Wilson Margaret: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10069] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. Ngati Tama is an iwi in Taranaki and its historical treaty claims cover some of the northernmost part of that region. The claims relate mostly to the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki in the 1860s the associated loss of life and property and the confiscation of land. The claims also relate to the Crown’s unconscionable actions in its dealings with the Parihaka community and the inadequacy of the west coast reserves. I signed the deed of settlement with Ngati Tama representatives on behalf of the Crown on 20 December 2001 which addressed the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by the iwi. The Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill gives effect to certain aspects of the deed of settlement. 
The virtual landlessness of Ngati Tama in Taranaki has hindered its development throughout the past 150 years. This settlement enables the Crown to apologise for its unconscionable and unjust behaviour towards Ngati Tama. The Crown has acknowledged its actions had a prejudicial impact on the people of Ngati Tama. In particular the Crown’s actions impeded the ability of Ngati Tama to exercise control over its taonga and its wahi tapu and to maintain and foster spiritual connections to its ancestral lands. The Crown apologises unreservedly for its actions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. As well as an apology this settlement provides for the financial redress of $14.5 million and a variety of cultural redress which aims to recognise and protect the interests of Ngati Tama in sites that are of particular significance to them. This bill makes it clear this is a comprehensive and final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngati Tama in Taranaki. 
This settlement is an important milestone for Ngati Tama and for the Crown. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew our relationship as treaty partners. I know members of Ngati Tama would like this settlement to be finalised as soon as possible to enable them to begin their development plans and look to their future. This settlement is also significant because it is the second treaty settlement to be finalised in the Taranaki region. In that regard I am pleased to advise the Crown will also shortly take a significant step towards the third Taranaki settlement with the signing of the deed of settlement for Nga Rauru. I hope the Ngati Tama settlement will encourage other claimant groups in Taranaki and elsewhere to enter into and complete negotiations with the Crown. 
The Maori Affairs Committee has considered this bill and submitted its commentary on it to the House. The committee has recommended the bill be passed with the proposed minor and technical amendments. I thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the bill and the observations it made on three matters: the overlapping claims of Ngati Maniapoto the mandate of the negotiators and the participation rate of Ngati Tama in the ratification of the governance entity that is to receive the settlement assets. 
The issue of overlapping interests between Ngati Tama and Ngati Maniapoto was considered by the Waitangi Tribunal. The tribunal found the Crown’s approach to addressing Ngati Maniapoto’s overlapping interest with Ngati Tama was sound and the settlement should proceed. With regard to the mandate of Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust I acknowledge that the trust’s mandate was a contentious one. It was challenged in 1996 and in 1997 by the groups NgaHapu o Mokau and Ngati Tama Whanau Whanui. The Crown at the time continued to recognise the trust’s mandate subject to conditions that it actively encouraged participation by those Ngati Tama who opposed the mandate. However a significant number of Ngati Tama was unwilling to be associated with the trust throughout the negotiating process. I note that Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust no longer exists. The Crown has approved Te Runanga o Ngati Tama as the governance entity to represent Ngati Tama and receive and manage the settlement redress. My view is that Te Runanga o Ngati Tama is accountable to Ngati Tama and that it has transparent processes and does represent all of Ngati Tama. 
The committee stated its concern at the low participation rate of Ngati Tama voters in ratifying the governance entity. Let me assure the House that this Government is committed to addressing that issue and to finding ways to increase participation rates in the ratification of treaty settlements and governance entities generally. I am therefore pleased to note that there have recently been positive moves by the members of Ngati Tama WhanauWhanui to be involved in Te Runanga o Ngati Tama. I am glad that the committee was satisfied that efforts had been made to assist and encourage Ngati Tama WhanauWhanui and other Ngati Tama people to participate in the affairs of te runanga. I also wish te runanga well in its future and encourage it to continue to provide ways for all Ngati Tama whanau to feel part of and participate in its affairs. This bill ensures all members of Ngati Tama are entitled to benefit from the settlement wherever they may be now living. 
The technical amendment should be noted in this context so I note that the committee has recommended the bill proceed with minor and technical amendments. Those generally reflect the recently approved survey plans for the cultural redress properties that are to be transferred and the changes necessary to reflect the Resource Management Amendment Act of 2003. 
