Baldock Larry: Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13905] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 United Future can support the intent of this bill which if we understand it is to bring full and final settlement of outstanding claims. Although when we talk about full settlement I think most people in New Zealand would understand that there is no way in the world that this Parliament or the taxpayer could afford the full settlement. We are grateful to Maoridom as it accepts settlements that are much less than what the full settlement should be but accepts them as a full settlement. 
We as a party would certainly welcome the full and final settlement of outstanding claims. My colleague Murray Smith as our Maori spokesperson has constantly urged the Office of Treaty Settlements to speed up the process to a large extent by providing more resources for those involved in the treaty settlement process. However we do not urge the speeding up of the process by shortcutting the process as the speaker before me Mahara Okeroa said so well. The process must be dealt with properly if it is to be full and final. 
As someone who has sat through parts of that process in Tauranga Moana where some of the hapu have gone through their treaty claims inquiries I have been amazed at how much history we learn as we go through this process. It will be a great asset to the nation in the future as we will be compiling throughout this process the true and accurate record of what has occurred in this country over the last 150 years. 
We understand and many of us within United Future also understand how many non-Maori can empathise with those who grow impatient with a process that began initially in 1975 and in real earnest in the 1980s. This process began over 20 years ago and for many of us it seems such a long time. There is an impatience in New Zealand to see it completed but it would do all of us who are non-Maori good to consider how long many Maori have been waiting for the correction of these breaches of the treaty. They are the ones who have been victims of those breaches and in most cases they have been waiting for as long as 150 years. That is a very long time and when we see how many times Maori have had to come to the courts and to this Parliament seeking redress I think another 15 years will not be too long if we are able to fully and finally settle these issues once and for all. 
I believe the attitude we need to take in this House and across New Zealand is to look out to 2040 when we will celebrate 200 years as a nation and see that by that time we have fully and finally settled those treaty claims and are moving on as a very multicultural and harmonious society. The answer to our problems in New Zealand is not a law change but an attitude change and that is definitely needed throughout our society if we are to have a future together as a people. 
United Future cannot support this bill because the approach it recommends to resolve the issue of slow resolution to claims is not in our opinion the appropriate one. We believe the Office of Treaty Settlements should set targets and dates for settlements and goals because that is an important part of achieving those goals. The office should then receive adequate funding and resourcing to realistically enable it to meet those goals and time frames but to set those time frames in statutes as proposed by this bill would be wrong and would achieve very little. 
Clauses 6 and 7 are about establishing a Council of Race Relations to carry out specific functions. Many of those things would be commendable accomplishments for our society but they are the kinds of inquiry and discussion that would be undertaken during the constitutional inquiry proposed by United Future in response to the foreshore and seabed debate that has arisen this year. Our proposals for a constitutional inquiry include a discussion of the role of the treaty in New Zealand in the 21st century after all outstanding claims have been settled. That would be a more productive approach than having a legislatively mandated council as set up in this bill because it would ultimately result in us resolving the question of a constitution for our nation. We believe that is the way forward as a country and one we will continue to lobby and press for. Therefore United Future will not support the first reading of this bill.