Smith Murray: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Murray: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19605] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is pleased to support the second reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. As our Maori affairs spokesperson I am pleased to speak on this bill and to see it being progressed. 
I do not need to go over the circumstances again that gave rise to the need for a claims settlement because they have been well documented in the settlement deed as well as in this bill and they have been mentioned by other parties. I just say that it arises from the confiscation of land around 1865 and subsequently. I note that although 20000 acres of the land were returned that amount fell somewhat short of what had been taken. The impact on Maori of the confiscation of their land was profound as it would be for anybody. The inability to obtain food medicine and shelter particularly impacted on Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
I note also that some efforts were made in the past to recognise the Crown’s wrongs and to right them but as was typical with a lot of approaches taken by the Crown 50 to 100 years ago there was a lack of recognition of tikanga Maori and in particular of the property rights of iwi as opposed to the property rights of individuals. I guess that one of the big differences in the settlement bills that have been put through this House in the last 10 15 or 20 years is now a recognition that iwi property rights which are foreign to the British justice system we have inherited are nevertheless valid property rights. There needs to be recognition of the ownership of property by iwi groups not just a recognition of the individualism we adopted from the British legal system that seems to recognise only individuals. I note the reference in the bill to the fact that land that had actually belonged to iwi was returned to individuals which reflects what at that time would have been to some extent a degree of ignorance on the part of my predecessors in this House in their recognition of property rights in a different culture. 
I notice with approval contrary to some of the comments National has made that the mandating of the settlement occurred with a 55 percent vote. Of those who voted 95 percent endorsed the bill. I can compare that only with the results of the local body election we had just a matter of months ago whereby a 55 percent vote was one of the better results that local bodies received. Therefore in this context a 55 percent vote is quite acceptable in my view. It is always nice to get a higher vote and to get participation by all of those who have an interest in the matter. But I note that even if we take the level of achieving 100 percent of the vote the fact that there was a 95 percent endorsement means that more than 50 percent of Ngati Tuwharetoa have approved the settlement in fact whether or not they voted. Therefore there has truly been a majority recognition of the settlement and an acceptance of it by Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
I note that one of the primary changes the Maori Affairs Committee suggested was to clarify that we are not dealing in this legislation with all of Ngati Tuwharetoa but simply with the Bay of Plenty iwi of Ngati Tuwharetoa. There have been some changes to the bill’s wording to reflect that and to avoid any possible ambiguity or confusion that this settlement involves more than simply the Bay of Plenty iwi of Ngati Tuwharetoa. I think that that is an important recognition so that it does not in any way fetter or have any potential to fetter claims that are yet to be resolved in relation to other parts of Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
One thing that is unique about this bill and that is new is the settlement of a right of first refusal to geothermal assets. That is something about which we have needed to proceed with some caution because of the value of the geothermal resource to New Zealand as a nation in terms of energy needs. I note that the settlement is reserved to Crown-owned assets only and then only to physical assets and not to subsurface water or streams. Obviously by the ratification that has taken place that is something that Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty have been happy to accept in terms of their settlement. I commend them for their approach and one could argue to some extent their generosity. They could have held out for a claim of somewhat more given the history of the land and the history of the geothermal activity that obviously existed in New Zealand over the time when they owned the land rights. 
I note there was some concern as there often is with these bills that the granting of certain rights to iwi might impact on the rights of other people. Once again there are provisions in the bill that make it very clear that this settlement does not impact on the rights of anyone who is not a party to the deed between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa and that existing property rights remain. I think that clause 61 makes that abundantly clear. It always seems to be a concern that individual property rights may be affected by such legislation but obviously that is not the case. 
If there is perhaps one thing that United Future has achieved in this area of treaty settlements over the last 3 years it is to have helped to speed up the process of settlements. United Future is very keen to reach a situation whereby all treaty grievances are settled so that we can move on as a nation. That would also have the spin-off effect of the setting up of governance entities over all iwi in New Zealand. As we gradually get to that position it is my hope that the voice of Maori can be more clearly stated because there are clear authorities that have the potential if their members so concur to speak on behalf of iwi on issues that are broader than simply the settlement issues. That is something I think would really help in terms of the development of the relationship between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. 
United Future succeeded in getting commitment from the then Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Margaret Wilson to endeavour to get resolution of all treaty grievances within 10 years. Our party also succeeded in getting additional funding through to the Office of Treaty Settlements in particular to enable a second claims development team to be implemented so that we can speed up the process. 
I think it is absolutely important that the Crown on its part does everything possible to resolve those grievances and bring them to fruition recognising that there are two parties to the process. The Crown cannot force iwi to come to the table negotiate and reach resolutions. I certainly encourage any iwi representatives who are yet to see their grievances resolved to avail themselves of the process so that we can get to a point of settlement of those grievances. Those iwi could then have assets and money in order to move on and improve the lot of their people. We could then get to a point in New Zealand whereby historical treaty grievances were all resolved and we could together look forward to a nation with very positive race relations and a working together of Maori and other New Zealanders for the good of the nation. 
United Future is very pleased to see the progress on this claim. We hope that more claims will come through. We will continue to apply pressure on the Government to try to get more and more settlement bills through and grievances resolved. We are pleased to support the second reading of this bill and look forward to its continuing stages.