Roche Denise: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5482. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Ki nga tangata o Ngati Manuhiri te ra. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. It is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Green Party and particularly on behalf of our co-leader Metiria Turei who is a member of the Maori Affairs Committee which has been hearing the progress of this bill.  
The Green Party has in the past supported Treaty settlement bills because we believe that the work of the kuia and kaumatua in bringing the settlements to this stage should be respected. Sometimes we have been able to negotiate changes to the settlements in favour of iwi and hapu. Most of the time the Crown refuses to entertain any notion of genuine change to address iwi and hapu concerns. It is therefore really an easy vote to cast as we have some serious objections to the settlement process particularly as it has descended more and more into deals rather than genuine restitution from the Crown to Maori for the losses that you have suffered. 
We do not believe that these settlements are full and final. We think they are deals done today according to today’s constraints and that the issues will be revisited again in the future. We are seeing this more and more and we just have to look at the issues around why as an example. We acknowledge the huge losses Ngati Manuhiri have suffered at the hands of the Crown and we do not detract from that but we must always state the failings of the Crown in our contributions to these debates. We must remind the Crown that if it continues to exercise undue power of the process to the detriment of iwi and hapu we refuse to simply rubber-stamp these bills. 
Earlier in the year the Greens abstained on the first reading of this bill for the first time in our history. Our vote will not change despite the work of the select committee. I acknowledge the chair Mr Henare I acknowledge the members of the select committee and the Minister who have worked very hard on this and I acknowledge also all the submitters and all their work. 
During the select committee hearings we heard very concerning reports about mandate conflicts of interest and perhaps unsurprisingly some disregard for the Minister of the issues of Ngati Wai over this settlement. A major argument of the Manuhiri Omaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust—the mandated negotiating body—in support of this settlement was that Ngati Wai had supported it. They relied heavily on the decisions of the Ngati Wai Trust Board. However there were serious conflict of interest issues that were not resolved to our satisfaction. 
Two issues of concern involved the people involved in the two bodies. One very serious issue was the mandate of the Ngati Wai Trust Board to support the bill. One person held the position of chair of the Ngati Wai Trust Board and of the Manuhiri Omaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust. In addition Wayne Peters was the legal adviser to both the trust board and the trust. We specifically asked during the hearings whether the conflict of interest issues were advised to the members recorded or otherwise managed in any way. We were told no. We were told there were no conflict issues even where these had been raised by some Ngati Wai. 
During the process of the select committee a properly held special general meeting of the Ngati Wai Trust Board was called. At that special general meeting the members overwhelmingly voted to oppose this settlement bill. The trust board considered that decision but as it was not required under its trust deed to adhere to that decision it retained its previous position of support for the bill. It appears that this was lawful but in our view it remains ethically questionable because of the serious conflict of interest issues that arose from having two people playing key roles in both organisations. 
As a result of both the actions of the trust board in response to the special general meeting and the failure to properly sort the conflict issues we do not believe that there is significant support in Ngati Wai for the bill. We concede that the trust board supports it but not the people who are most affected by the provisions of the bill. Therefore we cannot rely on the Manuhiri Omaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust assertions that it has Ngati Wai support for this settlement. 
We acknowledge that the bill has been amended to state that the provisions do not prevent future settlements from providing co-governance arrangements for other iwi in the future. This change is not sufficient to alter our vote. We remain very sceptical of the Crown’s intentions with this legislation to hand over Hauturu to Ngati Manuhiri ownership for 7 days before it is returned to Crown ownership minus 1.2 hectares set aside for Ngati Manuhiri use. We think this is an example of giving with one hand and taking with another and we can see that this type of mechanism might well be used by the Minister in future settlements concerning Hauturu. 
Ultimately the box is ticked but the substance of the deal remains with the Crown. The Crown gives up practically nothing. This is not restitution. We consider this type of gift to be a Crown insult to those whose land was taken without their consent those who were forcibly removed from their land. We believe that the Crown dishonours itself with this deal. We understand that Ngati Manuhiri people have pursued this settlement as best as possible in the current circumstances—we acknowledge that. We wish them well. We wish them all the best in their pursuit of their rangatiratanga at this time.