Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6390] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Right let us cut to the chase. We have heard lovely speeches so far in this debate. This must be one of the worst cases of confiscation the country has ever seen. We can put this issue up alongside those of Tainui and Ngai Tahu. At the end of the day what we saw in the Taranaki district is no less than abhorrent to most right-thinking people. Is the settlement of $14 million decent enough? Absolutely not. It does not even scratch the surface. My colleague before me mentioned the stadium that the country is besotted with at the moment. One billion dollars is proposed for a national stadium; $14 million is being provided in redress for an unholy war that was brought upon the Taranaki people. 
I hate to say this but we will be supporting this legislation. I hate to say it because I want more to be provided in compensation for the people who suffered. 
Pita Paraone 
: We tried to help them remember? We helped them a bit. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yeah we tried to help. Governments always try to help. But let us be serious about this. This quantum is pathetic given what the Crown did and what Taranaki went through. We all think that what we are doing is good. My heart and soul are in the right place in terms of wanting to reach a settlement and support the Government. But let us get serious about this matter. 
I want to raise a number of issues today. One issue is what Ngati Mutunga wants the Government to look at in terms of moving from the old entity to the new entity. The Maori Affairs Committee report states about that issue: “The Crown requires that claimant groups have an established governance entity to receive and manage their settlement assets.” But then we turn around and say that they cannot have that move from the old entity to the new one in this legislation. Why not? The iwi is required to move from an old to a new entity—certain things are required to happen—but the legislation does not include how that should happen. So I have huge sympathy with Ngati Mutunga on that. [ 
Interruption 
] Here is the issue. Ngati Mutunga was given a quantum of money but I found out today that that was only in the transition from the old entity not the move to the new entity. I want to go on record today as saying that we have to sort that issue out before the Committee stage not during the Committee stage. The Office of Treaty Settlements representatives and the Crown negotiators need to front up and get the matter straight. They should not leave it to New Zealand First the National Party and the Maori Party to do that sort of work. It is up to the Minister and it is up to the Office of Treaty Settlements to do that business and make sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed before they come back to the House. 
Another issue concerns the mandate. I will always go on about the mandate as I have a really big issue about that. The select committee report states: “In the ratification vote on the deed of settlement from thetotal 2000 members of Ngati Mutunga 48 percent (635 people) of the 1313 eligible members voted validly. Of these94 percent (597 people) voted in favour of accepting the deedof settlement.” That is actually less than 50 percent of the tribe. Why put a figure of 94 percent there? It gives the impression that 94 percent of the 2000 are in favour of the deed of settlement when less than 50 percent of the 2000 are actually in favour of it. I am not casting aspersions on Ngati Mutunga; I am just saying that if we are to have anything written about mandates then please let us not try to hide the size of a mandate in a figure like 94 percent. That makes a lie of the settlement. It suggests to everyone who is interested that 94 percent of the iwi actually support the legislation.  
What worries me as well in terms of settlement legislation is the question of who knows about it. We do; Ngati Mutunga does. The rest of the nation will go about their business tomorrow the next day and the day after that not even knowing the history of what has happened. When one talks about passive resistance the name that one conjures up is of that of Mahatma Gandhi from the 1930s. But hey what about Parihaka? Why have we not been upfront with regard to our own history? Why have we not revelled in the mana of Parihaka? We should revel in the mana of Taranaki in terms of the way Maori there handled their dispute with the Crown. If the Government wants to talk about national identity why does it not start there? If the Government wants to talk about national identity on a world stage let it talk about national identity in terms of where and what in our history contributes to that.  
We can have settlements that are lasting. But $14 million for 150000 acres that were confiscated? Come on let us be serious! I think that is a scandal. We should be able to fix that scandal and we should be looking at doing so instead of saying: “Well that’s all we can afford boys and girls. You either take it or leave it.” My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell said that that is exactly what has happened—take it or leave it. People say that a Treaty settlement is a negotiated settlement. We can only negotiate so far. When we keep saying to the Crown that its offer is not enough we have two choices. One choice is to thank the Crown very much for its kind donation and go on with the settlement and the other is to say no and move to the back of the bus. I do not think that is fair on anybody. 
I am afraid that all the apology says is that the Government is sorry. This legislation does not say why the Government is sorry and it does not give the historical reasons why it should be sorry. It does not say that anywhere in the legislation. Will the settlement be full and final? Who knows whether in 100 years’ time the uri of the people who have signed the deed of settlement and signed up for the settlement will not come knocking on the door again and say it ain’t good enough? Who knows? Quite frankly I will not be here to see it so let us concentrate on the now. We believe that it is a full and final settlement the Crown believes it is a full and final settlement and maybe some of Ngati Mutunga believe it is a full and final settlement. There are four things about this bill: redress apology cooperation and reconciliation. I hope that one day we do get to the stage where we can reconcile what has happened—reconcile the differences. 
Lastly and very briefly I say that to not have reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in what is essentially a Treaty of Waitangi settlement is absurd. It is stupid it is silly and it is time New Zealand First got off the horse and did things properly. I agree with New Zealand First members that a Treaty reference should not be in all legislation but it should be in Treaty settlement legislation.