Garrett David: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12814] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Anyone who heard my speech on the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill will not be surprised that the ACT Party stands opposed to the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill the successor to that divisive bill. It is not I have to say a very pleasant position to be in to be the only party in the House opposing such a measure which no doubt has the utter support of all of those in the gallery. 
It is notable in listening to the speeches that have gone before that both National and the Greens have been speaking in code. National has talked about co-governance partnership and sharing. What it really means is granting iwi a right of veto over activities that they do not approve of. The Greens’ co-leader Russel Norman has talked at length but as usual not explicitly about sources of pollution and permitted activities. What he is actually intending or what he should be saying is that the Green Party seeks to make farming—the lifeblood and the backbone of our economy—an activity that farmers will have to apply for a consent for. That was what all that stuff about nitrates sulphates and sediments actually meant. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Phosphates David. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Phosphates; I thank the member. 
It is Maori Language Week as we all know so I will do my best with this one: “He iwi tahi tatou”. That is not a phrase that one will hear in the House this week. It means of course that we are one people. It is what Governor Hobson said to each signatory of the Treaty. The bill before us like its predecessor violates this fundamental Treaty principle. It establishes a precedent whereby the Crown and Maori leadership elite divide New Zealand’s key assets amongst themselves—and for what? Is it a Treaty settlement? Well page 2 of the explanatory note of the bill states: “The deeds between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa and Raukawa do not settle historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngati Tuwhatetoa or Raukawa relating to the Waikato River.” So I guess that it is not a settlement. 
The Treaty process as it pertains to the region’s Waikato-Tainui people was settled in 1946. The Crown agreed in that year to pay an annual sum of £6000 for 50 years and then £5000 every year after that in recompense for the wrongful confiscation of lands in the 1860s. That is $2 or $3 million every year in today’s money. As Michael King wrote of the final settlement negotiations in Ngaruawahia in 1946 the Waikato-Tainui leadership was so pleased at this offer that they jumped up and accepted before the Prime Minister could change his mind. History has shown however that it was Waikato-Tainui who changed theirs. 
By the 1990s they were angling for a better deal. In 1995 they signed another full and final settlement with the then Government. That one specifically excluded the Waikato River issue until some future date thereby making a complete mockery once again of that full and final tagline because we can have only one full and final settlement. Once we have a second full and final settlement we open the line for a 22nd and a 32nd full and final settlement. 
Hone Harawira 
: Ka pai. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Harawira said “Ka pai.” and Mrs Turia is agreeing.  
Hansard 
 should record that the Maori Party is acknowledging in this House that we have no full and final settlement and that the settlements will never end. Mrs Turia is laughing; she thinks it is funny that the grievances will go on for ever and that there will keep on being these pathetic misguided attempts at settlement. They will never end. 
This bill will further enshrine in law the concept of “us and them” which is a far cry from the “one people” vision that the Treaty intended. I realise that the intention of many is to have an us-and-them approach that involves working together with a shared vision and strategy. Many in this House feel that way. I am sure also—in fact I would say “for sure”—that many Maori feel a special bond with the Waikato River. It is naive however not to think that there are those who look at the river and see dollar signs. Let us not pretend otherwise. In any group there are those who seek any advantage they can find. This bill and the concept of co-governance provide those sorts of people with limitless opportunities. This is a threat we will face multiple times when this bill comes into effect—my notes state “if and when” but we all know that it is a case of “when”. 
I will ask a question that transcends even that: at what point will us New Zealanders—New Zealanders like me; I was born here and my father was born here—be allowed to claim a special relationship with the land as Maori do? Will it take another 100 years? Will it take longer? Perhaps it will be never. The latter option is how many Maori see things. Although most Maori get on with the business of living many of their so-called leaders continue to play the “we were here first” card. Those leaders claim that they have a relationship with the land and the rivers that the rest of us will never ever have no matter what we do. We will never have that same connection so they say. Thus we end up in a situation where five iwi—allegedly representing about 66000 people—wind up controlling the nation’s longest river. 
I am aware that the bill talks of co-governance but the reality will be very different. [ 
Interruption 
] I would be a little surprised if all of those grunting and making sighing noises from the other side have read all of the bill. Some extracts from the explanatory note are alarming—we need only go as far as that. For example it states: “Persons carrying out duties under sections 12 to 14 … must recognise and provide for iwi environmental plans …”. I ask what “recognise and provide” means. Further on the explanatory note states that iwi can recommend to the Minister of Fisheries that fishing be prohibited which will happen “unless the Minister of Fisheries considers that an undue adverse effect on fishing would result.” 
This bill is not about working together; it is about gifting to some iwi considerable veto power over any activity that they disapprove of. The bill is full of such examples. There is nowhere near enough time to go through all of them but they each carry serious legal and social consequences. The message to be taken away from this bill is that whatever an individual person’s attachment to the river may be the significance of that attachment will be judged by iwi leaders who have already determined their relationship to be for ever more special because they were here first. I see Mrs Turia agreeing. They are special because they were here first. 
This bill is typical of the Government’s approach to race relations: piecemeal and short-sighted. We saw it in Pita Sharples’ covert mission to the UN to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mr Harawira thinks as do most people with any sense that far from being an aspirational document with little effect it will have a profound effect on this country. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: That’s great. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mrs Turia says that it is great. Just as Sir Geoffrey Palmer saw no problems in referring to undefined Treaty principles in our law National sees no risk in signing us up to a declaration that requires us to fund a separate Maori Government. If members doubt it they should read the declaration. The fact of the matter is that co-governance is a farce and anyone who has read the bill cannot fail to reach that same conclusion. The concept seems noble and low-risk but like the mistakes of the past and those National is planning to make in the near future it will further divide and hurt us as a nation. 
The social economic and legal quagmires we are heading for will be the next generation’s problem. The Treaty settlement process we are still involved in 25 years after Geoffrey Palmer said the famous words of section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act will pale into insignificance compared with what our children have coming to them. The ACT Party opposes this bill. Thank you.