Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20699] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 That was an excellent speech from Mr Gerry Brownlee. I think it put very carefully the reason why National supports settlements and it gave our vision for our country Maori and non-Maori alike as we move into the 21st century. I want to emphasise the importance of looking forward in doing that and how we have to do that. 
I also want to pick up on a theme developed by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu who talked about justice and equality which of course are at the very heart of National’s philosophy not just on treaty issues but on much broader issues. It is actually the reason why we carry out settlements. We cannot achieve equality before the law—equality being probably the deepest single value for our country—unless we also achieve justice. So what we are doing today on behalf of virtually the whole Parliament is giving the Crown’s recognition of the need to do justice for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. That is why the settlements are so important and that is the reason we need to complete them. 
I must say I remain somewhat disappointed with the view of the ACT party. It seems to me that ACT members are saying that unless a settlement meets in each and every particular their expectation of what it should be then there is no way the settlement can be supported by them. The problem with that point of view of course is that it is such an exclusive approach to settlements. 
Settlements are of necessity something of a compromise and a consensus not just within this Parliament but also by NgatiTuwharetoa themselves. They also have to compromise or else there would no settlement. Compromise is an inherent part of the process and I would ask my colleagues in the ACT party to contemplate that particular issue. 
The promise of our country both in 1840 and today is that all our citizens will be treated equally and as I said part and parcel of that process is the completion of settlements. I noted the comments by the Minister that as a nation we have been in the settlement process now for 20-odd years. Many of the claims themselves have a genesis going right back into the 1980s but of course it is time now after 20 years to be able to say that we need to hasten the process. There seems finally to be some dawning recognition by the Government of that need and I suggest that that recognition would not have occurred but for Dr Brash’s speech some 18 months ago. 
During the Committee stage I pointed out some of the defects of this legislation. Some of those defects were also noted by Mr Franks. I also say that as we go forward with settlements a National Government would do things somewhat differently. I want to touch briefly on some of those differences. 
I do not believe it is necessary now to constantly take an apologetic view of history without any recognition of the standpoints of people back then. We must certainly recognise that injustices were done but we should at least acknowledge that both Maori and Crown representatives were living in a different experience in the 1860s. Both groups were in a different experience and had a different expectation. 
For instance is it actually so bad that some land was returned to individuals? For many Maori individual ownership actually laid the foundation for economic well-being. That fact does not of course diminish the accompanying injustice whereby the iwi did not get any settlement. But individualisation of title is actually part of the pathway to prosperity and I feel we make a mistake in not recognising that. 
There is a similar position in relation to the drainage of swamps. Where would the New Zealand dairy industry be today if swamps had not been drained? We can think of the prosperity right though the Hauraki Plains and in much of the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato generally. I know that Nanaia Mahuta well understands the importance of improving land in order to build prosperity. So rather than that action harming Maori it actually benefited Maori and we need to be careful in the way in which we record our history. 
The point about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty has been well made by New Zealand First speakers but I just add this: the problem with the inclusion of principles—not just in this legislation but generally—is that it blinds people to what the treaty actually promised which was the protection of property. That is the true foundation for the reason we are undertaking these settlements and we would do much better for ourselves as a nation if we had reference to the terms of the treaty—the actual undertakings—rather than to some fanciful notion of principles that frankly I have yet to hear the Government give any credible explanation of no matter how much it tries. 
Pita Paraone 
: Haven’t they given any explanation? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No they have not. 
I turn now to the vexed question of myth and legend. I am one of those who says that they have no place in the law of our land. Everyone has beliefs. It is impossible to be a human being yet to have no beliefs. The question is: do we put those beliefs in the law? The situation is not to say—as Nanaia Mahuta and apparently the Green Party say—that if we do not put them in the law they are therefore diminished. That is simply false. 
The whole notion of equality rests on the fact that we say our law applies to everyone equally. If we put into law the beliefs of some people but not of others what we are actually doing is introducing inequality into the law. [ 
Interruption 
] There is simply a lack of understanding it seems on the part of the Labour Party and obviously of the Green Party on the role of belief law and the meaning of a secular society. 
But this is perhaps not the day for the development of those issues; this is a day in essence of celebration and a day of restitution and restoration. Parliament is voting for these settlements—unfortunately I might say—not unanimously. It would be better if the settlements were being voted for unanimously with people’s particular concerns or parties’ particular concerns being recorded nevertheless. 
I want to congratulate NgatiTuwharetoa today. As a number of speakers have said this is the end of one phase of their journey but the beginning of another phase. I want to note particularly BevAdlam the chief negotiator. I know she will have a hugely important role in the next phase of development on behalf of her whanau hapu and iwi. 
I want to conclude with this statement: National is proud of its record in treaty settlements. We believe that they need to be hastened for the benefit of our nation. I stand alongside my colleagues Gerry Brownlee and Georgina te Heuheu in sketching for the benefit of this upcoming election our way forward which we anticipate will be endorsed by New Zealanders.