te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18829] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 In relation to Part 3 there are probably two matters I want to raise. The first is in relation to subsection (24) of section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act as inserted by clause 16: “Subsection 23 does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the Ngati Awa deed of settlement the ancillary deeds of settlement or the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Act 2004.” I wonder whether that provision addresses the issue raised by Stephen Franks earlier when we were having a discussion about the English translation of the preamble vis-à-vis the Maori translation and who if there were some differences raised at some stage in the future over those matters would adjudicate. I think that was the nub of the issue raised. Well subsection (23) talks about the tribunal doing that. I am not sure whether—I can see that Stephen Franks is pulling a face. 
Stephen Franks 
: It should be the Maori Land Court. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: So there you go! I raise that issue because this is probably the first time in the settlements process that the issue of what the best translation is has come to the fore in such a significant way. I suggest that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations needs to pay some attention to the issue of what happens if there is some difference raised. Just as we have battled over the English and Maori translations of the treaty there is always room for a similar issue to arise in the future over the translations of the preamble. 
The other matter is to pick up on the issue that my colleague Dr Mapp raised which is about the numbers who vote who ratify the deeds of settlement and indeed who vote on the governance entities. To tell the truth National is extremely worried by the attitude of the Office of Treaty Settlements. When asked why we should be satisfied with low turn-outs that office’s answer basically was that that was the model that had been set that everyone had followed that model and that it was OK. Those are not the exact words but that is the gist of the office’s answer. But National says that particularly in relation to the centre of the North Island with many tribes claiming parts of those areas we now have a situation where there are myriad cross-claims. There are overlapping claims and Ngati Awa is the first iwi of that whole group of iwi with claims that criss-cross to come through. 
I do not think that that issue had quite the same potency in previous settlements. I would ask the Minister to consider taking a call to tell us whether following the select committee’s comments on the issue of ratification any work is being done to see whether greater ratification might be required in the situation where there are all these overlapping claims and where unfortunately some claimants are still way back in the queue. They are watching intently as other settlements are concluded ahead of theirs and they start to wonder how their claims—often overlapping claims—will be dealt with and where they will end up. 
What went on and was a model 10 years ago albeit put forward by the National Government was the best framework that was developed at the time. All these frameworks particularly where we are dealing with complicated issues—and this framework in particular—ought to be reviewed. The select committee has been raising that issue pretty constantly now for the last 2 3 or 4 years—in fact ever since the Labour-Progressive Government came to power funnily. The Opposition has been raising that issue of mandate and of whether any work has been done around it.