Smith Murray: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Murray: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21790] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the second reading of this bill but we share the concerns of other parties in regard to parts of the bill—in particular to schedule 12 the statement of belief about which I will address most of my comments. Before doing that however I want to begin on a positive note and again congratulate Nga Rauru Kitahi on achieving this milestone after what has been a lengthy settlement process and on getting to a point whereby they have settled grievances with the Crown that extended back for such a long time and that are well documented in the deed of settlement. I will probably say more about that at the third reading debate assuming we get there. 
The concern I have however is over the acknowledgment in regard to cultural redress. Really the problem is with the wording that has been put into the bill. The way it is phrased is not just to represent and acknowledge the fact that Nga Rauru Kitahi have certain spiritual values but actually to constitute an acknowledgment by the Crown of those spiritual values in a way that I believe constitutes an acceptance by this House of the legitimacy of those values. The concern that United Future has is not whether those values are legitimate—that is not the point—but whether this House should be acknowledging any spiritual values and endorsing a spiritual viewpoint in any legislation when we have a secular Government and live in a broad society. 
The views we are talking about are expressed in schedule 12 and I will read the first paragraph of those views just to give an idea as to the sorts of values that Nga Rauru Kitahi adopt for themselves. Again I do not make any judgment on them: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard down through the generations of the Kaahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and therefore so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi.” That final statement made by Nga Rauru Kitahi effectively states that they believe that both their ancestor and themselves are demi-gods—half man and half god. 
Now I have gone back and looked at the settlement agreement and I do not think that the bill reflects the agreement. The problem is with clause 88 of the bill which states: “The Crown acknowledges Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values …”. For the bill to state that the Crown acknowledges Nga Rauru Kitahi values is in my reading to say that the Crown acknowledges that Nga Rauru Kitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods so Rauru is the progeny of both divine and human parentage and therefore so are Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
That gets us into huge sorts of problems when we look at subsequent clauses and see the way that that acknowledgment is implemented. Clause 89 for example states: “The governance entity and the Crown may agree on and publicise protection principles that are directed at the Minister of Conservation—(a) avoiding harm to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni; or (b) avoiding the diminishing of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni.” What does that mean in terms of what the Minister of Conservation must do to avoid doing harm to those values and to avoid their diminishment? 
Clause 93 states: “(1) On notification by the Minister of Conservation in the  
Gazette 
 of the protection principles agreed under section 89”—as it will become—“the Director-General must take action in relation to those principles. (2) The Director-General retains a complete discretion to determine the method and extent of the action to be taken. (3) The Director-General must notify the governance entity of what action the Director-General intends to take under subsections (1) and (2).” So there is a very affirmative obligation for the Crown having accepted the truth of those obligations and values to uphold them and avoid their diminishment. 
The briefing document that I received from the Minister in regard to this provision did not state that that is what it is doing at all. It stated that the redress included an acknowledgment by the Crown of the importance of Nga Rauru Kitahi and their practices and values and the importance of revitalising those practices and values. If that is what the bill stated I would not be quite so worried. I am quite happy to acknowledge that certain values are important to certain people but it is a different matter to in fact endorse those values. 
Then I looked at the deed of settlement. Clause 2.9 states: “Ngaa Raurutanga is the term used by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to describe those values rights and responsibilities Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi holds according to custom including the values rights and responsibilities recognised by Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” That is fine. I have no problem with that. 
Clause 2.10 states: The Crown acknowledges the statement by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi that: (a) Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi has: (i) exercised Ngaa Raurutanga in respect of and has occupied the traditional rohe … and (ii) held tight to the values that constitute Nga Raurutanga;”. I have no problem with that acknowledgment. 
Clause 2.11 states: “The Crown further acknowledges that in its dealings with the Crown Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi: … is guided by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values; and … seeks outcomes that enable Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to practise Ngaa Raurutanga.” I have no problem with that acknowledgment either. 
Clause 2.12 states: “Accordingly in order to enhance the ongoing relationship between Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi and the Crown … this Deed of Settlement includes Redress that assists the Crown to recognise and respect Ngaa Raurutanga and the desire of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to practise Ngaa Raurutanga.” That is fine. I have no problem with the Crown recognising and respecting their values. 
Clause 2.13 states: “The Crown acknowledges: … the importance to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi of revitalising Ngaa Raurutanga; and … that Nga Rauru Kiitahi intends that the Redress will assist that revitalisation.” I think it is quite appropriate that Nga Rauru Kitahi will in fact use the proceeds of settlement in order to revitalise their own personal beliefs. 
Then when we look at paragraph (g) in Part 6 “Summary of Redress” we see that it speaks of “The Crown acknowledging Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni;”. That is where we start getting close to what the bill states which is that the Crown acknowledges their values. But the definition of values in the settlement agreement defines values in quite a wide sense and clause 2.9 refers to those values only in terms of their customs traditions and spiritual beliefs. it does not get into the sort of detail we now have. 
However when we go over and look further at the actual deed of recognition contained in the deed of settlement itself—which is really from where the clause has been taken—we see that that clause actually reads very differently from what has been put in the bill. Clause 1.1 which talks in Part 5 about deeds of recognition under the heading “The Crown’s acknowledgment of statements of association with statutory areas” states: “The Crown acknowledges the statements by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi set out in this clause of its cultural spiritual historical and traditional association.” That is the relevant clause. I have no problem with the Crown acknowledging statements by Nga Rauru Kitahi of its beliefs in terms of its cultural spiritual and historical traditions but that is a step removed from what we have in the legislation which is the Crown’s acknowledgment of those values. As I have indicated that acknowledgment appears to me to be an acceptance of those values. 
Stephen Franks 
: But are you going to vote for it? 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Seeing Mr Franks has asked I tell him that I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the provisions of clause 12. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Franks will have to wait and see but an amendment to clause 12 by a Supplementary Order Paper—which in fact would delete the first part of the statement the sort of part I read out—would continue with a statement from schedule 12 that I believe would be appropriate the statement starting in the fourth paragraph that Nga Rauru Kitahi has “a spiritual and physical relationship through whakapapa to its Taonga.” 
I have no problem with the Crown acknowledging that Nga Rauru Kitahi have a spiritual and physical relationship espoused within their mana atua mana whenua and mana tangata. That is fine. I am quite happy for the Crown to acknowledge that they have such a relationship. But when it comes to doctrinal statements that state certain beliefs I think we have gone too far. I would say exactly the same if the Apostles’ Creed which I adhere to had been there in the legislation. If there had been a statement saying that the Crown acknowledged things in the Apostles’ Creed I would have said the same thing because I think that it is inappropriate for this Parliament to be endorsing particular spiritual beliefs.