In conclusion it was in November 1996 that the previous Government recognised the mandate of the Ngati Tama negotiators. A heads of agreement was reached in September 1999 and a deed of settlement was then finalised and signed in December 2001. The passage of this bill is the last step required in order for the settlement to become unconditional. It is important we now move to enable Ngati Tama to receive its just redress. I would like to acknowledge the work done by the former Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations who contributed to this settlement. I also want to thank the other Ministers involved—in particular the Minister of Conservation—who have supported the process throughout. I wish to acknowledge the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements and other Government departments for their work in seeking a just and fair settlement. Finally I would like to acknowledge and thank the kaumatua members and negotiators of Ngati Tama whose commitment on behalf of their people their ancestors and their descendants has led to this pathway to reconciliation. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in the second reading of this bill and I am pleased we on the Maori Affairs Committee have seen fit to report the bill back. National supports the second reading and the report back of the bill and we certainly join with the Minister in hoping to see the swift passage of this settlement through the House. We support the settlement on a number of fronts not the least of which is that it was largely negotiated by Sir Douglas Graham. That is shown to be the case by the signing of the heads of agreement in 1999. While it is acknowledged that that was just the beginning of a process of negotiation none the less the redress elements of the settlement package mirror those that were established in previous settlements in the early 1990s—in particular the Ngai Tahu settlement—and the settlement that is the subject of this bill today survives largely intact from the original heads of agreement signed in 1999. 
Ngati Tama from northern Taranaki is one of the eight Taranaki iwi whose claims were investigated and reported on by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996. The background to those claims is the Taranaki land wars of the 1860s and the loss of lives that resulted and the destruction of property the land confiscations the sacking of Parihaka and the imprisonment of Taranaki people in caves in Dunedin some of whom never returned to their homeland. That is the sad background to this settlement. Fortunately in our time we are moving to address the injustices that occurred and I say—and have said so many times before in this House when we have had debates on settlement bills—that Parliament should always take some pride in the fact that it seeks to have these settlements concluded so that the tribes concerned are able to remove the burden of injustice from their shoulders and move forward. 
The Minister made reference to two issues that occupied the time of the select committee. They certainly were not anything to do with the settlement package itself but I think it is proper for us to devote some thought to the issues of mandating and overlapping claims. I do so in the knowledge that the framework for mandating was also set by the previous National Government under the guidance of Sir Douglas Graham and that the issue of overlapping claims has been an ongoing issue as well. 
The select committee found some difficulty in the fact that while the settlement itself had significant participation and sign-up by Ngati Tama the ratification and mandating processes did not. The concern of the select committee as far as I could tell was that if we want treaty settlements to be durable then it behoves us as a House of Representatives to make sure that we get optimum buy-in for them. All of us on the select committee were united in our desire to see whether through the Office of Treaty Settlements there could be some further interaction with the Ngati Tama leadership to find out whether those who felt sidelined by what was happening could be brought into the process. I certainly acknowledge the fact that the personnel from the Office of Treaty Settlements took our concerns on board and very readily went back to the Ngati Tama rununga representatives to see whether those who felt sidelined namely whanau whanui from other parts of the tribe could be brought into the governance structures. 
 I acknowledge the efforts that were made to get greater participation in the governance structures but none the less the fact remains that the mandating processes that have been established for some years now may need to be revised. We still have a significant number of claims to go and I think we would get better progress if the mandating and ratification processes were looked at. Perhaps that is something we could work on. The Opposition may be willing to work with the Government on that matter because it is important. If there is buy-in for a settlement then it is disappointing for the settlement to be held up because of prior processes that people are unhappy with. When we are approaching the passage of legislation in this House and there is still unhappiness then I do think—and I am sure that all members of the select committee would say the same thing—we must develop some revision of the processes to make the passage of settlements a lot faster. 
We need to think about the fact that the Taranaki claims were heard by the Waitangi Tribunal back in the 1990s that the Taranaki report was issued in 1996 and it is now 2003. Ngati Tama is the second of the Taranaki iwi to have its settlement reach the stage of legislation and we do need to see better progress. I know that there are two settlements per year on the Minister’s programme but given that a lot of the negotiation with the Taranaki tribes has been done at an earlier stage we need to see whether we can progress the time frame a bit better than we have been doing. There is no doubt particularly when we look at a tribe like Ngai Tahu and see the significant progress it is making in terms of itself as a collective and also at family whanau and hapu levels that the settlement process is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for Parliament to progress the historic claims as quickly as we can so that iwi whanau and hapu can get on with their lives creating a future on the basis of the reparation that has been made with the transfer of assets and determining their own future. That is what we all want to see. The Government should continually be making sure it is doing everything it can to move that process along. 
I want to raise one last issue. The Waitangi Tribunal remains severely under-resourced and I urge the Minister to use her best influences and her authority to see whether the tribunal can be better resourced. It does need an injection of funding. We know that $6.5 million was put into a treaty education programme. In my view that funding should have gone to the Waitangi Tribunal. There is no doubt that tribes want to have at least a tribunal casebook—a historical record—on the basis of which they can negotiate with the Crown. That gives them a better bargaining position. As I say the tribunal can only inch its way along with the hearing of claims and on that we are not doing the best we can to get the settlements through. I urge the Minister to use her very best endeavours to see whether the Waitangi Tribunal funding can be sufficiently boosted so that the tribunal can meet its own timetable and at least get the historical casebooks on the record so that tribes are in a much better position to move into negotiations with the Crown.