Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19322] 
Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of Ngati Awa a number of whom have joined us today in the galleries of this House. 
The passage of this bill enables the people of Ngati Awa to move forward beyond the historical grievances they have suffered at the hands of the Crown. The bill is equally significant for the Crown and for the people of this country and it enables the restoration of the honour of the Crown. It represents a further step in the journey towards the reconciliation of the relationship between the peoples of this country and importantly between Ngati Awa and the Crown. 
This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngati Awa and settles all their historical treaty claims. The historical background to the claims of Ngati Awa makes for sombre reading. It provides an account of New Zealand’s history wherein Ngati Awa can be said to have been faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership in seeking to build strong relationships with its treaty partner. But the Crown did not reciprocate that behaviour. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngati Awa for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown. 
Ngati Awa commenced direct negotiations with the Crown in 1996. The main components of the settlement package were finalised in October 2000. A deed of settlement the formal Crown offer to Ngati Awa to settle the claims under the Treaty of Waitangi was then developed by the Crown and Ngati Awa negotiators. A significant majority of Ngati Awa participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly representatives of the Crown and Ngati Awa signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 27 March 2003. 
The passing of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill last night enables Ngati Awa to reconstitute its existing entity in order to receive the settlement redress. The passage of this settlement bill is the final hurdle to enable the Crown to transfer the settlement redress to Ngati Awa. 
This Government is fully committed to progressing the settlement of valid historical treaty claims. That is a two-way process—a process that seeks to restore a set of relationships that have not been maintained or in some cases even activated and a process that seeks to resolve all the historical treaty claims of respected Maori communities and to resolve longstanding and deeply-felt grievances. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Over the course of a decade the Crown has developed and refined a process of settling historical treaty claims. That process is now leading to a steady stream of comprehensive settlements being reached. This Government has concluded four settlements in the past 2 years and is currently in active negotiations with some 12 groups. We have also made some major inroads into progressing claims in the far north and streamlining the treaty settlement process. 
The Crown has withstood challenges in the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts concerning its policy approach to settlements. Both the tribunal and the courts inquired into the Ngati Awa settlement itself. I am pleased to note that those inquiries found in favour of the Ngati Awa settlement process. 
Now that the settlement process has been developed and has stood up to scrutiny we are well placed to move forward and this Government is committed to making positive progress in settling historical claims. We have continued in the claims settled in this bill and will continue in future settlements to negotiate with the interests of all citizens of New Zealand in mind so that as New Zealanders we can all be very proud that significant grievances are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. 
I am pleased to acknowledge all of those from Ngati Awa and the Crown who over so many long and arduous years have given their all to enable us to get to this day. Their passion and commitment have greatly assisted the process. There are so many who deserve some acknowledgment. They know who they are and they are entitled to feel great pride and satisfaction in their achievements. 
In particular I acknowledge Professor Hirini Mead chief negotiator for the settlement of the historical claims of Ngati Awa. I know that Professor Mead has worked extremely hard to bring about this day. His leadership and commitment have greatly assisted this settlement process. 
I also acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Margaret Wilson for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of Ngati Awa’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Conservation the Minister of Finance and the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. 
I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngati Awa deed of settlement. Indeed it outlines a tragic history but it is a history that I think we all must know if we are to recognise our common heritage and learn from it in order to move forward in a unified way. 
I acknowledge the ancestors of Ngati Awa and extend best wishes for the future to its elders descendants and negotiating team. Their journey ahead looks bright and I wish them well in their endeavours. The dignity wisdom and judgment they showed in the settlement process will I believe stand them in good stead as they enter the next stage of their journey forward. I commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of the National Party to indicate our support for the passing of this settlement bill today. We do so in an environment in which some of our political opponents would want to say that we do not have the right attitude towards settlement or indeed towards the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequences that flow from that. So I want to take a minute or two to discourage those views and to put very strongly on the record the reasons why the National Party strongly supports settlement of historical grievances. 
We do not accept that the concept of the Treaty of Waitangi is about the partnership of two peoples. We see the treaty as being a point from which two peoples got together to become one nation. That might seem to be a very subtle point; nonetheless it is a very important one. The genesis of our thinking might be best expressed in the Maori proverb first brought prominently to the attention of the nation by Whina Cooper back in 1990—“He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata.” What is the most important thing in the world? It is people it is people it is people. 
In settling grievances like this it is simply a grievance brought by New Zealanders who are Maori to the Government which now stands as the Crown and the discussions that result from that grievance being laid on the table coming to a point where there is settlement. We accept that the settlements can never fully compensate for the loss—the loss on many levels—or for the full amount of grievance that might be taken. We acknowledge the generosity of Ngati Awa and other settlor groups who accept that the Government is doing this in good faith. We will continue to seek settlement of treaty grievances on that basis. 
However it does raise the issue of how a settlement is mandated by those who are the recipients of it. I have expressed a number of times now my concerns about the very low levels of the vote in favour of settlement. It worries us on this side of the House that only about 30 percent of those eligible to participate in the vote that ratified the settlement chose to do so and of those a lesser number actually accepted it. Although the Office of Treaty Settlements might want to say to the Government: “Go ahead with this anyway because the rest of the people are so happy they don’t feel the need to vote.” it does leave the uncomfortable feeling that at some time in the future there may be successive generations or future generations who say: “Well our people didn’t sign up to this. We weren’t happy at the time and we’re not happy now.” That potentially threatens the idea that settlements are full and final that there is a leaving behind of the grievance in the moving forward to a new future. So I want to put it very clearly on the record that this Parliament understands and believes firmly that what is before us today is a full and final settlement and that Ngati Awa will not be back for more. 
There are also another couple of issues that I should raise. There was in this House a considerable amount of kerfuffle over the preamble to this bill. It is the first bill I understand that has a full text in Maori. It was therefore very important for that text to be reflected in the English translation and we took some time to insist that that was achieved. That should not be taken in any disparaging way by Ngati Awa; rather it should be accepted that it was the start of a new way of doing things. Our point simply was that as we have had so many years of disagreement about what was meant in the Treaty of Waitangi surely we should not have a bill settling a grievance that flowed from that time also creating the possibility of difference in the two understandings. I think we have now got to a position where we can say that that is not the case and that this bill is well understood to mean in both texts what exactly each understands of the other. 
