Finlayson Christopher: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18923] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As previous National speakers have said we will support the second reading of this bill. We will also support the Government’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper 250 and its amendment to clause 12. I am particularly pleased that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has tabled an amendment to clause 5 which we can deal with when the Committee discusses Part 1. 
I would like to begin this speech by congratulating the Government on the accelerated pace of Treaty settlements in recent times. The last few months stand in stark contrast to the previous 8 years of abject failure and mismanagement. Indeed this bill when passed later this week will double the number of Treaty settlements that Labour has taken from start to finish in 9 years. The central North Island iwi forests settlement which the National Party enthusiastically supports and which hopefully will be passed later this week will triple that number. That in 1 year the Minister can match and exceed the total accomplishments of Mr Burton and Margaret Wilson in 8 years goes some way to showing how poor Labour’s record is in this area. It is only when Labour members are facing defeat at the polls—staring at complete defeat in the Maori seats at the hands of a capable hard-working Maori Party—that they are bothered to put much energy at all into an area that is so important to Maori and so important to the country. 
Let me turn to the bill currently before the House. I was most interested in the contribution of the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mita Ririnui shortly after the dinner break because one could be forgiven for thinking that in his speech he attempted to pass over the history of this settlement. That is probably not surprising given the shameful attempts by both the Prime Minister and him to rewrite history. Both have claimed this year—only by coincidence an election year I am sure—that National has not supported a single Treaty settlement negotiated by this Government. That is an especially glaring lapse by the Associate Minister who seems to have forgotten his own membership of the Maori Affairs Committee when National supported many settlements including those of Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty Ngati Tama Ngati Ruanui Ngati Awa Ngati Mutunga and others. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that either the Associate Minister’s memory is so faulty that he is not up to the job or he has deliberately misled the public. Such representations and selective memory are all too common these days amongst Labour members. They are desperate and indeed they will say anything—including on Willie Jackson’s television programme—in a vain effort to cling to power. 
Let us look briefly at the history of this settlement which is not contained in the text of the apologies—and I see the Minister of Maori Affairs looking guilty and he should look guilty. I have to congratulate Te Arawa on the patience they have shown towards the Crown and on their commitment to the settlement process which I truly believe to be commendable. Few claimant groups have had to suffer the poor standard of behaviour that this group has had to suffer under this Government. The Minister attempted to gloss over earlier tribunal reports rewriting history so as to deflect attention from the shameful failings of his Government. We are supposed to forget that the tribunal said it could not support the settlement progressing in its earlier form due to the lamentable behaviour of this Government. Not content with such a finding the tribunal also found that Labour had usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu had failed to act fairly and impartially towards all the claimants had acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty had committed grave breaches of the Treaty had failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiations had failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Maori and did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith. What an appalling performance! 
Anyway the select committee received 37 submissions. Eighteen of them supported the bill in its entirety and 26 were heard in Rotorua. I join with Mr Henare in commending the chair for the way he dealt with the bill and also the committee for the way it dealt with the submissions. 
As the select committee report states a number of issues emerged. The first set of issues concerned clause 11 which covers the meaning of “affiliate” and “affiliate ancestor”. Submissions were directed toward subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a). I must say that Mr Henare dealt with those issues very well in his second reading speech and I will not attempt to repeat those comments here. 
Secondly a number of mandate concerns were raised although the officials told us that it was the wrong time to be raising mandate questions and the committee could not take up that issue during the hearing of submissions. 
The third issue—and it has been referred to on a number of occasions tonight—related to the deletion of a number of Wai claims without the claimants’ knowledge or as a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. The committee was told by officials that although individual redress elements may relate closely to particular Wai claims the redress need not be specific to individual Wai claims and this approach has apparently been recognised by the tribunal. I must say I share Mr Henare’s concerns about the extinguishment of Wai claims and I think there is an argument that they should be formally dismissed on notice by the tribunal. 
Finally a question was raised about Ruamata Marae which has also been dealt with by a number of members tonight. The marae trust told the committee that the Crown breached the Treaty by designating a flight path immediately over the marae which is near Rotorua airport in the 1960s. It was said that this allegation had been made in a claim to the tribunal—Wai 918. The committee was advised however that the Wai 918 claim itself does not relate to that issue; it relates to the taking of land for the airport. The report of the select committee records an understanding by the Maori Party that a Government Supplementary Order Paper could include specific reference to the exclusion of an historical claim concerning airspace over the marae. That is dealt with in the amendment that was tabled this afternoon that adds to clause 12 a new subclause (5) which puts that issue beyond doubt and that is a good thing. 
Finally I want to touch briefly on Part 4 which concerns commercial redress and is the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 250 of 23 September. Subpart 2 of Part 4 deals with licensed land and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry forest land. I will deal with this issue more closely in the Committee stage. Suffice it to say at this stage that clause 130 deals with the effect of transferred land. The Supplementary Order Paper proposes to add in two new clauses immediately after it: the first clause 130A provides that public access is to continue and clause 130B provides that public right of way easements may be granted. As I said National members will support that Supplementary Order Paper in its entirety. 
So this bill apart from the minor changes set out on the Supplementary Order Paper comes back to the House for its second reading. We support the second reading of the bill. 
Bill read a second time.