Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21871] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 We are in the Committee stage of yet another settlement. This is a settlement for the Taranaki area and a settlement for one of the more outrageous actions against Maori. 
Having said that I say that when I read through this bill I have some grave reservations about it. Anyone reading this bill—and a lot of young Maori will read it—will think that this is an authoritative account of the history and of course it is not. 
One reason is that it fails to mention that this Parliament has made a number of attempts at settling this particular grievance. As early as the beginning of the 20th century there was an attempt. There was another one between the First and Second World Wars. The first Labour Government gave a settlement as well in 1947. The Hon Rex Mason Minister of Justice stood in this House gave an account of what had happened and said it was wrong. If we pull up the  
Hansard 
 we will find that he gave an account of what had happened in this particular case. Parliament then voted for a compensation package that people now say is derisory but if we translated it into today’s dollars we would see that it was a very substantial settlement. 
When I read this account I see unless I have missed it that that information has been left out. I think that is arrogance on the part of this Parliament. I think it is very difficult for us to apologise for something that happened in the past. We can regret it but who are we to apologise? It is like members here saying it is extraordinary that we sent young men to Gallipoli. We cannot apologise for that: those were the actions; that was the culture; and that was the time. So I have difficulty with an apology. 
I also have difficulty with the way the bill is written because I do not think it is written even-handedly. In saying that I am not failing to acknowledge that what happened was wrong. In fact many European New Zealanders—to use a politically incorrect phrase now but it would not have been so then—said at the time that what had happened was wrong. But when we read these sorts of accounts we see that that does not come through. 
I have also read the Waitangi Tribunal’s account. I think frankly that that is completely over the top because in portraying things it goes too far in creating a sense of grievance. 
There is a lot of truth in what the previous member said in that one cannot rewrite the past. One of the most unfortunate things about the settlement process is that we have seen some of the brightest and best of Maori looking back and spending their time in trying to find ways in which they can get a better settlement. The number of bright young Maori lawyers who I now see working in the treaty industry is a tragedy for this country. 
I hope that the claimants who get the money will use it well and use it to go forward. Having said that I think that we ought at least to record in the House that we are no better than the Hon Rex Mason who attempted to settle this particular claim in 1947—and the House did settle. 
I have heard MPs get up and say that this House has never acknowledged what happened. That is a load of rubbish. This House has acknowledged that what happened was wrong and it is a form of arrogance on our part—and a lack of real historical knowledge—when we start to act as if we are somehow more moral than our forefathers who were engaged in this matter. I have grave doubts about what is a new PC custom which is that we somehow have the right in the House to make moral judgments about those who have gone before and to rewrite settlements. The only argument one can put in favour of that process is that if it enables Maori to feel that grievances have been healed then perhaps the apology is justified. 
We are all aware that there was considerable civil disobedience in that area of the country. One example is that in World War II many notices for conscription in that area were ignored because Maori thought and said that until those matters were settled they should not have to take any notice. Members may not know this but the Fraser Labour Government which enforced conscription notices very vigorously did not do so in that area. Part of the reason it did not was that the Fraser Labour Government realised there were considerable problems and as I said after World War II that Government came to the House with a settlement. 
But one wonders how many settlements will be required. I wonder whether in 20 or 30 years’ time—maybe 40—MPs will get up and make speeches saying that it is outrageous that this matter has never been acknowledged that it should be dealt with properly and that the settlement given today is derisory. No doubt in 30 years’ time the amount of money that we are putting forward today—which we think is a lot—will probably not be enough to buy a house or whatever after the results of inflation. 
So I say to the House that I regret the bill and I say shame on the Crown negotiators for not insisting that there is a correct and accurate record. It is a matter of shame that those civil servants who wrote the legislation clearly thought they could malign the reputation of people like the Hon Rex Mason and could completely ignore the fact that there have been previous attempts at making a settlement. I am ashamed that a Labour Government is not prepared to have any pride in its own record in attempting to make a settlement previously. 
We may say now that the settlements were not enough but to write them out of history is a new form of Stalinism—rewriting history is the sort of thing the Russians used to do. This account is no more accurate than the accounts that people rail against. That concerns me because if one is not prepared to face up and write the history correctly then one has to wonder whether the settlement will last. 
Part 1 agreed to.