A question was raised yesterday in the debate that established the runanga organisation that will receive the settlement assets. There was a suggestion in that debate that this new entity was being exempted from many of the encumbrances one might say that go with trusts companies and other entities that hold assets on behalf of other people. I have some sympathy for the view that was expressed by the Hon Richard Prebble— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh come on! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —but in essence I say to Mr Parekura Horomia what we are doing today is handing to a group of people assets that are theirs. The choice as to how those assets are administered nurtured and managed in order for them to grow belongs to those people. For too long I think Maori have had an excessive amount of Government involvement in their governance. Trust boards and such over the years have had pretty onerous duties put on them by this House. So a freer structure is something we are not too concerned about. But I say again for the record that it would not be appropriate for future generations of Ngati Awa to come back to this House and say that the structure the House gave them in 2005 failed them—because it is not this place’s structure; it is Ngati Awa’s. 
Pita Paraone 
: The Act might be wrong. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well the Act is not wrong of course because it was Ngati Awa’s Act that was brought here. It was a member’s bill as the member will remember. It was not a Government bill and that is the important thing. 
I think I should conclude by saying to Ngati Awa that the National Party wishes the iwi every success for the future. We are greatly encouraged by the way in which the plans for the future have been expressed to us and we would want to support Ngati Awa as New Zealanders as much as any others. We wish for them a governance structure that makes absolutely certain that the best of this asset will flow to the young people of Ngati Awa in the future. 
To those who took so many years to negotiate on behalf of the iwi I say that they certainly have my respect. It is no easy thing to dedicate years of one’s life to a cause that at times must have seemed distant and lost. Today must give great joy to the heart as it comes to fruition. But its fullest fruition will be seen in the many years ahead when the benefits flow to the people of Ngati Awa. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 E tikaakeano ki te mihi akeanoi a koutou ngatupakeke o Ngati Awa. Hirini koutou katoa. Ka nui te mihi. E tikaakeano ki te mihi akeano ki a ratoukareikonei ngameakua haere anake ki te wahimahana e mauakeano o tatou tupuna. Ki a koutou moto kaha rawa e mihi kauana. Tena koutou tena koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
It is apt that I acknowledge you once more the elders of Ngati Awa Hirini all of you. It is a huge privilege indeed. It is fitting as well to acknowledge those who are no longer here the ones who have merely gone on to the place that comforts our ancestors. I acknowledge the enormous effort that you have all contributed. Well done and greetings to you all 
.] 
I stand here today in support of the third reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngati Awa regarding the final settlement of all Ngati Awa historical claims. The preamble to the bill sets out an agreed historical background. It also includes an acknowledgment of treaty breaches and sets out the Crown apology for those breaches. 
The history of the Ngati Awa claim has already been well documented by my colleague the Hon Mark Burton and I thank him for the effort he has put into his new role in the short time he has held it. I also acknowledge yourself Madam Speaker at this stage just in case I forget for the effort you have put in and for the steadfastness you have shown in coming through this. I acknowledge my colleague Mita Ririnui who is overseas and cannot be here today and sends his best wishes. I acknowledge all those colleagues who supported the great achievements yesterday in this House especially my Maori colleagues; I mihi to them. 
In the bill the Crown acknowledges that the confiscation of approximately 250000 acres of land rendered Ngati Awa virtually landless. This constituted an injustice and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the 19th century in particular the treaty was breached with monotonous regularity by New Zealand Governments. Not merely was there a failure to exercise protection; the Crown was at times at the forefront of the process of dispossessing Maori of their language lands culture and much less. 
This Government recognises that putting right these grievances acknowledging wrongs and providing redress is a necessary phase of our history and of moving forward. It is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Awa for all the prejudice and loss they suffered. Settlements must take account of other developments and commitments in our society today. 
It is to the credit of Ngati Awa that they have negotiated with the Crown on the basis of those wider interests. Settlement in the bill includes financial redress of $42.39 million. In addition it recognises that Ngati Awa has traditional historical cultural and spiritual associations with particular places and sites. The bill enables Ngati Awa therefore to exercise kaitiakitanga over those sites and to also take advantage of any commercial management opportunities. 
I would like to commend the Maori Affairs Committee for its thorough examination of the bill and for its commitment to reporting the bill back to the House within a concise 5-month time frame and I commend all of those officials who have supported this historic journey. I congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee on reporting the bill back to this House through the medium of te reo Maori; a recognised language in this House that some people struggle with and get nervous about. I want to say that quite clearly because Ngati Awa people have held on to their language with no help from the Government or from anybody else and the strength in it is recognised. It is as strong as the tenacity that they have shown in the journey towards finalising this settlement on behalf of all their people. This is a significant action particularly when we consider that the Maori language itself was the subject of a landmark claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. That claim resulted in te reo Maori being recognised. 
This bill is not solely about completing a treaty settlement; it is also about building and maintaining the capability of Ngati Awa and ensuring sustainable success in relation to contemporary times. The gathering at the Hui Taumata saw that and I am amazed at times when people discuss the exemption or the ability in relation to governance and management of groups like Ngati Awa. I can certainly assure people that they are more than able to look after their affairs by themselves for themselves and that the Government is sometimes nothing but a conduit to help move them forward which is all it should be. But certainly when nonsense pervades this House in the sense of trying to say that we should study it through exemption because those people are incapable let us wake up and smell the roses. 
The bill strengthens the relationship that exists between the Crown and Ngati Awa. The Ngati Awa people have shown good faith. On this great day which celebrates the great ancestor of people like Mr Brownlee—St Patrick’s Day; the spirit of the Irish— I say that it is fascinating when people say: “Make the Maoris behave themselves and let’s all live like Maori or New Zealanders.” That is right! But when I say to the Scots and the Irish: “Let you all be English.” they get nervous and they stutter. They do not like it and I wonder why. But it is about redress it is about their history and it is about their culture. 
Being a Maori from a small place called Mangatuna I recognise that the Irish will get drunk in the streets of this country and will drink green ale today but they will also celebrate their eponymous ancestor St Patrick. Toroa who is these people’s ancestor and the great people who brought their waka Mataatua here have a lot to celebrate this evening and it is timely that it is on the same day as other people in another country a long long way from here still celebrate their cultural connection their roots and their great ancestor. 
