Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4512] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to begin this first reading speech this afternoon by recounting an incident that occurred in the lobby earlier this afternoon. I was trying to find the  
Hansard 
 debate on the special legislation that provided for the imprisonment without trial of the leaders of Parihaka. One of the messengers asked me what I was doing clambering up a ladder and when I told him he informed me that his great-grandfather a Welshman called Llewellyn Gwilliams had been involved in the Parihaka incident when he served in the British Army. That incident turned his great-grandfather into a pacifist and he subsequently became very friendly with the Maori of the area. It is a small reminder that this country is indeed rather small and that links to Parihaka exist even in the precincts of this Chamber. So it is really a very great honour to be asked to speak in this debate and I am delighted that at last some of the ghosts of the past may be put to rest by this settlement. I welcome the representatives of Ngati Mutunga to Parliament for this first reading debate. I congratulate them on the settlement and on all the work they have done so that this bill can reach the stage where it can be introduced today. 
I think it is always useful to remind ourselves of the importance of historical settlements because some people say that people simply have to move on and let go of the burdens of the past yet this is a fundamentally flawed approach to historical settlements in this country. The rationale for the historical treaty settlements was I think best expressed by Sir Douglas Graham in this place during the second reading of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill when he said: “In 1991 the Government embarked on a comprehensive attempt to address the longstanding claims by Maori against the Crown. It had concluded that a future that allowed Maori to remain in grievance over claims that were just was no future at all—not only for Maori but for all of us. Indeed we should be thankful that Maori have always been prepared to seek justice through negotiation in a spirit of goodwill rather than resort to other means as has occurred so tragically in other countries.” That importance and that approach is certainly exemplified by this bill. 
The history of the Waitangi Tribunal’s claim process is set out in the bill itself—in the preamble—and I will not repeat it suffice to say that the claim began in 1990 and went on to 1995 and then in June 1996 an interim report was published. I do not think the Government does enough to publicise these reports. I can think of many great reports that have been written by the tribunal over the years that should be read by as many New Zealanders as possible. An example I can think of is the Muriwhenua claim which I had the privilege of reading when I was involved in a lot of the fisheries litigation leading up to the 2004 settlement. This Taranaki report is also a “must read”. The negotiations then continued for almost 10 years before this legislation could be introduced—[ 
Interruption 
] In answer to Mr Jones I ask what we are to learn from this. Well the first point is that the Treaty settlement process takes too long. It has been 15 years of involvement for Ngati Mutunga in tribunal litigation and then negotiations. I say that that is unfair. I also say that the tribunal is underfunded which is why it so often has to resort to stop-start hearings. This Government has kept the tribunal underfunded over the past 7 years and has allowed negotiations to go on and on. 
The National Party in Government will pursue Treaty settlements with vigour and determination just as Sir Douglas Graham and Mr Jim Bolger did in the 1990s. When I mention the name Jim Bolger I am sure he would very much like to join with the National Party in welcoming this settlement because as I understand it he grew up in that area and had very many contacts with the people of Ngati Mutunga. Apparently Matiu Rata reportedly once said to Ben Couch that Maori like it when “you lot are in power because you get things done.” I promise not only Ngati Mutunga but the other Maori of this country that that is exactly what we will do after the next election. 
I want to spent some time on the apology because again some people do not like apologies; they think they are weasel words. But I happen to think they are very important. Again the rationale for apologies is spelt out in the speech of Sir Douglas Graham in the second reading of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill. He acknowledged that some people feel uncomfortable about apologies and said: “But how can a wrong be righted without an acknowledgment of the wrong and an expression of regret that it occurred? How can the relationship prosper in the future if the settlement now concluded is accompanied with a denial of liability?” as so often happens in the settlement of say commercial litigation. So apologies are very important. But whether apologies should be recorded in statute is something that I have a few doubts about. 
My friend Georgina te Heuheu referred to the New Zealand First bill that was debated last night that seeks to delete all references to “principles of the Treaty” from all legislation. 
Shane Jones 
: Foolish legislation! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Absolute foolishness. I heard the words of the New Zealand First speaker earlier in this debate but ask him to reflect on clause 7 of this bill because the effect of what he said would be to delete chunks of that bill. Is that really what he wants? I am not too worried about that legislation because I believe that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be able to tidy it up. But how can Parliament responsibly interfere with the text of a settlement with Maori? I do not believe it can. 
Frankly there is much to apologise for to Ngati Mutunga and I certainly refer to the very well written and quite emotional parts of the preamble that talk about Parihaka. I do not intend to elaborate on the story in this speech—we all know what happened there. We all know or should know that it is a real blot on the nation’s history. 
As an aside I can tell the House that some years ago my former law firm Bell Gully was a co-sponsor of an art exhibition called Parihaka. It was one of the most powerful art exhibitions I have ever seen. It certainly puts the Constable exhibition way down the ladder of importance. 
Pita Paraone 
: Chocolate-boxy! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think I called it chocolate-boxy the other night. As the then chair of the Arts Board I was very keen to tour that exhibition but as usual I was thwarted by the bureaucrats in Creative New Zealand who I think were more interested in touring donkeys braying in toilets. 
In this debate I am not going to dwell on other elements of the settlement. I simply conclude my remarks by saying I am delighted that Ngati Mutunga have reached this stage in their history. It is certainly time that the reality of what happened at Parihaka was recognised by this Parliament which passed that dreadful legislation in the early 1880s. I conclude by reflecting on a visit I had a couple of months ago to Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia. I saw a statement of position that had been developed by the provincial Liberal Government in its dealings with indigenous peoples. I think there is a lot in Canada that we could adopt here. The statement of position essentially said that whatever the past whatever wrongs happened in the past we are all here to stay so let us work together to undo the burdens of the past and move forward for the sake of our country and for each one of us here. That is what historical settlements are all about. It is certainly what this settlement is all about. I congratulate all concerned on getting the legislation to this stage.