Heatley Phil: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18404] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Members of the House can be in no doubt that the National Party supports this settlement bill the Crown’s settlement with Nga Rauru Kitahi. We absolutely support that. I would like to acknowledge those from that iwi who are present today those listening in and those who are here in spirit for all that the iwi have been through firstly in recent years in bringing their claims and their case to the Crown—which is a reasonably watertight one; I think all could acknowledge that—and also way back when their ancestors went through catastrophic times in the way they were treated. 
I feel ashamed in some way—and I speak personally not for the National Party—to think that as a European New Zealander some of my ancestors may have been involved in the terrible undertakings back then. We heard a little about that from other speakers. I would like to lay on the table my personal apologies from my family line through the last 150 years. The stories that come out of Taranaki about the way Maori were treated historically I guess call on future Governments to make sure that those sorts of things never happen again and that they are put right. Perhaps in other areas of the country maltreatment of Maori was not quite as severe but that does not mean to say that all claims for restitution should not be put forward and settled once and for all. So my voice certainly joins that of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in acknowledging the Nga Rauru Kitahi present here today in acknowledging the fact that there needs to be a settlement an apology and this official process and in acknowledging that the National Party supports the passing of this bill. 
The Hon Georgina te Heuheu gave Mita Ririnui a verbal clip across the ear because in his youth and enthusiasm he had made the statement that some settlements with iwi in this country like Ngai Tahu’s were easy settlements. Well I can tell Mita Ririnui and members of the Labour Party that no settlement is an easy settlement because even in the discussion there is pain. Whether it is a settlement of a dollar and an acre of land or thousands and thousands of acres of land and millions and millions of dollars is not what is important; what is important is that the ancestors of many Maori went through much pain to bring their claims to the table and no settlement is a small minor or easy settlement. We would like to see Mita Ririnui go through the process of sitting down at the negotiating table like some of my forebears in the National Party did—Sir Doug Graham Georgina te Heuheu herself and others—to see how he would get on. We in the National Party take settlements seriously. We take this one seriously and we certainly took seriously the settlements with Ngai Tahu and others. 
In that light in talking about the serious nature of settlements and the National Party record in that area I say that we have always sought to get them right and to ensure that settlements are enduring. That is our wish for this particular settlement also. Members will note that the agreement around the general nature of this bill was actually nutted out and pretty much decided on in about October 2003 which was about 18 months ago. Some time has passed since then. To get the legislation correct and to have it improved through the select committee process all takes time. We on this side of the House are disappointed that there has not been the number of settlements in the last 5 years that we hoped could happen but we do understand how long they take and we acknowledge the efforts of the current Government. 
The National Party wants to get this one right and we want to make sure it is enduring. That is why Gerry Brownlee raised the four issues that we will be examining in the select committee process. I would like to highlight a couple of them myself. The first is around the issue of coastal space. Members will recall that last year we saw 20 percent of aquaculture space passed on to iwi throughout this country in a sort of blanket approach to coastal aquaculture space settlement. So whether an iwi was inland or just on the seashore or had had coastal marae many many decades ago or has them currently each iwi got some sort of equal share of 20 percent of the coastline for aquaculture. 
 On top of that there was up to 40 percent provision of new aquaculture space. Part of that was new aquaculture space to go directly to Maori and to iwi groups but there was also an extra 20 percent which made up the 40 percent in case this Government was not able to throw existing space to Maori. We could not see the sense—and we highlighted this—in a blanket settlement across the country of aquaculture space being thrown at Maori unless of course the Government was trying to placate Maori who are upset about the seabed and foreshore legislation. I know that is why Tariana Turia left the Labour Party—because she felt there was a bit of a deal done there. 
We still have that question arising because in our view this bill deals with aquaculture space better than the aquaculture bill does. Under this Nga Rauru Kitahi Claims Settlement Bill the iwi get a preferential right to buy a certain percentage of space because of their particular situation their individual requirements the case that they put up during treaty negotiations. As opposed to last year when we saw a blanket 20 percent given to all Maori here we have a negotiated agreement based on its merits. We applaud that and think it should happen throughout the country. Every case should be dealt with on its merits—not like last year. 
But we will question the reason why Nga Rauru Kitahi also receives the 20 percent of space that was thrown at Maori throughout the country last year to placate them. We do not question whether they deserve the space allocated in this bill although I must say that “deserve” is a poor word; rather this settlement is in some sense a compensation package. It has not been earned; it is an acknowledgment of the pain they went through. We do not argue about why space has been given away in this bill because it is an individual negotiation on merit and is completely understandable but we will have to question the iwi getting the blanket 20 percent of space thrown at Maori last year. 
There is also the issue of shellfish quota. I note that a certain percentage of quota for kina and surf clams will be given to this iwi some time in the future. Does that ignore the fact that there was a 1990s fisheries settlement which already gives 20 percent of total quota to Maori? Clearly this quota is over and above that and that makes one wonder about the finality of that 1990s fisheries settlement. 
Our questions will be around those particular issues not to rob Nga Rauru Kitahi of anything— because in fact one could never give them enough given the pain they have been through traditionally and historically—but to question the authenticity and endurance of this particular settlement. How can it be enduring given that those other two settlements—the 20 percent of aquaculture space allocated last year and the 1990s fisheries settlement a decade ago—are being relitigated? I question Labour members about what promises they are making out there on the hustings to iwi. They will have to throw them a lot more than that I would think to pull Maori away from the Maori Party. 
We commend this bill to the House and will be supporting it.