Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18845] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Part 6 is about the Awanuiarangi title. It is an intriguing concept. I guess it comes out of the precedent set in the Tainui legislation which has the Te Wherowhero title as well. We are creating a rather odd statutory situation here. As a general concept under our land law—be it under the Maori Land Court or the Land Transfer Act—one cannot register land ownership in an entity that in essence does not exist. One would normally have to vest it in a living person an incorporation a trust or something of that nature. Here we are not doing that. I am informed by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu that the Awanuiarangi II title actually refers to the ancestor of Ngati Awa. An intriguing point was raised earlier this evening by Mr Pita Paraone who asked what happened to Awanuiarangi I. I am advised that he was resident in let us say Hawaiki. It was his descendant—and I am relying on what the member told me—who founded Ngati Awa and now we are vesting the lands in the ancestor of Ngati Awa. National is not opposed to this. We did this for Tainui but it is an unusual thing to do and I guess we should acknowledge that at this stage. 
I previously spoke about the inappropriateness of making references to spiritual values in legislation because it infringes some of the founding principles of our democratic system. However I would have to say that this does not do that. This is a recognition of Ngati Awa organising their own ownership interests in the way they want. It does not impact on anyone else so I see this as a legitimate if nevertheless interesting legal device that has been developed. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 160 and indeed my colleague may develop this idea a bit more comprehensively. It basically states that in the event that land is owned under this title and is regarded as wahi tapu in no circumstances can there be any exploration for minerals by any other person. Presumably that would be a Crown minerals grant for instance for gold silver or oil. There is a group of minerals as the Minister will well know that are the property of the Crown and the Crown can grant licences to others to explore for those minerals. In this instance under clause 160 that power will not exist. The Crown has made a special exception for Ngati Awa so that they can exempt a portion of their land from this kind of exploration. It is a right that only they will have. Other New Zealanders will not have that right. I guess that is something that at the very least has to be questioned. 
Again it comes back to the principle: why make special exceptions? Under the Resource Management Act or the Crown Minerals Act clearly wahi tapu would almost certainly be a good reason not to grant such a licence. That is how it would normally be dealt with in relation to the general public. One would not normally imagine that a mining licence would be granted over land with important historical significance for the nation at large but under that legislation it is a general concept. Here we are making an absolute prohibition based on the ethnicity of this particular group. I have to question whether that is the right way to do things. It might seem a generous and reasonable gesture but unfortunately it infringes against the principle of all of us being treated equally under the law with the same rights and duties under the law.