Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18554] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Lest people need to be corrected regarding that last speech it is worth noting that 60 percent of all the people of Ngati Awa did not even bother to vote. That is a growing problem. I know that the Minister of Maori Affairs said that only 30 percent voted in Tainui but in fact the percentage was much higher. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It was the same percentage. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No I say to the Minister that it was lower than that. It was a lower percentage. We are seeing a declining percentage of people participating in those polls. I suggest that that is an issue of real concern. Despite what the Minister said by way of interjection the percentages are going down. Those are the facts. It is worth noting the words of the Maori Affairs Committee. It states in the commentary on the bill: “The committee is concerned however that numbers participating in the ratification process were low. This concern has been expressed previously in regards to other Treaty claim settlement legislation as it may ultimately affect the durability of settlements.” 
I suggest that what that really reflects amongst the Maori community is treaty fatigue. We have all heard that saying and it is normally applied to the wider community—that it wants the process completed. I suggest that it applies to the claimants as well. Part of the reason is that the processes undertaken by this Government are simply taking too long. They are literally grinding down the people involved in the process and are destroying consent by that. I suggest that a more rapid and engaged process would be more effective. The reality is that people want to move on Maori and Pakeha alike and the method the Government is currently choosing will simply not fulfil that. 
It is worth noting that the members of the Maori Affairs Committee by the Government’s own choice to construct the Order Paper in the way it has cannot speak today. The Government has deliberately constructed an Order Paper to exclude them. I guess that the Government did not want members of the committee to refer to their own comments. It is worth noting who the members of the committee were because those comments are their words. The chair at the time was Nanaia Mahuta the deputy chair was Georgina te Heuheu and the other members were Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Gerry Brownlee Pita Paraone and Metiria Turei. The one committee member present here spoke directly about the concern the committee unanimously signed up to—I stress “unanimously”. 
The point I am trying to make is that the systems and methods the Government is undertaking to deal with the treaty processes are destroying the integrity of the process. The longer the process is dragged out—the 10 15 or 20 years that Dr Cullen referred to—the more and greater harm it will do over time. Perhaps we will actually see a time when the select committee composed largely of Maori members will say that a particular future settlement is so bereft of consent that it would find it hard to support by way of recommendation. 
I turn to another issue—the constant reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those principles have now bedevilled this country for some 20 years. They were inserted by the Lange Labour Government in the 1986 State-owned enterprises legislation—at I might add the very last minute by way of a Supplementary Order Paper on the day the issue was voted on—and ever since they have caused trouble. 
The first thing that happened was that the case went to the Court of Appeal back in 1987. The court obviously having to interpret the words in front of it then developed the concept known as partnership. Where was that in the principles? Where is it in the treaty? It is not there at all yet the Government has simply accepted the view of the Court of Appeal that partnership is the way to go. It must be clear to the Government by now that whatever consensus has existed around those terms has fundamentally broken down. I say to the Government that it is time to move on from that. 
Surely the Government must recognise that one does not talk about principles of the treaty. What should be talked about are the words of the treaty—the undertakings in the agreement itself. Just because Sir Geoffrey Palmer made an error some 20 years ago why do we have to live with it for the next 20 years? Why can we not fix it up? We should be talking about the words of the treaty itself not the principles. 
I turn to the meaning of those words and to what actually drives when we think about it the whole process of settlements. The fundamental provision we talk about in those settlements is article 2 of the treaty. Without reading out the words directly—that has already been done by Mr Franks—it is in essence a protection of property provision. That is what it is and I am sure that the Government if it thought about it would acknowledge that simple fact. The whole point of those agreements—those special pieces of legislation—is essentially to provide a compensation scheme. That is what it is about. It is not about returning some form of governance autonomy partnership or rangatiratanga—it is about compensation. That is what is really at the heart of this bill and the compensation is reasonably significant. 
Mr Franks in particular had some questions about who gets what and whether people should be able to sell land. I perhaps take a different view. The actions of the Government back in 1877 to return to individuals lands that had been taken from the collective was wrong and it led to enormous problems. In many respects we are dealing with the consequences of those legislative actions today. That is why the land is being properly restored to the iwi itself. There is the rather odd construction in the legislation about these new hapu which seem to be a new statutory invention. This Labour Government has decided that there are new entities or hapu: one is Ngati Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau and another is Ngati Awa ki Poneke in Wellington. It seems extraordinary that we in this Parliament would say that that is how Ngati Awa is now constituted and I wonder whether Ngati Awa is actually constituted that way at all. So we do take an enormous presumption on that. 
The final point I will turn to is this. There are references in this agreement to the interests of Ngati Awa in various harbours waterways and rivers. Just last year this Parliament spent a great deal of time on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill which is now an Act. The great problem with that is it essentially provides special consultation rights; special rights of governance by some people in relation to the common property of New Zealanders at large which other people do not have. That is a distinction from property rights. The Government has confused in short the difference between property rights which should be properly restored when taken and transcribed them into a form of consultation rights derived from the treaty principles. That will continue to get us into error until this Government says that the former Prime Minister and the Court of Appeal were wrong and that we should be sticking with the terms of the treaty itself.