te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21866] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 This is the part that deals with the apology and the acknowledgments of those matters that formed the basis of this claim in the first place and are the underlying reasons why Nga Rauru have laboured for some time now to reach a settlement. I think that given that colleagues have been quite fulsome in their comments on the preamble it is probably helpful to look at clause 8 “Text of acknowledgements in English”. Some of it I think is worth traversing because the reality is that while we in this Chamber are privy to a number of settlements now to the point that we often become a little bit used to what they are about and the provisions they contain I guess that as parliamentarians we should always be mindful that the public on whose behalf this House settles these claims are not always so privileged. 
In the case of the Taranaki claims particularly which is where the confiscations began it is a part of our history that—notwithstanding the comments made by my colleague Dr Mapp and others—is sad and the reason for which we are now in this Chamber to make amends. 
Clause 8 states that the Crown acknowledges the cumulative effect of its breaches of the treaty and its principles and that these have contributed to the dismantling of Nga Raurutanga and loss of Nga Rauru Kitahi land language and social structures. Further on clause 8 talks about Nga Rauru Kitahi suffering loss of life during the wars that preceded including the lives of unarmed children killed by Government militia at Handley’s woolshed in an unprovoked attack. They suffered the destruction of their homes property cultivations and taonga at the Crown’s hands during the wars and as a result of the Crown’s “scorched earth” policy. The Waitangi Tribunal of course traverses this in much more detail and those who are interested should be referred to the comprehensive reports issued in relation to the Taranaki claim. 
When we read of children being killed in an unprovoked attack then clearly that is a part of our history that we would prefer to forget and of course the only way we can have that put behind us is to make the kinds of amends that have been made in this particular settlement. 
 Having said all of that I think the comments I made in relation to the preamble are applicable as well. It is very important to acknowledge just exactly why the Crown the Government on behalf of New Zealanders has reached a settlement with this tribe. It is not an inconsequential settlement either although in terms of what the tribe went through I guess it is. In the end how does one make amends for loss of life due to an unprovoked attack? Looking back at that—and I am referring particularly to the attack at Handley’s woolshed—I am not saying that the whole of it necessarily was unprovoked. On the other hand if one tries to look at it from the point of view of the tribe we see that not many years earlier a treaty had been signed ostensibly giving the tribe protection for its land resources etc. It had agreed to the establishment of British government and laws only to find some few years later that in fact those undertakings promises call them what you will—Maori actually call it a sacred pact—were being totally ignored. 
It is all very well for us to stand here in the 21st century in 2005 to try to set these provisions or set out the history and make judgments. As I have said the acknowledgments are basically the heart of the settlement. They are very important to the tribe and it is very important that the public of New Zealand know why Parliament in voting for a settlement commits the kinds of resources it does in order to make amends for what took place many many years ago. 
The apology is a very important part of a settlement. Over the last 15 years I have interacted with numbers of claimant tribes. Having sat on the tribunal for 10 years I think I have quite a keen appreciation of how important the apology is. I have heard some tribes say that although a settlement of money and lands is great because of course they need that to provide a base for them to move forward in an economic sense an apology is an absolute must. In the end it gives credence to the fact that they suffered hurt and harm many many years ago. In the case of the Taranaki tribes the losses were quite tragic. So it is only right and proper that an apology is set out in this settlement bill. 
In clause 10 the Crown apologises to the ancestors. It is clearly the wish of the tribe itself to have those acknowledgments put in. The current generation on behalf of the ancestors take and accept the apology. Clause 10(2) states: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises” for its actions during the wars for “the destructive and demoralising effects of these actions … and loss of life during the wars.” and so on. 
The apology in this case is reasonably brief but not so brief that it does not do the job the claimants wish it to do. We recall that in the Tainui settlement the apology was actually presented at Government House. That is how important the issue of an apology is to the tribes. 
So all in all although this bill follows the accepted format this part is very important. It acknowledges what has occurred to the tribe and also apologises for those events. It is hoped that as with the preamble all these parts together will provide the backdrop that enables the tribe to put behind it those things that have hurt it over the generations—those causes of harm it has carried for so long. They are very very important. 
So on balance I do not have any queries to the Minister in relation to this. No doubt other members may but I for one certainly accept that Part 1 is a very important part. The reason that National is supportive is reasonably set out in it.