Garrett David: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10486] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I am glad that Tau Henare is still in the Chamber because I always like to correct things when I have got them slightly wrong. On this occasion having checked the reference I am very happy to say that Tau is correct and that Princess Te Puea suspended the dispute about the raupatu claim for the duration of the war. The events that I described took place in 1945 so Tau was correct there. He could have taken a wager off me but he chose to be kind and I am grateful to him. 
I think it is worthwhile recording the circumstances of that settlement in 1945 and I will read from Michael King’s book  
Te Puea 
 published in 1975 at chapter 13 “Raupatu and other causes”. King says this: “The eventual offer made on the marae the following day was for £6000 per year for 50 years and £5000 thereafter in perpetuity. The boldness of the move took the conservative spokesman by surprise. Before disagreement could erupt yet again Te Puea told Roore Edwards to get to his feet and accept. He stood up and said”—and I will do my best—“ ‘Kua oti te take nei’ which Mick Jones translated to Fraser”—that is Peter Fraser—“as ‘the matter is finalised satisfactorily’. In this manner a sore that had festered for eighty-two years was at last on the way to being healed.” So I was slightly incorrect and I am very happy to acknowledge that. 
I have learnt a new word here tonight from the Hon Maryan Street—ontologies. I have not had time to check the dictionary and I do not have a laptop but I suspect from the context that it means world views. The Hon Maryan Street talked about competing world views and that is absolutely fine. I do not care whether someone believes that the Waikato River is a living entity with a life force. I do not care whether Mr Finlayson still holds to the religion I was imbued with as a young boy that states that a piece of wafer on the ringing of a bell literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. As a man of 51 I find that absurd. But if the Hon Chris Finlayson wishes to continue to believe it that is his business. I have no problem with that. If other people wish to believe in the tooth fairy I have no problem with that. In the last 20 years or so a number of New Zealanders have declared their religion as Jedi which I believe is taken from a series of science fiction films of the 1980s. Who cares? That is their business. 
But what we have here is a world view of a specific narrow group of Maori that is being foisted upon not just Pakeha New Zealanders but also other Maori. We are supposed to have a secular Government yet highways have been delayed because of the alleged presence of a taniwha. This is the same kind of thing. No one in this country whether Maori Pakeha Chinese or whatever should have his or her plans and life— 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Disrupted by— 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —no “disrupted” is not the word I was looking for at all—governed by the ontology religion or superstition of others. That is very very easy when we get this kind of bill full of vague undefined terms. The writer on environmental matters Owen McShane has said that many landowners and resource users will find that they are having to deal with evidence based on religious beliefs rather than scientific or experiential evidence. One can measure environmental and economic impacts but it is impossible to calculate the impact of any kind of development or use on a life force. We cannot do it. That will not stop those with vested interests whatever race they are from doing it. It will be very tempting for them to claim some damage to the river’s life force or mauri which I understand is the Maori word in order to block competition with their own economic projects. It is tempting and I daresay inevitable. 
The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill gives control to a tiny elite group backed by those hard-core environmentalists who are opposed to any kind of development. In this ancient animistic religion it is a vehicle to assist their own fringe causes. The people of Auckland should be worried about this. The Waikato River is an important source of water for the Auckland region. How will the co-governance model respond to the demands of a growing population north of the Bombay Hills? Will the needs of the human population be too much of a strain on the metaphysical being that is allegedly the Waikato River? Will its mythical inhabitants or its mori— 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Mauri! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mauri; thank you I am trying my best. Will that be more important than the very people whose actions— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Well try harder. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Cosgrove should give it a go. He never even bothers. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do all the time. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Does he? He is not very good. Will that be more important than the real human beings whose actual life force depends on that water? This bill is packed with phrases that will not mean anything until case law defines them and we have seen that before. 
Hone Harawira 
: Ka pai. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Harawira is affirming that that is so. We have an activist Supreme Court in that edifice across the road that will be quite happy to define things that are left vague in this bill. It has done it before and it will do it again. It is looking forward to it I am sure. This is another example of how a very few Maori in the elite have gained disproportionate power thanks to the Maori Party’s deal with the National Party. The only reason the emissions trading scheme— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member alluded to the “elite”. This is about a whole lot of people and a whole lot of different levels in society. It is outrageous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. Those are debating points and that is not acceptable. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: The member has successfully disrupted my flow which I am sure was his intention so I say well done to him. 
Hon Member 
: Your life force has been disrupted. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes my life force has been disrupted so I will have to just ad lib from here as best I can. Put in a couple of sentences our objection to this bill is that it allows control by an elite according to a particular world view. Or if we forget about the elite it is control of an important resource according to the world view of a very few. That is dangerous and it is undemocratic. We are opposed to it and we will continue to oppose it as long as we get the chance in this bill and in any other bill that contains similarly bad principles. Thank you.