Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. Reading the deed of settlement for Ngāti Hei is sober reading indeed. Between 1859 and 1865 the Crown acquired 20000 acres. Back in the 1830s 7000 acres of land was given over to European claimants. Between 1870 and 1890 93000 acres were permanently alienated from Ngāti Hei so that as has been said by the Minister By the end of the 20th century Ngāti Hei were virtually landless. The resulting marginalisation of Ngāti Hei including loss of te reo Māori educational underachievement sickness and socioeconomic deprivation caused the iwi much suffering."Can we be surprised at that? If you've lost all your land can we be surprised at that degree of marginalisation? "along with the fragmentation of Ngāti Hei tribal structures and the migration from ancestral lands severely affected Ngāti Hei's ability to pass mātauranga Māori on to their mokopuna."This notion of full and final Treaty settlements troubles us greatly because like all settlements the redress in these settlement bills will reflect only a fraction of the economic and social losses suffered by iwi because of Crown actions—perhaps 1 to 2 percent reparation; a tiny fraction and yet we stamp an obligation that that must mean the end of future claims prior to 1992. We as te Pāti Kākāriki do not accept the principle of full and final Treaty settlement. We do however recognise that Ngāti Hei have determined that they wish to partake in this deed of settlement.One of the things that I mentioned earlier today was that one impact of colonisation is the destruction of nature. The scars of lost nature across the landscape are a clear sign of colonisation. In here Ngāti Hei we read again in the deed of settlement "There has been a history of extractive industry in [their] rohe including kauri logging kauri gum digging flax milling gold mining and fishing. [And they've] derived little long-term benefit from these industries and the damage done to the environment in their rohe is a source of grievance". It should be a source of grievance to all of us in Aotearoa New Zealand what has been destroyed of our natural environment.I as a young child spent time at Cooks Beach in the Ngāti Hei rohe and the Hikuwai and I can tell you that the regenerating native forests that you can see in various parts of the Coromandel are magnificent. But what has been lost we can barely imagine. The logging industry by the 1830s was at a massive scale in the Coromandel. There were sawmills throughout the Coromandel. There were over 200 logging dams for shifting logs down to the ocean and perhaps only 20 percent of the milled logs made it to the ocean. In 1888 a Melbourne company bought all the cutting rights to standing kauri on the peninsula and its production peaked in 1902. By the turn of the century the kauri industry had declined significantly as had the once vast expanse of mature kauri trees. This is a loss that is irreplaceable these trees that lived for hundreds and thousands of years. This is but one of the losses of Ngāti Hei in their region.When we think of how we address the harm done to iwi and Ngāti Hei in this instance we have to think about the full expanse of what has been lost. This settlement in monetary terms and land terms deals with a material loss but it cannot deal with a cultural loss or the spiritual loss—the loss of life the loss of health the loss of opportunity over 180 years. These are things that it is impossible for us to make amends for and we understand that—we understand that—but it is a further to my earlier point insult to injury to say that these must be full and final settlements. It's such a fraction of what has been lost.We as a nation if we are to be serious about a principle of meaningful relationship must take the view that that relationship is an ongoing process that that upholding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—which it is acknowledged has been breached here in this claim in this deed of settlement—is a perpetual upholding; it is not something that has an end. I believe that it will be a serious improvement—the process around recognition of loss of land and impacts of colonisation—when we are able as a House of Parliament as a nation to do away with this idea of finality. That will be an expression truly of good faith. Here the Crown negotiates hard to make sure that the minimum is returned.I notice with the resource and minerals that "Ownership of any Crown-owned minerals in land transferred to Ngāti Hei under the Deed will also transfer to Ngāti Hei. This does not include nationalised minerals (petroleum gold silver and uranium) or affect other lawful rights to subsurface minerals." So to be clear even the land which has been returned and that of which may be conservation estate could still be mined for gold and we know there's a lot of gold mined in the Coromandel. That is one of the other impacts that has hit Ngāti Hei along with the loss of kauri.So this is an example of where I feel a kind of heartache a sickness of what it must feel like for iwi when they come to sign one of these deeds of settlement and the question at the back which says "Do Ngāti Hei have the right to come back and make further claims about the behaviour of the Crown in the 19th and 20th centuries?" there is a one-word answer at the top of that: "No"—with a full stop. It must make people feel sick in the stomach to have to sign up to that. It would make me feel like that if it was my people.We will support this as it is the will of Ngāti Hei. But we believe there must be a time in the maturation of our nation where we do away with this idea of full and final settlements. Kia ora. Thank you Madam Speaker."