legislation.  
Accordingly I do not accept that this House cannot act as I have proposed in my amendment and simply say that when the agreement is ratified it will be on the terms that this House provides. I understand that there is an argument that the House and the select committee simply are not competent to change these agreements. If that is the case then we should not be going through any of this process. We should not be having a Committee stage. I urge that the amendment in the form in which I have moved it be adopted. However if that is not possible then the next form to achieve a similar purpose is the amendment in the name of Heather Roy which is the same as the amendment in my name but with the omission of the two references to the deed of settlement.  
When the Committee votes on these matters I understand fully the desire for Ngati Tama to believe that it is New Zealand acknowledging the injustice that occurred to them. That is done but it does not mean that we perpetuate it or that we all fall into a pattern of rewriting history. Dishonesty in public affairs is what creates the room for this kind of injustice. The dishonesty of language that has been used in relation to treaty claims has got us into the sort of strife we are in now on the seabed and foreshore. This bill perpetuates it.  
Part 5 refers to the preferential rights to shellfish quota the preferential rights to the paua fishery in protocol areas and the cultural redress properties. They all perpetuate the idea that there are some forms of relationship between Ngati Tama and their land that are passed down by a genetic inheritance that others cannot share. It is time we put that behind us too. Those of us who are here as New Zealand citizens should all be equal before the law and this bill should not be recording some special status. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask Mr Franks whether I am to understand that he has withdrawn his amendment. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
No I have not but I was anticipating the possibility that you might rule that it was not valid. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have two amendments. The first one in the name of Stephen Franks is an amendment to insert new clause 6A. I rule it out of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder if you could explain this. As I understand it it is pursuant to advice given to the Maori Affairs Committee on the way in which it should approach the review of Acts to ratify agreements. I am not sure of the status of that—whether that can bind this Committee in the way that it appears you may have been asked to rule. 
If your ruling is pursuant to advice given to that committee it does not seem to me that it has been made or given in a form that tells the Committee why a sovereign Parliament can then be constrained by an instrument that the Crown has signed unless this is in relation to or compared to a foreign treaty.  
I would say that the use of the foreign treaty analogy is incorrect. With foreign treaties we can assume that the Crown has no conflict of interests. The Crown will act only in the interests of New Zealand. It is proper then for the Committee to approach it as an all-or-nothing ratification. With an agreement with some of the citizens of New Zealand the Committee should not regard itself as bound by what the Crown does. It is for the Committee to decide whether this agreement is in the interests of New Zealanders. It is not appropriate that we simply adopt without explanation or debate a ruling given to a committee so long ago. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes I should just give a brief explanation of that point. I understand what the member is saying. The point is that the member’s amendment is out of order in my view because it purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties. That is the sole reason it is being ruled out of order. The advice given to the select committee is generic advice to the effect that it is for Parliament to give effect or not give effect to the settlement and to decide how it gives effect to the settlement. In the case of a bill to give effect to an agreement between the Crown and another party Parliament should not insert conditions in the implementing legislation that are not acceptable to the two parties except in exceptional circumstances.  
It is my view that the member’s amendment worded as it is is out of order in that form because a deed of settlement that is an agreement entered into between the Crown and another party cannot be amended—as I mentioned before—in a bill intended to give effect to it. I rule the member’s amendment out of order and we will move to the second amendment in the name of Heather Roy. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The first amendment I proposed was an amendment to the preceding clause to clause 5. I have subsequent amendments that would omit the protocols that purport to influence the Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes there is indeed another amendment that is part of the member’s original amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 5(6) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (f). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Heather Roy be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
6A 
Notwithstanding the acknowledgements referred to in section 6 the Crown now records that the references in those acknowledgements to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” were incorrect in that there were no such principles in the Treaty and the words have no settled meaning capable of proper implementation by statute and accordingly this Act shall be read as if all references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Preamble were omitted and where necessary the words instead referred simply to “the Treaty of Waitangi”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2Interpretation  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit all definitions of  
protocol. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3Settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
The Greens have outlined our concerns about the treaty settlement process. We consider that it is fundamentally flawed and that it creates further injustices. We are putting forward two amendments on this part that we believe will help to alleviate some of that injustice and we urge this Committee to support those amendments.  
