Peters Jim: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Peters Jim: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18855] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 As we come to the debate on the title I say that it was difficult for New Zealand First members having read through this bill to take the stance we have taken tonight. It was difficult in the light of any understanding of recent history and of the bill’s long passage with regard to Ngati Awa and the redress being sought in it. In particular the difficulty of bringing it to its final summation has long been acknowledged in the course of the first and second readings. For us the core of the debate has been the definition of hapu and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in particular. We can compare section 8 of the Resource Management Act to clause 10 “Text of apology in English”—the apology is also in Maori—which states in subclause 3: “The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises unreservedly for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi … and its principles acknowledged above.” and then at the end of the apology subclause 9 states: “Accordingly with this apology the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and begin the process of healing and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with Ngati Awa.” 
Then we see that the schedules contain particular regard to the Whakatane Rangitaiki and Tarawera rivers. The historical record of Ngati Awa being made clear the Office of Treaty Settlements and the present Government has seen fit to give statutory acknowledgments to Ngati Awa of those rivers. Each of those acknowledgments is defined. Yet here is the rub. When one comes to the end of the schedules one finds that there are limitations upon these acknowledgments. So what does this mean? Does it mean that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which are not explained or expressed will be looked at by people who look at this bill in its current form or who will look at it when it has been passed by the House and has been put into practice? 
There is the inherent contradiction here that without the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being explained Ngati Awa will have a very uncertain course with regard to their supposed understanding of the rivers and the resources that they believe—and could believe because of the text—are theirs to enjoy but in actual fact in practice under the Resource Management Act are not so. That shows the inherent conflict that the Treaty of Waitangi has for the Government because its “principles” have not been defined. It again leaves New Zealand First reluctantly in the position of not supporting this bill because of the lack of clarity in Parts 1 and 2 and because of the ambiguities that the Government of the day has not seen fit to resolve. We hope that Ngati Awa will be able to make progress and if those three rivers were to be not set down as a precedent giving a forecast for others such as the Waikato or the Whanganui rivers our party would support that. 
Again in conclusion New Zealand First will not be supporting the passage of the bill. We believe that the text lacks explanation and clarity and that particularly in regard to the issues that have already been gone through concerning hapu the legislation is not a proper and due apology by the Crown. It lacks real substance and it certainly lacks impact with regard to Ngati Awa being able to exercise the sovereignty that three of the schedules we have just passed would seem to give with regard to the Whakatane Rangitaiki and Tarawera rivers. That is the nub of the issue: if Ngati Awa are not able to exercise sovereignty then what have they got? I leave members with that unanswered question.