Peters Winston: Tūhoe Claims Settlement Bill Te Urewera Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Tūhoe Claims Settlement Bill Te Urewera Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 23 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19479. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):Kia ora tēnā koutou katoa. Greetings to Tūhoe and the Ngāti Whātua people and welcome to Parliament. Also on this historic day it is a chance to acknowledge the grave wrong of history and attempt to put it right today.Like all Treaty settlements this legislation is important. Ultimately all Treaty settlements rest on agreement. There is no tablet of stone as we all know and there is no higher authority out there that can be invoked to reveal some absolute truth. For any particular settlement all the participants directly involved and then the wider New Zealand public as well must in the last resort consider a settlement to be fair and reasonable. The “fair and reasonable” test has to be passed. That requires that the processes followed for the settlement be consistent and open and fair to all relevant parties. That is not an easy exercise and we in New Zealand First fully acknowledge the complexity and care that is called for in working through detailed and longstanding Treaty claims. We do not underestimate the task.Within New Zealand as a whole although there is a broad political consensus the Treaty settlement process does have its critics—and indeed in Māoridom as well. That is why ensuring an impeccable process is vital to ensuring ongoing public confidence. If the rights of any group with a legitimate interest in a settlement are ignored overlooked or discounted then the stage is set for ongoing discord and controversy. That is the concern New Zealand First has with this Tūhoe settlement. Specifically there are remaining issues concerning other iwi and these iwi are in the area that is covered by this settlement but seemingly are not included. These iwi sought hearings with the Waitangi Tribunal on the impact of this settlement but that was declined and the Tūhoe settlement moved inexorably on towards its conclusion.These tribes and these iwi are based in the Eastern Bay of Plenty and at Lake Waikaremoana. They have not been inactive. They have sought to be heard by the Māori Affairs Committee. They sought to make submissions to the select committee stating that the bill in its current form should be returned and redrafted. They have sought to make protest and have themselves heard. Similarly Ngāti Ruapani’s primary concern is that they too will be made ghosts in their own land by a bigger collective Ngāi Tūhoe. They still maintain dialogue with Ngāi Tūhoe regarding their status as an iwi who have different interests in the ancestral claim to the lake itself.So despite the bland assurances from the Government that the Treaty process has not left anything out and that it is not making a mistake with this bill it does appear that something is amiss. Something is not as it should be. Our authority for that is the finest Māori politician and perhaps one of the finest politicians this country has ever had and one of the most knowledgeable as well. His name was of course Sir Apirana Ngata. Some of us remember him and his impact which is so enduring and the messages that he has passed on down the generations and down the years and across the tribes. So he is still much admired. When he said in 1929 that these people were a legitimate recognised iwi or tribe I take him to be the authority. I take that to mean that if someone raises it all these years later he should not be—Catherine Delahunty: He’s Ngati Porou.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh now the Green member has said that he is Ngati Porou. Well we know that. But let me tell you if you know anything about this man you will know that he was esteemed from the Kaitāia to Invercargill. That is what he was. He got a law degree in 2 years flat. He was a genius and he was an expert in this area. And to say he is Ngati Porou and dismiss him like that—with the greatest respect madam you do not know anything about these people. That is the point. And the effrontery of that—here comes somebody with the white man’s burden now telling somebody else who has been working in Māori affairs for a long time and who went in 1991 and gave the land back to Tūhoe that he does not know what he is talking about. That is what we are not going to put up with—this idea that you can impute into Māoridom certain views and certain notions which is not the Māori way.Now if Ngata said that in 1929—and he documented it and it is in the history books—then I think that even the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations himself Mr Finlayson could perhaps listen rather than take on that hissy fit look that he has and discount Māoridom in this part of the world as though it does not matter. You will not correct a wrong by creating another one and I think these people are deserving of a voice.We believe that Ngāi Tūhoe has had the most raw deal—we do not dispute that at all. We think that they have been left out there for all these years languishing in a most unfair way. But we do not think that in correcting this wrong we should create another one. To say as the Minister will: “Oh these people have not had their rights in any way infringed.” is actually legal and historical nonsense because if they are not recognised now how difficult will it be for them in the future to be recognised? Just because they may be smaller in number—the fundamental principle of the law is if they have right on their side then that right should be acknowledged.So we seriously regret what has happened here not because of the fate of Tūhoe and not because this is not most worthy legislation in nearly every respect but because others have been pushed aside left aside and—I might say this—they have been pushed aside by a Minister who may be more interested in gaining some sort of historical personal legacy rather than in the fundamentally great principles of law which he is meant to be so expert in. He is meant to be in fact perhaps the finest practitioner that he thinks the House has ever seen. I want to ask him why he would take that view when in fact to do right by the people and iwi whom Ngata recognised—whom we in New Zealand First are speaking about—is still the most moral and principled thing we could do. Of course he could get up and say today that he has a settlement process for them about to be resolved with the same expedition. That might save him. But to get up and give us his assurance: “Well it won’t happen on my watch.” as many Māori going down through generations will know is an assurance not worth the air it passes on.New Zealand First therefore says that this matter should have been corrected at the Committee of the whole House stage. We said so at the time. Again that was ignored. The Māori Affairs Committee almost said: “Look we have heard the evidence and we don’t think that Ngata knows what he’s talking about.” Well New Zealand First has the greatest admiration for Ngata for Pōmare and for Buck the finest Māori politicians who ever came here and when they speak down the ages of history to us we intend to listen. That is why we are taking the stance that we are taking today. Kia ora tātou.