Mapp Wayne: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21796] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I just want to make a few comments about the bill and the claim by Nga Rauru Kitahi and the history of the Taranaki. 
I note from the texts of the acknowledgments in English—and I do have to refer to the English version I must say—that they deal essentially with the history derived from the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. One has to ask oneself to what extent we are indulging in some form of rewriting of history. For instance in clause 8(4): “The Crown acknowledges that: (a) it acted unfairly in labelling some Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi as rebels”. Does that mean there were others who were justly labelled as rebels? It notes that there were “detrimental consequences for the whole iwi whose land was confiscated as a result;”. Does that mean that some confiscations were justified and others not justified? 
The point I am really making is that it is quite important that we be honest about our history and look at it without some kind of rose-tinted approach—that everything that happened in the 1860s was the fault of the Crown and that Maori were the innocent victims. I suspect in reality—and there is a hint of this in the bill—the situation was rather more complex and that there was fault on both sides. It would not actually be appropriate to make full redress for every part of confiscation because to do so would be to do violence to our history. I note that when many Maori say that they are getting only a proportion of the loss—$31 million in this instance which is no doubt about 3 percent of the total loss—there is at least a degree of recognition in that of a balance of rights and obligations between the Crown and Maori. We should not be afraid to examine our history fully and fairly. I do recall very well the controversy that surrounded the Waitangi Tribunal when it issued its opinion on the claim which was in itself quite controversial. That is the first point I would like to make. 
There seems to be some recognition here that there is a balance but it does not say so specifically. It sort of says it in coded language. Some Nga Rauru Kitahi were rebels presumably therefore others were not. 
The second thing I would like to raise is the whole use of protocols. What is being developed through this claims settlement procedure is a whole series of special relationships and special consultation rights obligations and rules between the local iwi who are the beneficiaries of the settlement and the Department of Conservation local authorities and various Government departments. At some point it simply overburdens the system. We end up with an immense structure of bureaucracy—I know a certain leader of a party has referred to that as the “bro-reaucracy” today—but in fact developing all of these protocols actually lends itself to that process. National has been quite determined that it wants to reduce the level of bureaucracy that unnecessary consultation actually harms people. It does not advance them at all; it gets them enmeshed in a relationship of codependency. A whole structure of people within Nga Rauru Kitahi are essentially dependent on having continuing consultations because that will actually be the source of their income. I have to ask the question because for all of this consultation fees will be paid. There will be a whole structure of payments fees consultants employed and so forth to support all these consultation protocols. We have to say to ourselves at some point: “Enough is enough. We are doing too much of this. Let us get on and live our lives and participate in the wider community and the wider economy.” That is the second point I wanted to raise. 
The third point which is the specific subject of National’s minority report is what the whole reference to religion and cosmology does. I want to mention to the House that on Friday night I was at a formal dinner held for the President of Pakistan. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made the point that New Zealand is a secular society and in their own ways both were proud of that fact. The reason we attach so much importance to that fact—compared with say Pakistan which claims to be an Islamic republic—is that we say beliefs and religious values belong in the private domain and all are equal. As soon as we put one category of beliefs and attitudes into legislation we have immediately differentiated between them. Some people receive a preference that others do not receive. That is of course the difference between a secular society which does not do that and say an Islamic republic which does do that. The Islamic republics are quite proud of the fact that they elevate Islam as an official State religion. That is what they want to do. So I ask why in a secular society—and the Prime Minister says we are in a secular society and is proud of the fact—would we put the statement that we would want to respect cosmology beliefs attitudes and the like into legislation? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Respect diversity. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I heard one of the junior Ministers—for the next 12 weeks I guess—in the Government say “respecting diversity”. We do not have to put beliefs into legislation to respect diversity. In fact it is actually the antithesis of doing that. If we really respected diversity we would not put it into law because diversity involves a whole range of beliefs. All of those beliefs are equal. I have said previously in the House that each and every one of us has beliefs. Even if one is an atheist one has beliefs. In that instance it is the belief of being an atheist. We do not put any one of those beliefs into the law and the Government is making a fundamental error in doing so. 
I close on this point. I note that the Hon Mark Burton acknowledged in the Committee stage of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill that this was an area the Government would have to re-examine and that maybe it was doing violence to the ideal of a secular society which by definition respects all beliefs—that is the implication of the definition—and therefore it is not appropriate to put some beliefs into legislation. Yet right here today we have a bill where the Government commits precisely that same error. 
I conclude by saying that National is supporting this bill. We do believe in the settlements process but we send warnings that there is a right way to do settlements and a wrong way to do settlements. Some of those areas are creeping into this legislation and into other legislation. If Mr Burton were serious he would be starting to fix it. He is not doing so—National will.