So on behalf of all Maori can I mihi to all the Irish and wish them well for today. I tell them to celebrate widely and I ask the police not to lock them up just because they are merrymaking. I say to the Ngati Awa people that they should remember that on this day that the Irish celebrate they have a lot more to celebrate. I thank my colleagues for supporting the bill. Kia ora. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
:  
A e nga rangatira ngakaikawe o tenei kaupapa moNgati Awa e karama e kuima koutou i haere mai i te hau kainga o Ngati Awa mai hoki i te maru o te maunga tapu a Putauaki na reira haere mai haere mai haere mai. Haere mai ki tenei Whare. Ka kite mai i a koutou te puawaitanga o tera o ngakakanoito mai iera o ngamatua ngatupunanoterarautau. Na reira tena hoki koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Welcome to you the chiefs to those who negotiated this settlement on behalf of Ngati Awa and also to the elderly men and womenfolk. You have come from your home winds and from the sheltering mantle of the sacred mountain Putauaki. Welcome welcome. Welcome to this House. To see you all means that you have brought to fruition one of those seeds that the elders and ancestors of the past sowed last century 
.]  
On behalf of New Zealand First—and I reiterate the point that we are the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the third reading of this bill. This bill will see the culmination of what has been a long and arduous period of endeavour for the people of Ngati Awa towards a satisfactory claims settlement. The bill records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngati Awa the detail of which is articulated in the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003 and it gives effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Ngati Awa. It also passes governance responsibility of the assets from this settlement to the entity that the majority of the people of Ngati Awa have indicated support for. We note that the level of support was deemed sufficient by Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to proceed with the signing of the deed. New Zealand First supports the timely and satisfactory settlement of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal whether by way of hearing or by way of direct negotiation. This bill is the outcome of an agreement reached by Ngati Awa and the Crown. 
Yesterday when this House debated the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill a concern was expressed by a member for the ACT party with regard to the apparent absence of any list of rules that the new governance body would be required to follow. It was his view that in the absence of such a document there remained a real possibility that the legislation could lead to further claims which would thus put into question the durability of the present settlement. I want to assure that member that the Maori Affairs Committee would not have allowed the bill to proceed to the stage it has reached today without first sighting the charter and being satisfied that Ngati Awa themselves have resolved to adopt such a charter. 
Although New Zealand First does not support the reason given by the ACT member to question the durability of this settlement we also question its durability but for different reasons. As a consequence New Zealand First cannot lend its support to this bill in its present form. We have two reasons notwithstanding the desire and consent of Ngati Awa. The first reason is with regard to clause 13(3)(a) which defines the “hapu of Ngati Awa”. In particular I refer to those hapu identified in the bill as “Ngati Awa ki TamakiMakaurau” and “Ngati Awa ki Poneke”. New Zealand First believes that the inclusion of those two entities as “hapu” for the purposes of this bill is outside the traditional concept of what establishes or creates a hapu. It is well known that the social structure of Maori is made up of whanau hapu which is a number of whanau and iwi which is an amalgam of hapu that have a common ancestor. In the case of both those hapu we are advised that their members descend from both the other hapu and iwi ancestors of Ngati Awa. Essentially this Parliament is being asked to include them in this bill to ensure that those members of Ngati Awa living in Tamaki and Poneke are assured access to the benefits that this settlement will bring to Ngati Awa. 
During the submission process one submitter pointed out that every member registered to those two hapu held whakapapa links back to their traditional hapu within the Ngati Awa tribal area in the same way as do other Ngati Awa descendents who are resident elsewhere in the world. Notwithstanding the rationale for including those two hapu in the bill and in particular the wish of Ngati Awa it is important to remember the following points. Firstly the establishment of those hapu can be regarded as a creation of expediency and convenience. Secondly should Parliament be vested with the authority to create new hapu? Thirdly what of other Ngati Awa descendents living elsewhere in the world? Why should they be expected to connect with their hapu at home while residents in TamakiMakaurau and Poneke have the convenience and even the choice to connect with either? 
New Zealand First acknowledges the intent of Ngati Awa to have a governance structure that ensures that their people can easily access the benefits of their settlement with the Crown but we do not believe that what is proposed is a matter for this House or indeed for the Crown. Of further concern to New Zealand First is our belief that to legislate for the creation of hapu as proposed will pose the question some time in the future as to whether the Crown can legislate for the creation of hapu over and above the traditional Maori social structure as determined by tikanga Maori. If it cannot why was this allowed to happen when so many Maori MPs are in Parliament at this time? The creation of hapu as proposed in this bill is not the responsibility of Parliament nor should it be. Its inclusion in this bill is not essential and if it were to be excluded it would not affect the settlement or its durability. Furthermore Ngati Awa could still include those groups if they so wanted. It is their business and theirs alone. 
I want the record to show that the following Maori MPs all members of the New Zealand First caucus do not accept the right or authority of this House and indeed the Crown and its bureaucracy to legislate for the creation of hapu: the Rt Hon Winston Peters Ron Mark Jim Peters Bill Gudgeon Edwin Perry and Pita Paraone. What is more concerning is that I know that a number of Maori MPs on the other side of the House agree with us but for reasons known only to them they have decided to remain silent. 
The second reason that New Zealand First will not support this bill is the inclusion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Although I have articulated New Zealand First’s concerns on previous occasions I think it is important to reiterate those relevant to our doubt about the durability of the settlement. This settlement can still proceed without those words. We believe that their inclusion affects the possible durability of this settlement. I also point out to this House that it was suggested that those words—“the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—be included in the Foreshore and Seabed Act and that it was at New Zealand First’s insistence that they were removed. 
I need to ask where the principles of this Government were in relation to a bill that it perceived to be of such importance to this nation that it was quite happy to exclude those very words. Yet in this settlement it is quite happy to include them which puts into question and doubt the possible durability of this settlement. We believe that the retention of those words will jeopardise the durability of this settlement. 
In conclusion I offer these words to the present and future leadership of Ngati Awa: today they begin a new journey that will require them to lead their people to economic and social destinations some of which they may never have been to before. I tell them never to forget to look behind them from time to time to ensure that the people they lead are still there. 
No reira e Ngati Awa haere irungai te huarahi iwhakapaihakapaiera o ngamatuatupuna iwhakatimata mai tenei kaupapa. Kuapuawai te kakanoiwhakatongia e ratoumo koutou me ngatupuranga kei te heke mai. Na reira tena koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
So to you Ngati Awa go forth on the path that those ancestors who began this settlement process cleared for you. The seed that they planted for you and the coming generations has blossomed. Congratulations 
.]  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 May I say first that I am a bit of a stickler for the rules so I find it rather difficult to see members making speeches to the galleries which is against the rules. At the same time I can see why members are doing so: this is a historic settlement. Perhaps I can skate round the rules and say that I too wish that Ngati Awa will do well. This is a substantial settlement of I think over $40 million. Not only is that the case but it also includes some land and the bill provides—for the first time I think in one of these settlements—a right to a marine quota so the total value will rise in the future. As people tend to look back at these speeches in the  
Hansard 
 let me acknowledge—and in this respect make it unanimous in the Parliament—that what happened to Ngati Awa was a disgrace. There is no doubt about that. For the Crown to have declared people to be rebels when they were not is one of those things that I guess one cannot apologise for often enough. The ACT party acknowledges that although in fairness one has to point out that previous Parliaments have acknowledged that there was a grievous wrong and have made attempts—generous by the standards of those times; we should not measure them by today’s standards—at settlement. 
At this point I say that I wish the people of Ngati Awa well. They come from the Bay of Plenty. They are a people with considerable resources and with the amount of money in this settlement I hope they will do well. There has been criticism of comments I made yesterday. I am afraid I still think those comments are accurate. Indeed I have been informed since then that the reason this settlement came before us as a private bill rather than a public bill is that civil servants also pointed out that the legislative structure the Crown was putting in place for Ngati Awa to administer this $40 million was woefully inadequate. We pass protections for beneficiaries infants and the like with regard to assets yet in this area we have failed to do so. I do think that that is a possible future grievance so I have some doubts as to whether this bill will turn out to be a permanent settlement. 
I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the New Zealand First member Mr Paraone who said things that I think have a great deal of merit. How on earth can this Parliament start to define different hapu in a bill of this sort? One becomes extremely suspicious about that. I was a Minister when this treaty process first started; in fact I was the Minister who had to do some of the original negotiations. I started from a point of not having as much knowledge as one would like and I remember asking the officials how many iwi the Government believed there were in New Zealand. The first answer I got was that it was the same as the number of canoes plus one iwi that came down in a ball of fire. I was later told that there were 24 iwi. Then the number went up to 48 and by the time I finished as a Minister the Crown was recognising 120 iwi. Now it seems that the inflation of the number of iwi will become an inflation of the number of hapu. That is not an area where the Crown ought to be going and it is certainly not something we should put into statute law. 
That raises an objection of the ACT party to this process—an objection we have made in relation to every claim settlement. This process is actually an abrogation of Parliament’s rights. The Crown puts forward these bills and then says to the House that they cannot be amended in any way. As a parliamentarian I object to that. When we see in these bills measures that are contrary to public policy we are prevented by that ruling from making amendments. If New Zealand First had been able to put forward the amendment it suggested I certainly would have supported it and perhaps a majority of the members of the House would have realised that there was a mistake. But instead we have bills put forward in this way. I say with the greatest of respect to Mr Brownlee that National and Labour the two old parties have formed a club on these settlements. The speeches we are hearing today are no different from the speeches we heard when National was in charge. I objected to the process when National was putting such settlements forward and I still object to it now that Labour is putting them forward. 
I now turn to another criticism that New Zealand First and the ACT party have in common. I point out that the ACT party has actually raised this objection for longer than New Zealand First has but I am glad to have the support of Mr Peters. We object to the phrase “principles of the treaty”. It is a meaningless phrase. It has caused enormous difficulty to the courts which are unable to interpret it. There is now a growing body of academic literature that criticises this House for passing bills containing that phrase undefined and turning over to the courts a matter that is for Parliament to determine. That is why the ACT party has never voted for a bill that contains the phrase “principles of the treaty”. We have two members’ bills—and I think Mr Peters has one—to try to define clauses that contain that phrase. I have listened to Mr Peters and other members asking in vain for Government members to define what those clauses mean.They have refused to do so and we as legislators should not pass a clause when no member of the Government is able to tell us what it means. That is a further reason why we will not be able to vote for this bill. 
I come now to another matter which Mr Stephen Franks drew to the attention of members at the Committee stage. Again it is very bad lawmaking. Part 4 of the bill requires the Environment Court and other Government agencies to give recognition to spiritual values. We do not know what they are; no one knows what they are. The Environment Court then gets claims regarding taniwha and the like. In a secular State even one that respects religion those sorts of phrases should not be contained in legislation. For that reason we will vote against this bill. 
Having said all that I still wish the people of Ngati Awa all the best with regard to their claim—and that does not come from a desire to get a new job. I just want them to do well. I hope that they will be able to manage the settlement well that it will enable the grievances of the past to be put behind us and that it will turn out to be a very good thing for Ngati Awa and the people of the Bay of Plenty. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 He mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa Ngati Awa. 
[ 
A fond greeting to all of you Ngati Awa. 
] 
The direct negotiations or deals for Ngati Awa are just about over. With the passing of this bill Ngati Awa will complete their settlement and with the establishment of the runanga yesterday will be able to pursue their interests independently without any further interference from the Government. 
The Greens understand that there was little negotiation with the Crown over the amount of financial compensation eventually provided for in the settlement. Ngati Awa presented its views and the Crown came back with its own non-negotiable quantum. It is worth noting for the nation as a whole that Ngati Awa are owed about 68000 hectares of land a situation arising from the historical confiscations and wrongful takings of the past. Under this settlement Ngati Awa will be returned only about 64 hectares of that 68000 hectares still owed. That is less than 0.1 percent of what was taken from them. All New Zealanders should be filled with immense gratitude at the considerable generosity of Ngati Awa in that respect. 
For that the Greens sincerely congratulate Ngati Awa. Ngati Awa have been in negotiations with various Governments of various flavours since 1980. It is a settlement that has been 25 years in the making with 10 of those years spent in the direct negotiations process. On reflection the constant calls by some political factions on both sides of this House that the settlement process should be sped up and capped is entirely bizarre. Of course it should not take an iwi 25 years to negotiate a settlement especially one that does not return much more than the smallest possible fraction of the massive quantity of property and taonga that was illegally taken. Of course restitution to iwi for the loss of life hardship and injustice suffered by them at the hands of the State should occur swiftly without delay and without undue cost to them the aggrieved party. Perhaps if the negotiations process was a just process whereby iwi and hapu determined and actively agreed to the restitution process it would never have taken 25 years for Ngati Awa to achieve their compensation. 
We have to remember that it is the Government’s unilateral process that holds up settlements. It is the agonising pauperising of the iwi whose funding is contestable and too hard fought for and who have to borrow against their meagre restitution that holds up settlements. It is the unreasonable demands of the Office of Treaty Settlements which puts its policies before the interests of iwi that hold up the settlement process. On no account should any iwi or hapu be undermined by let alone held responsible for the failure of the direct negotiations process to operate swiftly and effectively. That responsibility lies directly within the sphere of the successive Labour and National Governments that devised it. 
I will also talk very briefly about independence. Yesterday Mr Prebble criticised the runanga structure for not fitting his view of having appropriate trust accountability. He is entitled to his view but it is a shame he holds it because he is wrong. He and others in this House forget that this restitution—the lands rights properties and money that will be returned to Ngati Awa—belongs to them collectively as their collective property. Frankly they can do with it what they want. They do not owe anyone but each other. They are not accountable to the country or the public—only to themselves and their mokopuna. Their lands and taonga were stripped off them in the name of New Zealand as a whole. Restitution has now been made on behalf of New Zealand as a whole. Any interest by New Zealanders in Ngati Awa’s financial affairs now ends. We now owe it to Ngati Awa to leave them alone to pursue their interests and needs. 
The Greens are highly critical of the settlement process—that will come as no surprise to anyone—when iwi have no authority over it. We understand that the necessary boundaries in a negotiation should be jointly negotiated if they are to be fair but in the settlement process that has simply not been the case. The Government has set its policy with a “take it or leave it” approach. In our view it is not fair negotiation but unmanaged bullying. The principles of fairness and justice that supposedly guide the settlement process are not a true reflection of it. It is a political process in which the Crown sets the framework and Maori are continually expected to compromise. 
We are very pleased that Ngati Awa have as part of their settlement a number of statutory acknowledgements deeds of recognition protocols place name changes and transferred sites. But the cultural redress package and its protocols and advisory committees is a poor substitute for the recognition of the treaty relationship which in the end is the only means by which true restoration for the breaches of te tiriti can ever be restored. Providing for Ngati Awa to express its views to Ministers on various issues gives very little practical effect to te tiriti and simply waters it down. The breaches of te tiriti involve the stripping from Maori of any real self-determination. Nothing has been done in this country to resolve that and in fact the opposite continues to occur. 
At the first reading of this bill some months ago the House was considering the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. At the same time that we were considering the Ngati Awa legislation and the compensation being offered to Ngati Awa for the unlawful taking of their lands other legislation was proceeding that I signalled would again wrongfully confiscate land within the rohe of Ngati Awa. Politicians on both sides of the House who argue for a time limit on the settlement process or who either directly or indirectly blame iwi or hapu for their struggle in trying to achieve some compensation for the crimes committed against them surely see the absurdity of their position. If they do not want the settlement of grievances to continue they should stop stealing Maori land and thereby creating those exact grievances for the future. It is not exactly rocket science. 
The Greens acknowledge that this settlement is the best that Ngati Awa could have secured under the current settlement policy and we sincerely congratulate Ngati Awa on pursuing that restitution through a demanding and unjust process. We acknowledge that the settlement provides a measure of independence for Ngati Awa and we are very grateful for their tenacity and generosity to our country. The Green Party wishes Ngati Awa the very best for the future. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to greet the Ngati Awa representatives who have joined us here this afternoon and to support the third reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. The bill records the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Ngati Awa and it mandates the settlement of historical claims as agreed by the Crown and Ngati Awa. 
After reading the agreed-upon historical account I have to say that what I found most devastating was the fact that generations have missed out on the use of substantial resources because of a death that was severely dealt with at the time with multiple arrests two trials imprisonment and execution. Therefore setting the record straight and cultural redress are as important as the financial and commercial issues. The responsibility of the runanga to manage the resources from the settlement which we do need to acknowledge can never be truly full on behalf of all Ngati Awa is an awesome challenge. 
I hope and pray that those charged with this opportunity do so mindful of those who looked forward to this day but never lived to realise it. The real challenge is not just what happens in the next few years but to invest in such a way as to have the effects of the decisions felt by grateful lives in two to three generations from now. Thinking and acting with an intergenerational mindset takes a lot more courage than any quick-fix short-term approach would require. However on that matter United Future feels confident that the intergenerational journey that brought Ngati Awa to this point today will continue to serve them as they plot a way forward. 
We congratulate Ngati Awa today on their determination their patience their hard work and their graciousness regarding this settlement. It is with great pleasure that we support the third reading of this bill. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Before I start I crave your indulgence. I understand that under the Standing Orders the use of “you” relates to speaking directly to the Chair but we do have a customary practice of acknowledging the people; otherwise if we speak with our back to them they are reduced to the mere presence of kehua [spirits] which they are not. Thank you. 
A tenaanotatau te iti me te rahi me te katoa. Koutou e kopekopeano mai kai roto itenei Whare iraroi te tahukorero mai raanoirungai te tikanga e whakapuaki mai i te taha a ratau me te taha o tataunei. No reira tena koutou. 
[ 
And greetings once again to us all and everyone else in our various roles. Regardless of our Standing Orders about addressing each other I seek your indulgence to address the people directly. Greetings 
.]  
I do not want to make you hoha because we did have a go at doing that yesterday but I do want to look at some of the ingredients that relate to you being here. Firstly I think we need to pay proper homage to those people who are not here. A 
rataurakuatimataai o rataunapikitangairungainga taumata ki te matotoru me te nuinga o tataunei. 
 [ 
A vast number and a majority of us have begun the climb to the tops. 
] 
So I think we need to do that in a way that remembers their contribution—not just to state that they are not here but to say also that they probably like other members of other iwis who have been before us will celebrate the whakatutukitanga o tatauneihiahiatanga kei roto i te Whare Paremata ahakoangakorerowhakapuaki mai e etehi o nga mema ki te whakahe mai i o koutou neiwhakaaro kei roto i te pirenei. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
and to express what we want ourselves in Parliament regardless of the views expressed by some members who oppose your thoughts in this bill. 
] 
So to all the people who were originally part of the Ngati Awa whanui [ 
greater Ngati Awa 
] who are not here a mihi atu. [ 
I acknowledge you. 
] We all have those pou tangata pouwahine [ 
mighty men and women 
] who over time are no longer with us and we need to pay that respect because they constituted the generation before you all who sit here and they probably in their own way burnt the most kei roto o rataunei wairua. [ 
of what was inside of them spiritually.] 
 I now want to talk about the statements about this journey that is taking place. Kei roto i te reo Maori kuatimatangahikoitangairungai te ara e kore e mutu. 
[ 
To say it in Maori the walk upon the road that has no ending has started. 
] 
This is not about an ending. It is not even about a beginning I suppose in terms of te ao hou [ 
the modern world 
] it is about the continuation of the aspirations of your people with respect to what is happening today. 
I do also seeing I am a keen student of history take issue with my honourable colleague Parekura Horomia. He mentioned that we are celebrating St Patrick’s day and said that St Patrick himself was an Irish eponymous ancestor. Well he was not. He was actually a Scotsman. I am very very aware of who the eponymous ancestor of Ngati Awa is however as there is a certain relationship between our ancestor Awanuiaorangi. 
So having set that aside I want to address another dimension which I do not think has been addressed with any fullness so far. Given everything that has happened both in the past and in the present is it nothing less than a minor miracle that Ngati Awa representatives are here at all. Because when we talk about the treaty partnership that in itself on one level tends to disguise a whole range of other essential qualities that are missing. Let me first of all visit the word “trust”. It is an extraordinarily difficult challenge for the tribe hapu and whanau who suffered a huge consequence of a historical misdeed or breach to then be able to and be expected to demonstrate trust in the Crown. I find that to be as a claimant an almost insurmountable hurdle. Because in order to establish that trust between two at some times adversarial groups there must be some demonstration of goodwill. So to arrive at the stage where we are now kei te noho koutou kei konei [ 
you are here 
] would have required the group that was appointed as negotiators to get above and beyond that which caused the haehaetanga o te whatumana [ 
feelings to be divided 
] 
in order to engage in a process that could be seen to be extraordinarily difficult and at times overwhelming. So from that point of view I congratulate the representatives on being able to get to a stage where in spite of the piki me ngaheke [ 
ups and downs 
] 
they can at last engage with regard to the resolution of a historical grievance. 
I listened with some intent to a speaker who said we have some difficulty with the expanding number of iwi and hapu. There were different numbers when he initially had charge of the process and I am thankful it is not current any more. Now the state of that knowledge is not actually our fault because we are very sure about how many hapu we have how many iwi we have and how many waka we have which is not just seven. So that becomes part of an accepted mythology if one likes about the reality that other people paint for us. So this journey highlights that it is not about conforming to the edict “go forth and multiply” but rather that some credence should be paid to the fact that we do have what we say we do have. In that regard the fact that we have packets of settlements that apply to Ngati Awa kia ora koutou [ 
well done 
] whether it is above the sea below the sea or on the land—it is just a little part of the original estate that was confiscated. 
I wish Ngati Awa well. I totally support the idea that you are going to be the navigators of your own destiny unfettered and untrammelled. As I have found out in my experience there is nothing like being totally responsible to Maori beneficiaries. It is not by any means of the imagination an enviable task. So those people who find themselves at the helm kei te kei o te waka [ 
at the helm of the canoe 
] the responsibility that is inherent in that is absolutely awesome and absolutely demanding and sometimes one thinks: “Is it worthwhile doing?”. So Ngati Awa na koutou katoa tena koutou. [ 
it is all yours congratulations. 
] 
I shall leave the closing address from our party to the eloquence of John Tamihere. I wish Ngati Awa well in their ongoing journey. Kia ora mai tatau katoa. 
[ 
Good health to all of us 
. 
] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
:  
E Putauaki e mihi nei ki a koe me touake mana mai i te maunga o Tongariro. Nga mihi whanui ki a koutou e Ngati Awa hurinoa ki a ratoukuangaro atu me koutou e noho mai neiitenei Whare. E mihi nei ki a koutou ki a tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Putauaki 
 I Tongariro greet you and your very own mana. Greetings to you Ngati Awa to those of you present in this House including those who have gone from us. I greet you and all of us as well 
.] 
I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. It is a very important thing that we in this Parliament do today. With the passing into law of this bill we will put the legislative stamp on the settlement that Ngati Awa have negotiated with the Government in satisfaction of their claims under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
This is an important act in itself by this Parliament but more important is the significance of the action. With the passage of the bill into law this Parliament gives vindication to those grievances that Ngati Awa have sought to set right for generations—indeed since 1866—when wrongly they suffered raupatu at the hands of the then Government who declared them also to be rebels in their own lands and when they consequently suffered the alienating circumstances that flowed from that action. 
This Parliament salutes Ngati Awa for their fortitude doggedness application to principle and what was tika despite rejection by successive Governments. I trust that by this action today a sense of justice is restored to Ngati Awa—a feeling that the might of the institutions of the law and the Government can be extended to them when it is right and proper to do so. That is a legitimate right of every New Zealander not least of Ngati Awa. 
The other side of the equation is that we the current parliamentarians by our action today go some way to restoring the honour of the Crown and that is important. We can speak of the mana of Ngati Awa and their status in this place and this land but we must also be mindful that by the steps we take today we also restore the honour of the Crown. 
New Zealand is a country that prides itself on having one standard of citizenship. The injustices suffered by Ngati Awa fly in the face of that principle and that is why it is so important that we as a nation commit and devote our energy and resources to bringing forward the truth of that principle: equality before the law for all New Zealanders not least Maori and not least Ngati Awa. 
I want to comment on an issue that was raised by an earlier speaker. Although Ngati Awa are entitled to formulate the settlement according to their preference and on their own terms we recognise that that is their right and that that is an exercise of their rangatiratanga. But in this respect I do to a degree support the issue raised by the member Pita Paraone so I just ask the question—and it is not to be answered today—of whether Parliament should be asked to legislate for new hapu. If Ngati Awa wish to recognise their own because that is their right to do so why then should Parliament be asked to put a legal stamp on that if indeed there is some other way of allowing them to recognise their own without this Parliament having to put it into the law? 
The other matter I will comment on is an issue raised by the Hon Richard Prebble who talked about the insertion into legislation of the notion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. He might reflect on the fact that it was a Labour Government in 1975 that first introduced that notion into legislation with the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. I am not sure whether he indeed was a member of that Government at that time. Be that as it may it is a fact today that that notion that principle that statement—that is the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—has come into much disrepute. 
It may be the fact that New Zealand First has today for the very first time voted against a settlement bill that might prompt the Minister to give some thought as to whether future settlement entities wishing to use that statement will perhaps find another way to do it rather than to have it inserted into an Act of Parliament. It is the case that settlements really do need the almost universal support of this Parliament. So it is a disappointment given that the ACT party as far as I am aware has never supported a settlement bill that now another of the political parties is doing the same thing. 
Having said all that though I affirm that this is Ngati Awa’s day. It is good to see them in full force sitting in the gallery. Indeed it fills a person with much arohanui for their 14 years of negotiation and especially for those who have passed on in the hope of seeing this day come. Again I congratulate Ngati Awa. 
I think that we in New Zealand are very fortunate that we have found a way to resolve matters of this nature. We look across the Tasman to our Australian cousins. They clearly have some difficulties with issues concerning the first people of that land. Here in New Zealand we have devised a process a framework that is not perfect by any means but by which we can steadily work our way through these matters with a certain amount of dignity and certainly with a lot of good faith. 
It takes a bold and courageous step for a tribe finally to settle its grievances and look forward to the future. Slowly but surely and hopefully in a more timely fashion under the new Minister we will see more of these settlements occurring. Fortunately they are occurring against the backdrop of a great renaissance of Maori pride Maori culture and Maori entrepreneurship. We should all be very pleased about that. 
Madam Speaker of course has had a part to play in this process. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Doug Graham although when I salute him and the efforts he put into this settlement the issue is again highlighted that the Ngati Awa settlement has indeed been under negotiation for quite some time. 
I give my congratulations to Ngati Awa. I wish them all the best—and I wish us all the best—for the future. Ngati Awa has already started to move forward; they have not just been waiting for this settlement which is good. Clearly this settlement will add to the initiatives they already have in place and we can look forward to a better future for them. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—TamakiMakaurau) 
: 
 E te rangatira rongonui a Hirini me te whanui o koutou a Ngati Awa kai te mihi kai te mihi kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi imihia e Parekura raua ko Mahara mo o koutou tupuna a moe mai moe mai i te moengaroa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To you Hirini the well-respected chief and to you the multitude of Ngati Awa greetings greetings and important greetings to you. I endorse the tributes accorded to your ancestors by Parekura Horomia and Mahara Okeroa. Rest there the ancestors. Slumber on and sleep the long sleep 
.]  
I want to commend the last speaker. It is most regrettable that Georgina te Heuheu is no longer the Opposition spokesperson on Maori Affairs. Her contribution was a marvellous contribution unlike the one made by her colleague. 
Before I turn to the bill and commend it to the House I want to comment on some of the gratuitous contributions that have been made by colleagues opposite. I tried as hard as I could to be awfully commending of the contribution made by the National Party’s spokesperson on Maori Affairs in the House today. However if I were to commend him for it I would be breaching the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings and I do not want to mislead the House. The reality is try as hard as I might to defend the terrible comments made about him by the president of the ACT party I do think that he is a bright bulb on a very dim tree. So to that extent I want to acknowledge him. I also want to note very carefully that his knowledge of treaty jurisprudence is somewhat strange if not interesting. I strongly commend to him a seminar to be conducted by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu so he can be upgraded in his knowledge of the principle of partnership that has been clearly asserted with regard to treaty relationships by the Hon Doug Graham leading directly on to the evolution of treaty jurisprudence. 
I now turn to the position that New Zealand First has taken. Its approach is absolutely shameful and I can say only that it is an election year stunt. The reality is that Pita Paraone has made much ado out of chairing the Treaty of Waitangi commemoration committee in Waitangi. Today he stood up in this House and said—and I am sure Kawiti a signatory of the treaty must be turning in his grave to hear one of his uri say this—that he would not support the principles of the treaty. It is an outrage. Furthermore I say to Mr Paraone that it is not for Nga Puhi to stand up here and to tell Ngati Awa what to do. I can assure members that when NgaPuhi’s treaty settlement comes into this House Ngati Awa will not be in here banging away. The reality is that they will determine their hapu and their destiny. It will not be that member or any other person from the north who will do so—notwithstanding that rumour has it the member is somewhat related. As for the contribution from the ACT party—well that is a 1-minute silence. That party will be gone in 6 months. 
I now want to acknowledge the contribution made by Metiria Turei in the Maori Affairs Committee when she is here. It is always good to know that there is somebody who lives in a perfect world and who has a total perfect world view of how things should be. She is wonderful at making those sorts of contributions but I regret to say that the world does not work in that way. 
I commend first you Madam Speaker—prior to this incarnation that we see today—and acknowledge the significant work you have put in over the last 4½ to 5 years to a huge number of treaty settlements that are nearing closure. I also acknowledge the fine work done by the Hon Mark Burton in taking over and filling some rather big shoes. Georgina te Heuheu acknowledged that work and I support that. 
Of course I must make a comment about the Maori Party— 
Pita Paraone 
: Why? She’s not here! 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The reason I have to is that I do not know what the policy of the Maori Party is. At least I know New Zealand First will vote against the bill. That party has six Maori members but normally only Winston Peters is allowed to talk. But we do not know what the policy of the Maori Party is on treaty settlements. We do not know anything about the Maori Party. However we do know that a Labour Government delivers and continues to deliver to Maori communities whether in education in health or in here with our fingerprints all over this closure. Was it tortuous? Was it difficult? Yes it was. Is it hitting closure today? Yes it is. It is another delivery mechanism. As a consequence I want to commend Parekura Horomia for championing the entity bill for Ngati Awa. 
I commend the bill and I now pay a special tribute of acknowledgment to Ngati Awa. On a number of occasions I had the opportunity to hear some of the submissions they made at the tribunal. I regret that a lot of their leaders and elders are not here today to witness this closure. We acknowledge them and remember them. However I do say that they are one of the iwi contrary to what Mr Richard Prebble might say that are led by people of significant integrity and credibility. They will be sustainable and they will go forth and as Mahara Okeroa said multiply. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I first of all want to acknowledge the people of Ngati Awa today. I realise this is a historic day for them and that they have fought hard over literally decades to achieve this settlement. But I also want to express my surprise at that bitter speech made by a former Minister of Maori Affairs. I have to say that speeches like that will keep him “ex” for a very long long time. That was just an extraordinarily wasted opportunity when he could have lifted aspirations and tones but instead lost that opportunity. I think that is fundamentally why Labour will lose the confidence of Maori voters up and down this country. In fact the risk is that the member will not be just a former Minister but will be a former member of Parliament as he gets booted out by the Maori voters in his electorate. 
I would like to turn my attention to firstly the fundamental goals of settlement. What are they? Why do we do this as a nation? It is hugely important that we recognise that we are doing these settlements as a nation and that it is no accident that when Governments either Labour or National enter into settlements we refer to the “Crown”. It is done quite deliberately because the settlements are intended to endure across generations. The integrity and honour of the Crown is placed on the record as a commitment by the people of this nation—both Maori and Pakeha—that these are solemn testaments to be honoured not just by the Crown but also by the Maori claimants and that they are enduring permanent and final settlements. The words are not just put in there as a kind of cosmetic dressing. When it is said that the settlements are final and when the claimants go through a very considered process of ratification consultation and so forth that is intended to be an enduring commitment not just for the current generation but also for future generations. We are settling our history in these claims; we are settling our past. We do that by recording the history. There will always be some disputes I acknowledge as to what happened who did what and whether something is a true and an accurate reflection of what occurred. Perhaps we should not get too bound up in such detail when deciding whether we support a settlement because what we are supposed to be doing is looking forward. 
I do want to note the comment made by Mr Shane Jones who I am sure will be a member of Parliament within a few months—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Dave Hereora and a number of other members on the Labour side will be displaced. The Labour Government will promote Mr Shane Jones and a number of current Labour members of Parliament should be looking in the “Situations Vacant” column. Mr Shane Jones made it very clear that these settlements are actually a 20th century business and that for the 21st century the aspirations of our country and of all the peoples in it should be to look forward. I thought the whole process of the Hui Taumata was very significant because of the way in which unlike the situation in 1984 there was much less focus on the problems of the past and much more focus on self-autonomy going into the future. Labour does not really understand what happened there ironically. Labour does not quite get it because Maori have signalled to Labour that they want to escape the clutches of dependency. They want to escape the clutches of the State and of social welfare and to build autonomy and independence— 
Ron Mark 
: And self-respect. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —and self-respect because progress does depend on self-respect both as a people and as individuals. 
I also want to say some other things about the nature of these settlements. This issue is not quite as evident in this bill as it is in the upcoming NgatiTuwharetoa bill and it is the issue about how we cast our legislation. I have looked at the legislation for Tainui for NgaiTahu and for a number of other settlements and what I see is a creeping insertion into our legislation of reference initially just to the words “spiritual values”—nothing more than that. It does not go much further than that in this bill. But I have to note by reference to the NgatiTuwharetoa bill that there is a complete recitation there of the myths and legends of NgatiTuwharetoa. Now I do not deny that those are important to NgatiTuwharetoa but there is a reason why I am referring to that bill here today. I do not deny that those legends are important. They are important not just to NgatiTuwharetoa. Every young New Zealander needs to understand the myths about the volcanoes coming from Hawaiki and the legends around Ngauruhoe. But we would not expect to see that kind of reference then recorded in legislation. The reason I say that is that it is not the business of this House when passing public legislation the law of the land to put mythology into statute. They exist by their own force of creation and by the commitment in the hearts and the aroha of the people. 
 We are going into dangerous territory I believe when we start inserting into our legislation reference to those kinds of myths and legends. 
Why do I make that point? I make it because this nation is founded on the basis that we are all equal under the law and that we are a secular society. That does not mean to say that we are an irreligious society and it does not mean to say that we have no respect for religion. Obviously we do—this House starts each and every day with a prayer. What it does do however is to say that that belongs in the public domain—in the civil society. Each person and each group is free to practise their religion their beliefs and their fundamental driving forces. Those things are part of civil society and we have very deliberately kept that aspect out of our public laws. That is what it means to be a secular society. It is rooted in the idea of equality—that we will all be treated equally that we are all free to practise our religions and our beliefs and that the State does not prefer any particular religion or belief. That is what a secular society means; it does not mean that we are an irreligious society. I give notice to Government members that if they keep putting that kind of reference into legislation they will break the consensus that rests around settlements. 
I want to conclude on this point. These settlements are crucially dependent on consensus. They endure because they have a consensus on them both from Maori and the general community alike. When we make reference to the Crown in the settlements it signifies that we want them to endure and that they are intended to record our past and allow people to build for the future. I want to acknowledge that I wish the people of Ngati Awa well in the use of their settlement. I am sure it will build confidence in the iwi and will allow people to move past the events of the past and into development for the future. 
Rt Hon JONATHAN HUNT (Labour) 
: 
 I want to say very briefly that the aim of this bill is to record the acknowledgments and apology given by the Crown to Ngati Awa in the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003 between the Crown and Ngati Awa and to give effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed by the Crown and Ngati Awa in that deed. In all the time I have sat in this House I must say that this is a particularly proud moment for Ngati Awa and for the Minister the Hon Parekura Horomia and for those people involved in this bill. I wish everybody all the best for the future. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 19 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a third time.