te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4934] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 As we are all getting accustomed to now in this Chamber after a number of years of these settlement bills coming through the ability of anybody to change any provisions in a settlement bill is pretty limited. What sits behind bills of this kind is a deed of settlement and of course that is what we have with this bill. 
The role of Parliament and the select committee is pretty clear; it is to scrutinise the bill. I want to comment on three of the parts of the bill and in particular on clause 13 in Part 2. Nearly all of the many submissions that the select committee heard revolved around the inclusion of Tangahoe and Pakakohi in this settlement. Clause 13 “Meaning of Ngati Ruanui” says who is part of that. It means the iwi and so on and every individual etc. It also includes certain hapu and then includes Tangahoe and Pakakohi. Just so that we are all aware in this case these two hapu had extreme objection to their inclusion. I want to remind us all—I am sure the Minister may do so as well—that this is an important issue; it is very important to hapu. In the end however this settlement will proceed with their inclusion. 
We reviewed what was done to see whether it was fair that they were included but the committee knew that there was not a lot we could do about it. The inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe has been to the Waitangi Tribunal three times in the last 2 years and of course the tribunal traversed their inclusion as to whether it was right and proper that they should be included. On all of those three occasions the tribunal was not prepared to recommend that the Crown change its approach and found in favour of the settlement proceeding. There was also a challenge to the High Court but the claims of these two hapu were rejected—there being a finding that there was no justiciable basis for there to be anything else. The committee was also privy to Cabinet papers that had traversed the issue with a lot of scrutiny. 
On balance while I guess these two hapu firmly believe that they should be treated individually and separately in the end certain judgments have to be made and those judgments have come out against their wishes—but well traversed. In the end members can only show that they have had the best advice and the best material available to them to make a judgment. In my view the matter has been well traversed. Having said that there will still be members of those hapu who will feel disaffected. None the less clause 13 is very clear that they are included. 
As I said in my second reading speech I hope that the runanga who have the responsibility once the transfers are made and once the bill becomes law and who will receive the settlement assets will work very very hard to make sure that these two hapu are indeed included not just in word but in action and in the way that the settlement starts to devolve in terms of value to all those who are entitled. It is incumbent upon us at all stages of this bill to make sure that we acknowledge the submission and the entreaties of these two hapu and show that we have given them serious consideration.