Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6431] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to have a crack have a lick at the text of the acknowledgments in English contained in clause 7: “The text of the acknowledgements in English as set out in the deed of settlement is as follows: (1) The Crown acknowledges that—(a) the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions in purchasing land in Taranaki created tensions that led to the outbreak of war;”. Just that particular paragraph that part of the English acknowledgment rather downplays what actually happened. I suppose that it should really be saying the “out and out theft and confiscation” particularly in that part of New Zealand. 
When the text talks about “the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions in purchasing land in Taranaki” I agree that OK some land in Taranaki was purchased—through the back door and after confiscation and all sorts of skulduggery. As I said in my speech to the House during the second reading the particular issues we are dealing with today in terms of Taranaki have to be I suppose the results of the worst confiscation this country has ever seen. I do not want to belittle the settlements of Tainui Ngai Tahu and so on and so forth but I am of the opinion that the acknowledgments in this bill although acknowledging the Crown’s position and although acknowledging that things that happened in Taranaki were dire do not go far enough in terms of actually acknowledging what happened. I think it is important for us in Parliament that we do acknowledge exactly what happened. Yes they were not in rebellion but what does that really mean? Crikey if someone came on to my property I would be in rebellion and I would not care who knew it. 
When we look at the effects on the remnants of Ngati Mutunga of the so-called purchasing of land in Taranaki by the Crown then I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves whether the language used in the acknowledgment is for the wider public consumption or is it there to tell a story. I think that an acknowledgment of what has gone on should contain the whole story—the story should be told warts and all—so that people in years to come can refer to the written acknowledgments of what happened and why there was a settlement. It may not be the best settlement that could have happened but there was a settlement and somewhere along the line there should be some acknowledgment of what actually happened. 
I will not comment on the text in Maori. I will leave that to better scholars than myself. We also move on to the text of the apology. There is nothing wrong with the text of the apology but I do not think we can put into words an apology for what has happened. I always think that the people who produce such things have a far better time of it in looking for particular words and what they mean because no apology could compensate for the seriousness of all that and for the series of confiscations meted out on Ngati Mutunga and on Taranaki. 
Although I commend the Government the Crown and the officials who have done the job in getting this legislation to Parliament I think there are still a number of holes in such pieces of legislation. Maybe one day we will do the job right in terms of giving an apology and of acknowledging the people and what actually went on. Maybe one day we will even have a list of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi inserted in a settlement bill.