Peters Jim: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Peters Jim: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18828] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on Part 3 the issues that have just been traversed in Part 2 are again of importance. Although Part 3 starts with a grand claim that this is the final settlement in actual fact the matters we have just traversed do impact upon this provision particularly with regard to hapu and particularly with regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not believe that Parliament fully understands these issues and certainly not the Government of the day which has chosen to debate these issues in the Committee without any informed mind and without any Maori voice whatsoever. I recall that this was so in the first reading debate when there was not even the courtesy of mentioning to Maori members when this very important matter so far as Ngati Awa was concerned was going to be the subject of the House’s thinking and debate. 
The issue before us again is first that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are vague and undefined and as Dr Mapp has already stated subject to incorrect interpretation from 1987 onwards based upon a slip by the judge of the day amplified by misdirection by the then Labour Government worked through the 1990s by the then National Government and now we arrive at the situation whereby that omission which Parliament has just declined to rectify has implications with regard to the supposed final settlement of Ngati Awa. Those undefined principles are the seed of potential problems in the future. They are not defined in the bill. There is no clarity or expression as to what they mean and that gives an opportunity for others to raise matters in the future. 
Let us also look at the matter of the hapu because a strange distinction has been made by this Parliament. I say if Akarana and Poneke why not give all due regard to Brisbane Sydney or other places? The fact is that in Part 2 the Committee sought to give formal definition to a departure and a landmark with regard to Maori and that will have a long-term impact not just upon Ngati Awa in the matter before us but upon other tribal groups as well. 
So I want to raise again the fact that only a Labour-Progressive Government—which is not mindful of these matters and which in this Chamber has not had the benefit of informed advice from its Maori members during the course of this debate—could arrive at a conclusion in Part 3 that leaves not a final and lasting settlement but the ability for these issues to be revisited again and again. If that is not on the matter of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which is our belief it is certainly with regard to the hapu definition that this Parliament has sought to endorse. Therefore on behalf of New Zealand First I say that that is a very important matter that the Labour-Progressive Government ought to have realised is an omission. 
Last of all I say that that in no way extinguishes this fact: we are not in any way as my colleague has already mentioned casting a slur on any matters with regard to Ngati Awa. We believe that those matters belong with them and that this Parliament has done Maoridom a disservice in attempting to legislate for that strange departure and omission.