The two amendments are the deletion of clause 12 which renders the settlement as final and the deletion of clause 13 which removes the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal. If those clauses remain in the bill they will remove for ever all opportunity for the reconsideration of the appropriateness of the restitution and—most important—the process by which that restitution has come about.  
We recognise the Crown’s admission that such processes and restitution are what is appropriate in this particular time and in this particular circumstance. We cannot see why iwi and hapu should be required to sign away all opportunity they may have for reconsideration of that process in the future. That is not the means by which the Crown should be developing a long-term ongoing relationship with iwi that has durability and mutual respect. That is not the means by which that relationship and te tiriti should be given effect to.  
The Greens do support the resolution of and restitution for all outstanding historical and current breaches of te tiriti. We are simply not convinced that the treaty settlement process does this and that concern is held by a significant proportion of our population both Maori and non-Maori. We believe that by deleting clauses 12 and 13 we will be able to remedy some of those injustices.  
In the debate on the second reading we raised the very serious concerns and issues of a significant portion of Ngati Tama represented by the whanau whanui who had consistently raised over a number of years concerns about the governance entity. We clearly identified the failure of the settlement process and the failure of the funding process within the Office of Treaty Settlements which put that office in a very serious conflicted position and rendered it entirely unable to deal effectively with the issues.  
We also talked about the fact that those concerns have not been dealt with subsequent to the select committee’s consideration of the matter and that those issues remain at this late stage in the process major points of contention. We are very concerned to allow the passage of the bill without those concerns being sorted out and without there being any future means by which the parties can resolve the issues in an independent forum. Therefore we believe that by deleting clauses 12 and 13 the parties will be able to have the provisions in the bill reconsidered.  
The primary concern is that should this bill be passed the iwi as a whole will be able to have the structural and legislative space to develop the processes that will lead to confidence in the governance entity in whatever form and with whatever membership it determines to manage its own assets. It is crucial that the iwi has real confidence in the body that manages those hard-fought and hard-won resources—resources for its future economic maintenance—because although the redress is minimal compared with what was lost it is none the less a significant resource for an iwi that has been bereft of its capacity for economic independence for generations. We urge the Committee to support those amendments. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I had expected not to speak on Part 3. It was the machinery for settlement and as far as it went it appeared to be innocuous. But I am prompted to rise by the hostility of the Green Party to this clause and I am sure that the member who has just spoken Metiria Turei— 
Metiria Turei 
: I’m not surprised. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
—is not surprised as she tells me. The idea that clause 12—the clause that says that this settlement is final—should go should really be the confirmation of what we have feared about the whole process. If that provision were removed the rest of the bill would probably achieve the purpose of the Greens. That purpose is to have New Zealand defined in terms of ethnic inheritance and status groups—not of individuals all equal before a law that treated them alike but as members of little politicised groupings that do not owe their allegiances and loyalty to the country as a whole or to their fellow citizens without discrimination but instead have their primary identification by way of race or inheritance.  
That a party could seriously urge the omission of clause 12 the provision that purports to make these settlements final should not be allowed to pass in this debate. We have our doubts as to whether those settlements are final but at least clause 12 says they are and discharges the Crown entirely from future liability. The idea that that speech could be made and not be answered meant that we have to rise on this part and we do. That clause should be strengthened. Our concern is that although it states there is a final discharge the overall structure of these agreements leaves avenues open for people to come back later and say: “We was robbed.”  
The structure here purports to offer privileges—or does it? We cannot tell because the language is so vague in respect of shellfish fisheries paua fisheries and certain rights over cultural-redress land. Even the words should strike fear into the hearts of most New Zealanders. What is “cultural redress”? Is it something like “cultural safety”—that thing that has turned our nursing education into a joke because 20 percent of nurses’ time is spent worrying about how to approach people who really only want to be approached with kindness and courtesy? The Green Party seems to be endorsing a view that we should be in a state of perpetual cultural redress that finality is an illusion that should never appear in our legislation.  
