Clendon David: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — Second Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill — Second Readings 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3708. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. Kei te mihi nui ki a koutou. I am pleased to speak to these two bills the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill to acknowledge the importance of both this individual settlement and the arrangements that are made within it and also to comment on the process that we are in today which is the progressing in the most prompt manner possible these settlement bills. They are critically important. In many cases the claimants have waited for a very long time. So the Green members are very pleased to speak in support of both the bills we are discussing today and indeed the process which is allowing them to go through the legislative process as quickly as is appropriate. 
I particularly acknowledge the people who are most affected by these particular bills the settlement bill and the incorporation bill. Ngati Rereahu Ngati Maniapoto Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and nga iwi katoa and nga hapu katoa are affected by these settlements today. 
The incorporation bill is particularly interesting as has been noted to the effect that it creates a body—an umbrella body if you will—that enables a degree at least of decision making of authority to be returned to the people who ought to have that authority to make decisions about the ongoing use and the future of the land. It is an interim step as the Minister for Whanau Ora Mrs Turia in introducing this reading acknowledged but it is a very positive and useful step towards a final resolution of what are quite complex claims. The incorporation part clearly does reflect the fact that historically there was shared use of the resource of the land in question. Maori of course have very different notions of ownership than Western thought has but have a very clear-cut sophisticated and well-understood system of user rights shared user rights and access to resources at different times of the year through different seasons for different purposes. The establishment of this incorporation would seem to capture the essence of that cross-hapu and cross-iwi understanding that a resource can be shared and can be administered collectively for the collective good and that is an entirely appropriate and a very positive outcome of this. 
The question of ownership has been very much in the news of late. There is an ongoing process not very far from here at Waiwhetu Marae that is seeking to resolve some of the outstanding issues that will continue to in a sense bedevil the resolution of settlement processes. But the fact that these conversations are occurring is a positive sign. It is a positive thing. In terms of trying to unpick these notions of ownership governance kawanatanga and rangatiratanga it is worth getting back occasionally I think to first principles. At one level the question was raised last week at Waiwhetu Marae whether the English text of the Treaty and the Maori text of Te Tiriti are irreconcilable. The comment was made in response to that question that in fact trying to reconcile those two versions of our Tiriti is a bit like trying to reconcile boiling water and ice which was not a very hopeful position perhaps. But nevertheless for a great deal of the last 150 or more years there have been processes conversations arguments and on occasion much more than simply argument seeking to reconcile what at the front of it may appear to be irreconcilable: to bring together or at least to find a middle road between the rightful claim of iwi and hapu to exercise their chieftainship their rangatiratanga while allowing the Crown to govern. 
It is fair to say that some of the dispute and some of the ongoing concerns about what constitutes ownership what constitutes user rights and what is the nature of the rights that Maori rightfully claim get back to a more fundamental issue—an issue of world view in fact—and that is the very different cosmology of Western and Maori thought. Clearly the Western tradition that came to New Zealand in the early 1880s—the late 18th century in fact—was based on Christian theory the Christian belief structure which puts humanity mankind as the crown of creation gives people dominion over all things and establishes a very hierarchical relationship with people at the top and all other beings subservient in a sense. That is very much at odds with Maori cosmology the Maori belief system which is much more horizontal and sees people humanity in a familial relationship with other species with other plants with maunga with awa with ngahere and with everything that lives in them. It is a very very different cosmology and a fundamentally different belief system. Clearly a lot of the practical pragmatic resolutions we are trying to seek must understand and acknowledge that those world views are coming from a profoundly different belief system and base and that is clearly at the heart of some of the difficulty in this. These settlement bills these deals that are being done are endeavouring to reconcile the language of a covenant that was signed in 1840 and equally endeavouring to reconcile two very different and often conflicting belief systems. 
I would argue—in fact it is my firm belief—that the Maori belief system is one that is based much more in humility than in pride and I think that that humility comes through in the willingness of iwi and hapu to accept less than they could reasonably expect to acknowledge that we have moved on and that full and total restitution of what was lost would effectively cripple the economy and would lead to complete social breakdown. The humility and the willingness of iwi and hapu to accommodate the reality of the 21st century I think must be acknowledged and indeed praised. That willingness to accommodate has been reflected today by the particular hapu and iwi who are most affected by this bill. 
Clearly all of these settlements are aimed at restoring the rightful authority to make decisions about the use of the resources in question the right to benefit and to distribute benefit from the use of those resources and critically to fulfil the absolute obligation that Maori as kaitiaki feel to protect and preserve the resource not only for the present day but critically for the future generation. We inherit these resources from our tupuna. We have an absolute obligation to pass them on in at least as good a condition as we find them and preferably in a better state. All of these bills and specifically the Maraeroa agreements that we are seeking to progress today are fundamentally about that—preservation of the mana of the people who have absolute authority or ought to have that authority to make decisions and to fulfil that obligation as kaitiaki to pass on a better future to the generations coming after us. 
That is sufficient for now. Again I offer our regard to the folk affected by the settlement our acknowledgment of the work that has been done so far by all sides in this agreement and our hope and belief that these bills will advance to an appropriate settlement promptly. Kia ora.