Mapp Wayne: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21867] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 First of all I would like to acknowledge the very thoughtful contribution made by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu in relation to Part 1. 
I want to turn to two particular points. The first is the apology and the second is the text of the acknowledgments. I am doing them quite deliberately in that order because the apology essentially refers to regrets to the destructive and demoralising effects of the wars on Nga Rauru Kitahi and the confiscations. That is actually how it should be because the fundamental reason that we as a Parliament with the exception of one party only are dealing with the settlement process is that there is profound recognition that one of the consequences of the wars—the most significant and enduring consequence as it affected Maori communities—was pretty much the complete loss of those communities’ ancestral lands and economic base. We live with the echoes of those actions today and I accept the reality of that. Much of the interracial problem that exists in New Zealand today has its origins back then and we would be less than honest not to recognise that reality. 
Jim Bolger before he was Prime Minister in a speech to a National Party conference in 1989 which I remember well challenged the National Party—and one can imagine that back in 1989 it was actually quite a significant challenge to the National Party—that this was part of New Zealand’s history that we simply had to address because if we did not we would not be able to bring closure and harmony to our country. It has been a more difficult process than anyone accepted back then it would be and I acknowledge that both the National Government and the current Labour Government have found that to be the reality. But the whole point of the restoration—and the claims settlement process is intended to provide an element of restoration—is about recognising the totality of the confiscations and that they wreaked such havoc not only on the Maori economic base but also I suggest on the Maori psychology and I know that from speaking to members of my own family. 
That is I guess the activating reason for the settlement. The second point I wish to deal with is the events that occurred in the 1860s—not the confiscations so much but the wars themselves. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu properly noted the attack on the lives of unarmed children which we would all deplore but I want to go back a little from that to the totality of the wars themselves. What were they actually about? In 1840 there was a sovereignty treaty a transfer of sovereignty and that is not really disputed today except by the radicals. Even Mita Ririnui as a Minister of the Crown—let us not forget—must recognise that he accepts the sovereignty of the Crown; otherwise he could hardly take the warrant of the Crown. The reality is we have the modern-day Parliament and the modern-day Government. That is a direct outcome of the treaty of the transfer of sovereignty. 
Although the wars had a whole variety of causes—improper purchases in the Waitara case invasions responses and so forth—I think the wars can properly be characterised as sovereignty wars. Dr Belich has done some work on that in his own books along with Michael King. Imagine if the Crown had not won—what would the consequence have been? The consequence would have been a loss of sovereignty—in effect the overturning of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840. There would not have been a transfer of sovereignty. Sovereignty would effectively have been regained by the iwi where they had won their war if you will. 
Dr Belich’s books refer to Titokowaru’s war and he was actually successful. In a series of quite brilliant at least in a military sense engagements he defeated Crown troops. It has always been a bit of a puzzle to modern historians as to why he did not capitalise on those successes because he had a window of opportunity if you will effectively to regain sovereignty in the South Taranaki. He never did. He withdrew from the field of battle. Maybe the relevant iwi simply did not have the long-term capacity to sustain it and they recognised the reality of that. 
So the wars in essence were sovereignty wars rather than land wars. They had a series of causes and I do not think it is right that the Crown should apologise for that and indeed it has not and that is an interesting point. It is one might say the contradiction between clause 8 which sets out the events of the wars and some of the depredations during the wars—in particular the loss of life when unarmed children were killed by Government militia—and clause 10. Clause 10 does not apologise for the retention of sovereignty. What it does apologise for are the destructive actions of the confiscations and the loss of the economic and social base. I believe that it is important that we record some of this in  
Hansard 
 at this point. 
The final point I want to turn to is this particular acknowledgment in clause 8(4)(f): “when land was finally returned”—and some 3000 acres were returned—“Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi found that its customary title to this land had been compulsorily extinguished by the Crown’s confiscation and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles:”. I have to say that is a misstatement. If the land had remained as customary land it could not have been sold. That was the whole problem with customary land: it was incapable of being mortgaged being sold or being dealt with in any realistic way. Many people might say that was a good thing but I would argue that economic development actually requires modern title. I acknowledge that Maori land law title under the current Act Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is a form of modern title; it enables people to deal with the land. So rather than that being a loss or indeed a breach of the treaty which it was not it was actually an enhancement. That is not to suggest that all the things that occurred in the initial phase of what was then known as the Native Land Court were right—they were not—but the principle of turning customary land into a modern land tenure system was actually a benefit for Maori. They needed to have it. If the land had stayed as customary land I suggest it could never have been properly dealt with. That is one of the tragedies of much of the Third World—those countries do not have modern land law systems. That is widely recognised by development economists. So I think it is false for that issue to be part of the acknowledgments. 
I close with this final point. I have made these points and I am putting them on the record in  
Hansard 
. I know perfectly well that we cannot change these acknowledgments or the apology and National is not seeking to do so. We recognise that when the select committee gets these bills there has already been an agreement. But what is important to do in the debate is to record the way we view these things and how we might do them differently in the future. That is the value of the debate. Mr Stephen Franks made the point that it is a pity it is not recorded. It actually is of course; it is recorded in  
Hansard 
. It is there for us to read and the intent of a number of us is to develop over a period of time a collection of ideas that can inform us in the future as we do our settlements. 
National will be voting for this bill but we do make those points for the record.