Part 3 is the normal machinery—the mechanics part of the bill that says what the agreement is intended to do—at least on its face. Settlement is intended to be full and final—despite the defects in it which we think mean that it might not be. I did not fully understand—but I have to confess probably not because the member who just spoke was obscure but because I got distracted—why the Greens were opposed to clause 13 which ousts the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal. Sorry I do understand it! It is consistent with the Greens’ effort to see clause 12 removed that they also want to leave the Waitangi Tribunal able to come back and reopen claims on Ngati Tama. It is consistently weird to be able to say: “We have a settlement that hands over many millions of dollars worth of property and potential nuisance rights that could in future be converted to money if someone was so minded.” The Greens want to say as well that: “You’ve got all your options to go back and say that it was not enough and that you want more.” That might well happen but there is no point in changing this bill to encourage that. ACT will not vote against Part 3 as long as the approach urged by the Greens is not adopted. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I rise to say that the Government does not support the amendment. The whole purpose of the treaty settlement process is to enable both parties to move on in a new relationship by reaching a mutual agreement on the issues that become the subject of the settlement deed. That is in fact the whole purpose of the exercise. The amendment would undermine that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Part 5Cultural redress   
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
As a matter of courtesy to Ngati Tama I should explain why ACT sought the removal of the provisions that set up protocols. This part of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill records that a series of documents will be entered into that provide for cultural redress. The Minister of a number of departments must issue a protocol which is set out in the Cultural Redress Schedule and it consists of an acknowledgment that appears to record grievance and injustice and is primarily about particular interests of Ngati Tama in special areas including former historical areas pa fighting places and areas where food was gathered. Then it appears to indicate that the Government has to be particularly sensitive to Ngati Tama’s interest in those areas. I say “appears to indicate” because it is entirely unclear as to just what effect a protocol really must have.  
Part 5 is divided into a series of subparts. The Minister has to issue the protocol and may amend or cancel it either on his or her own initiative or on the initiative of the counterparty—that is Ngati Tama’s governance entity as it is called. The legislation then states that a protocol does not restrict the Crown—including the Crown’s ability to introduce legislation—and does not restrict the legal rights of Ngati Tama or a representative entity. It states that the Crown must comply with a protocol and the governance entity may enforce the protocol but there are no damages or any form of monetary compensation available as a remedy. ACT is concerned that this sets up the appearance of rights then makes them hollow.  
It may be objected that this is face-saving on both sides and is a good-faith attempt to recognise that Ngati Tama’s interest was not simply in money and I applaud that. I applaud the fact that the Crown is trying to avoid wrongly imputing two claimants as having purely venal interests in these claims and that it is acknowledging that there is a sense of justified grievance about the Pakeha community’s complete overriding of historical interests that were cultural in these land areas. But I do not believe that as a country we should be compounding that by appearing to recognise them without actually giving them a legal form that can be understood in accordance with the rule of law. The rule of law is that behaviour can be ordered by rules known in advance and enforced by courts that would treat the Crown and the other right-holders equally. The king or the lord in his castle and the ploughman in his field should be able to access the law equally.  
What those protocols are saying is that someone may have some kind of special right or interest but it is not properly enforceable no one knows quite what it is and it can be changed at any time by a Minister. ACT asks what kind of right that is. We believe that property rights really matter in a community. If we do these kinds of settlements we should set them up on a basis on which this country can go forward not on a basis of political fudge—a basis that is essentially political slogans written into law and apologies that are not worth the paper they are written on. These rights ought to be worth something. If they are not then the young of future Ngati Tama generations will come back and say: “What was this about? You acknowledged a wrong. You acknowledged we were owed something but then you gave us the mere shadow of some rights.” It will not avail the Crown then to say: “No you agreed to it even if you didn’t really know what it meant. Nor did we—we were equally ignorant.” and therefore go ahead with it. ACT will vote against these protocols.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 20 to 26 be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 53(1)(a) be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 54 to 56 be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 71 to 74 be agreed to. 
to omit these clauses. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Schedules  agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.