Copeland Gordon: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5518] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the honour of taking a call on the third reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill on behalf of United Future. We are of course at the third reading and this is the last time this matter will be debated in Parliament. Therefore it is right to begin by saying that I am sure this will be an occasion of great joy for the majority of the large confederation of the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa. The return of these 13 lakes will restore the traditional relationship between Te Arawa and its lakes. It will also ensure that this relationship will continue for all of the generations to come. It puts right a wrong. It signals on behalf of all New Zealanders our goodwill towards Te Arawa—our aroha—and our best wishes for their future in peace and prosperity. United Future wishes all of those involved in the Te Arawa confederation all the very best for the future. 
This bill contains reference to the Crown apology. Although it is a very good thing and technically correct for the Crown to tender an apology for the past wrongs there is also—as I have mentioned once before in this House—a slight fiction involved in taking that action. In truth it was not the monarch 12000 miles away who wronged Te Arawa by taking ownership of these lakes in controversial circumstances and then putting in place an annuity system with no adjustment even for inflation for all those years. Those actions were actually taken by the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Parliament. I look forward to the day when we can recognise that and find a way of apologising as a Parliament for the wrongs of the past. This highlights of course an issue that has caused a lot of undue aggression in our nation for some time—that is the position of the Crown in relation to settlements in general. 
In particular this issue came up in the context of the foreshore and seabed debate which was mentioned by Te Ururoa Flavell in his speech a few minutes ago. It is well known that United Future would have liked to see the foreshore and seabed vested not in the Crown but in the public domain. There is an important difference between those two things because “the public domain” suggests that the ownership lies with all of the people of New Zealand whereas “the Crown” in its historical context of being the other party to the Treaty always carries with it the kind of logic that somehow this means removing something from Maori in order to assign it to something that is not Maori. 
But of course in our constitutional arrangements the Crown is simply the symbol of the unity that we all have as New Zealanders. Another way of expressing that notion in the American constitution is the phrase “We the people” and here in New Zealand it could well have been in “the public domain”. I look forward to ongoing constitutional development around that issue because I hope that once all the historical grievances arising out of the Treaty have been settled we can move on to think about the language that we use in this country. In some ways I think we need to put the concept of the Crown behind us and to move forward into a new concept whereby all of us actually feel we are involved in these matters. 
I will give members the example that came out of the previous member’s speech—and this is not a criticism; it is just an illustration of the point I am making. He spoke about Environment Bay of Plenty and the local council that will be involved in the clean-up of the lake. Those organisations are referred to as if they are completely separate from Maori. But of course those organisations are called on to represent all of the people in that district including all Maori. So we always have a perpetuation of this “them and us” language and we have to figure out as a nation I believe a way of getting past that point so that we can build a future of unity together. 
 I also express the hope today that Te Arawa can extend its forgiveness to the New Zealand Government. We have offered an apology in a roundabout way through the Crown for the wrongs of the past. I believe that Te Arawa would do well to extend that forgiveness to our nation because the alternative—that is to refuse forgiveness—can block the ability to bring closure and open the door to the future. It is so important when we get to this point of a settlement that we do start to open the door to a different future as a nation and as a people. 
We human beings cannot advance into a bright future together if we take into that future the wrongs of the past. It does not work that way. That is not human reality; that is not human psychology. We have to be able to say yes we are prepared to put this matter to rest and to let it be in the past. It is reality but it is now a historical reality. When this bill is passed today in this Parliament it should become a historical reality so that we can go forward together. I want therefore to suggest to Te Arawa that their response today should be to lay this matter down. They should straighten their backs and embrace the future in optimism and in hope because if we do not have hope and optimism going into the future then indeed we will have a dismal future. 
I will just comment on the position of the National Party in relation to this bill. I am advised that National intends to vote against this bill on its third reading. I express the thought that National has its own reasons for voting against the bill. United Future on the other hand has been prepared to trust the process that has brought us to this point. A huge amount of research has gone into the bill. It has been looked at from the point of view of fairness and justice and we have worked through that process to this point. At this stage if we were to say no that we would override all of that and vote against the bill on the basis of what I desperately hope would not simply be hair-splitting legalities it would be wrong because there is no future in going forward on that basis. There is no future in my view in respect of even talking about a 1c in the dollar settlement for example on the other side of the argument. We have to embrace the realities we have. 
Let me express this thought to the House. If indeed this settlement bill has been overgenerous towards Te Arawa which is presumably what National is saying—and of course the Maori Party is saying it is not generous enough—and let us suppose that is the assumption that this is not a right thing to do and is overgenerous would it be so difficult so wrong if just for once we were overgenerous to Maori in settling these matters? Would that be a problem for New Zealand’s future? I do not think so. 
I think that we should look at the big picture of where we are going as a nation and at our ability to try to build a strong nation for the future of all New Zealanders. Quite frankly hair-splitting legalities will not get us there. We have to go beyond that; we have to go into goodwill into hope and into optimism. We must have a vision for the future because as you all know one of the Scriptures says that without a progressive vision a nation perishes. We need that progressive vision. I hope that these occasions can become a source of vision for the future so that we can bring closure and go into a good future together. Thank you.