Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18833] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This is quite a long and involved part. My first speech will deal with the general propositions that this part raises. 
I have been comparing this legislation with the Ngai Tahu legislation and the Te Uri o Hau legislation and there is a very particular reason why I have done that. This part is entitled “Cultural redress”. It deals with a whole lot of technical issues about consultation camping rights property rights and so forth but it is actually headed “Cultural redress”. Clause 5(5) in the preliminary provisions in Part 1 states: “Part 4 deals with cultural redress …” and is: “(c) an acknowledgement by the Crown of the statements made by Ngati Awa of their cultural spiritual historical and traditional association …”. In contrast the Ngai Tahu settlement which was also a very complex and involved settlement referred to economic social and cultural redress. Nowhere is there a part headed “Cultural redress” in the Ngai Tahu legislation. No reference is made in the legislation to spiritual connections. 
Why is that important? It is important because our legislation—our country actually—is founded on the basis that as far as possible we separate people’s spiritual connections and beliefs from the public arena. We treat those matters as essentially private matters. They are not necessarily individual private matters; they certainly could be related to a group as a whole or indeed to an ethnic group as a whole. What we do not do however as a general proposition is try to incorporate spiritual beliefs into legislation. There is a very good reason for that. At heart we are a secular society. That does not mean to say that we are a society where no one has any beliefs in the spiritual world. Quite clearly people do and those beliefs are very broad ranging. They are not connected just with Maori; they are connected with all sorts of cultures in our community. That is part of the basis of our community. But nevertheless at quite a principled level we have said that we separate people’s and groups’ spiritual beliefs from legislation. Hence the concept that we are a secular society. The Prime Minister takes that to the point whereby for instance she does not have grace said at State luncheons or State dinners. That is a deliberate separation made by her. It has offended people but at least I can see where she is coming from. 
We should not be recognising spiritual beliefs in legislation. We should not be entitling whole parts of legislation “Cultural redress”. That is not a criticism of individual points within that but rather of the idea that the Government is importing into it. I believe that it is seriously blurring the idea that New Zealand is a secular society. The damage is this: it essentially elevates one group’s cultural and spiritual beliefs beyond those of all other groups. It gives them special legislative protection. 
I do not believe that intention was at the heart of the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not believe that when the treaty was established there was any intent upon the Crown to provide for the protection of spiritual beliefs per se. Certainly at that stage there was a great debate in the British community. In the British Parliament and in British society in 1840 there was a hugely important debate about trying to separate people’s individual and group beliefs from the body politic from the legislative arena. That was a hugely important debate. It was part and parcel of the development of modern democracies. And here we have the Government perhaps somewhat unintentionally—I will even acknowledge that—reimporting such matters into legislation. 
We are signalling to the Government that it is time to stop doing that. In the 21st century rather than uniting New Zealanders the inclusion of those kinds of phrases is actually dividing New Zealanders for the very same reasons that such matters divided Europe for 200 years in the great debates that occurred during the Renaissance and the period that was known as the Enlightenment. It was known as that because it was all about establishing the values of individual liberty democracy and the separation of Church and State—separating private belief from public governance. What the Government has done that makes this settlement different from the Ngai Tahu settlement is to reimport those matters back into New Zealand law. I would like to think that in the 21st century the Government would re-examine the value of doing that. 
I will conclude on the point—National is very clear on this—that the pathway to the future on these issues is not the path of trying to include in our legislation the spiritual beliefs and cultural values of groups and individuals. We are not saying that groups and individuals should not have those beliefs but we are saying that it is not in the domain of this Parliament to be legislating for them. That is the pathway to division and more important it leads to the destruction of our democracy. Our democracy will not benefit from doing that. [ 
Interruption 
] The Labour member opposite may scoff but it is those kinds of seeds that end up dividing communities. It is those kinds of seeds that separate people one from the other and cause them to think not about the things that unify them in a democratic society but about the things that divide them. 
So I say that the importation into legislation of the title “Cultural redress” and the reference in the legislation to spiritual values is wrong. It is harmful to our society it does not promote unity and it does not help the settlement of grievances but actually ends up promoting them. I ask the Government to think clearly about what it is doing to our country because this is the pathway of division. The message should have been heard by the Government last year but apparently it was not. Even now after the huge debate that has occurred in our country the Government is still seeking to divide New Zealanders by elevating and importing into legislation spiritual beliefs and cultural redress but that is simply not a role for this Parliament.