te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6526] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 E nga mana e nga reo e te tupuna maunga whanaunga Taranaki tena koutou i tenei ra hohonu. 
[ 
To the authorities languages and Taranaki the ancestral and kindred mountain greetings to you collectively on this auspicious day. 
] 
I am pleased to support the third reading of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. As a member of this august institution and as a Maori New Zealander of Tuwharetoa Te Arawa and Ngati Awa descent I congratulate Ngati Mutunga in particular and the Government on concluding the settlement of the historic grievances that form the basis of the bill that is now before us which we as parliamentarians—with the exception of only one party—are about to pass into law. 
I make a comment about that one party the ACT party which will take its line of opposing all Treaty settlements. Of course in the end if a party is against everything and stands for nothing—especially for something as important as this bill—then that party will find itself reduced to two members in this House and those members will have to either go dancing or be in the army. The reality is that matters such as those dealt with in this bill are important. The ACT party has shown no empathy for what we do in respect of these settlements. That situation would not be so bad if ACT proposed something different but in all its years in this House—10 I think; the same period of time as those of us who came to Parliament in 1996—it has never proposed a different settlement model. 
 To come back to the matter in hand I point out that it is important to emphasise the significance of the near-universal parliamentary support for this settlement. This bill represents the mighty step on the part of Ngati Mutunga to finally make the decision to settle and to put the grievance behind them. But the settlement also sends a signal about the maturing of our nation Aotearoa and of our willingness as New Zealanders in the end—because it has taken a long while—to do the right thing. I think that that is important. New Zealanders should be proud that in this country some of us regard these settlements as being so important that they form part of our national identity. 
In respect of the settlement before us the Crown can through the Government of the day—in this case the Labour Government—and on behalf of all New Zealanders admit to injustice and wrongdoing apologise for it and move to make reparation for it. Maori claimants—in this case Ngati Mutunga—are acknowledged for the grievance they have carried for such a long period through generations and they are relieved of that today. Hopefully the words that were uttered by the people of Ngati Mutunga who appeared before our select committee provided an opportunity for them to look forward and move on. We wish them all the best in that regard. 
These grievances signify for most Maori the illusory—indeed the discriminatory—nature of the so-called British system of justice. Until these claims are settled most tribes would say that their tupuna—their ancestors—signed up for the introduction of British laws and justice into this country in 1840 on the basis of the protection of tino rangatiratanga. But of course as we all know the events that followed the signing of the Treaty were more about a nation that practised inequality of citizenship. That is a total injustice for the circumstances that give rise to most if not all historic grievances are about the application of a different standard of citizenship to a certain section of our community. Some Maori would say that that injustice is still being applied. I would like to think that slowly but surely our system of justice is being seen to apply in an even-handed way. 
In a nation that prides itself on being a modern democracy it is an unacceptable state of affairs that these historic grievances are still on our books and that is why it is National’s policy—and it has been since the 1990s—to place due importance on the conclusion of durable Treaty settlements. But I would add that today in 2006 we urge the conclusion of more timely settlements. When we get into Government in 2008 we will certainly be looking to put a little bit more vigour a lot more passion and a lot more commitment into having these grievances cleared off our books so that we all as New Zealanders can go forward. 
Historic settlements are only a beginning. They take us back to the supposed “level playing field” of 1840. However the fact that two cultures of a vastly different nature gave certain undertakings to each other meant that it was always going to be a bit questionable as to whether the playing field was even. But the intentions were sincere I think and I am proud of both our British and Maori antecedents. If the Treaty’s purpose was only to put things right that had gone wrong then we are attributing to our British antecedents a deception of the most significant magnitude and to our Maori tupuna a lack of either the wit or understanding to make a judgment on what they should have done. Maori signed the Treaty and ceded sovereignty but in return they expected certain guarantees to be honoured. The last 20 years have seen our nation working through those guarantees and endeavouring to understand them and give life to them in these settlements. 
I pay special tribute to Sir Doug Graham and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger because I think they had enormous courage in the early 1990s to develop a platform for settling these injustices. If someone in 1980 had said National would be the party to develop a platform for settling these injustices some people may not have believed that person. So I am very proud to be part of the party that had the courage to develop that platform. It took long enough to do so I know but that is why it is important to acknowledge the contributions of Sir Doug Graham Jim Bolger and their colleagues of 1992—the year that marked the first of the big settlements. 
I join with Minister Ririnui today in wishing Ngati Mutunga all the best. I congratulate their leaders including those who are considerably younger than I am. I acknowledge them because I think they have done extremely well. 
Before I finish I would like to raise one issue. I understand that yesterday in the Committee of the whole House my colleague Chris Finlayson had a Supplementary Order Paper around the request by Ngati Mutunga for the Crown to enable them to use legislation to effect a liquidation of their existing iwi representative entity and to replace it with a new one. They were denied that request. I can understand their strong feelings about the issue given that this House has seen the same thing happen in previous settlements namely the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act 2005 and more recently the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act. We must remember that those Acts apart from the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act were largely completed by a National Government. I would like to think that when we are in Government in 2008 my colleagues will give serious thought to this matter because not being able to replace the iwi representative entity puts Ngati Mutunga at a huge disadvantage and to enormous cost even though a very simple solution is available to them. 
I am very proud to take part in this debate. I am very proud to see this bill pass through its third reading this afternoon. Again I congratulate Ngati Mutunga. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa.