Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16461] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is disappointing I must say that in the House today the Minister of Maori Affairs has remained sitting in his seat for the entire time. It is quite remarkable that the members of Parliament who were voted in here on a separate roll to represent the interests of Maori people remained silent through the entire debate. Frankly I find that that amounts to a vote of no confidence by the Government in its own team. Labour believes in— 
Hon Annette King 
: Mita spoke. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is correct. Mita Ririnui did speak—that is a fair point. 
It is remarkable that the Minister chooses not to take the call when this is the very time that one would expect him to do so. Instead we get the member from Otago who will not be here for very much longer. That may explain why he took the call—it is one of the few opportunities that he will get to speak. 
I wish to acknowledge the people of NgatiTuwharetoa from the Bay of Plenty because National supports the settlement of historic grievances. I hardly need to recite to this House or to the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa the importance that National places on settling historic grievances. I note that it was endorsed by Dr Brash in his now-famous speech given at Orewa earlier this year. 
I guess that is one thing that does set us apart from the ACT party. The ACT party customarily comes along in these kinds of debates and finds every reason to oppose settlements. It may have perhaps supported one in a third reading. Perhaps the Te Uri o Hau settlement may have been one occasion but as a general proposition it is very clear on where it stands. I acknowledge that Mr Franks is always a superb debater and makes it very clear where ACT stands. But to advance this nation we have to acknowledge the past and that does not just mean saying that we cannot know about it now therefore we will ignore it—it means addressing legitimate grievances. 
I might note that this settlement has its origins and indeed its settlement in Sir Douglas Graham’s work in 1998. 
I will turn to the issue of overlapping claims. It has been raised by my colleague MrRyall and more particularly by the deputy leader of the National Party Mr Gerry Brownlee. There are a number of facets that relate to it. One of those of course is not something that anyone envisaged some 10 or 15 years ago. In 21st century New Zealand society people have many different origins—all of us—because we are a highly mobile nation. People move around the country. Whereas 100 years ago it was relatively unusual—not so common—for Maori people to have multiple ancestries today that would be the norm. It has never been an issue in the past but Ngai Tahu raised a very serious question earlier this year. It is the prospect that Ngai Tahu may due to the size of its settlement and its general success in relation to it pay a dividend to each and every one of its beneficiaries—just as if they were shareholders in a public company. That is the prospect that Ngai Tahu has raised. Other iwi have not done that yet but I suggest that in due course they will arrive at that point.  
The question is about what happens to the people—relatively few I suspect—who are largely Ngai Tahu by descent and whakapapa compared with the person or family with many different iwi genealogies within the family line. Does the family with essentially one descent in whakapapa terms just get one beneficiary benefit or dividend and those with multiple descents get multiple cheques over time? As I say that is not an issue that has ever had to be addressed before. Even when the whole settlement process was started off this issue was not considered because people were always talking about scholarships marae restoration grants economic development grants and so on. But in the case of Ngai Tahu for instance there is now a $500 million fund and 30000 beneficiaries. Under normal rates of return it works out at potentially $1000 per person over time. The same could occur with Ngati Tuwharetoa. How do we deal with that? Because issues that simply were not important in the past will suddenly assume some real significance.  
There will be real concern I suggest about a huge level of unequal division of the returns of the settlements. I know full well that in the north there is a certain level of resentment towards those who some in the north would say are the belted earls of the south because of the unequal division of wealth. It is an inevitable feature of owning property. Property is not owned equally. I know that in some of the origins of Maori society it is as if it were owned equally. But in reality that is not how it happens. Property is invariably not owned equally. I suggest that on this issue of overlapping claims and the diverse nature of descent there will be some very real issues that iwi will have to deal with.  
I will also turn to the geothermal issue and pick up on a point raised by Mr Franks. This nation has developed through the hard work of all its peoples resources that had no value whatsoever when they were not developed and were nascent in the ground. They suddenly assumed value because of the application of modern technology. The geothermal resources would have no value if the Tasman Pulp and Paper plant had not been developed. That caused the development of that particular resource. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Madam Deputy Speaker— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Sit down. I still have 2 minutes to go. That member has been here for 6 years now. 
Hon Annette King 
: Now you have to apologise Wayne. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am prepared to acknowledge that the Minister of Maori Affairs will be taking a call. I would like to think that it will be a full 10-minute call because this nation deserves that kind of focus. 
The development of resources like the geothermal resource depends on the application of modern technology which comes from the hard work of all New Zealanders—no matter what their descent. To have the implication that there should be an apology for that seems rather odd because the benefit exists only because of contemporary developments. 
 New Zealand is a different kind of country dare I say it from a number of other countries on the globe. It is the work ethic and dare I say it the benefits of British colonialism that have lifted the development of our country. I think that people when they think about that statement will fairly acknowledge that contemporary New Zealand with all its heritage and traditions benefits from that very fact. Sometimes we overlook that reality in that those deeds that have a gloss of apology on them mean we should be ashamed of our entire past. Although it is true that there are things we should be contrite for there are also huge benefits from our past and contemporary Maori benefit from those as much as anyone else.