Eckhoff Gerrard: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15174] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I rise with some mixed feelings to speak on this bill. I am not the Maori affairs spokesperson for our party but I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak for I am one of the few whom I would call—and indeed whom my Maori colleagues call—tangata whenua. I am a man of the land I speak with passion about the land and I understand the feeling deep within Ngati Awa today at the redressing in some respect of the stealing of land from the Ngati Awa people many years ago by the Crown. I do not stand here today to talk about my grievance which will occur and is occurring to 350 people from the South Island where I come from; that is not a matter to be addressed today. I mention it only so that the people listening to this debate can understand that I speak with courage and conviction on this issue of land. I understand what is happening and what has happened to Ngati Awa in the past. 
I note the waiata in clause 8(8)(c) of the bill: 
Here I live as an orphan 
An orphan upon the land 
An orphan among the people. 
At night I weep helplessly 
For where is hospitality to be given? 
They are rather beautiful words. Those of us who have put down our roots in this land only to have the land taken by the Crown for another purpose understand those words—but that as I said is a matter for another day. 
As I said earlier it is with some mixed feelings that I speak because the ACT party will not support the passage of this bill and I hope the House will give me the opportunity to explain why that should be. It has been mentioned before and I will read from clause 8(7) of the bill that “The Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngati Awa were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” I do not know how many times members from this side of the House have asked the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Margaret Wilson the Prime Minister and the Minister of Maori Affairs to stand in this House and tell us what those principles are so that we can debate them accurately. What are those principles? They have never been given. Nobody in this country has been told by the Prime Minister or by the Labour Government exactly what the principles are that have not been addressed. So ACT cannot in any conscience support legislation that does not define exactly what is meant by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
It is a policy of the ACT party that it is appropriate for a bill before the House to go to a select committee for further consideration and determination and to sort out idiosyncrasies or aspects that may not be appropriate. This bill is a done deal. What is the point of sending a bill to a select committee when the deal has already been done? There will be no changes to this bill; it is fixed so why send it? That is the charade that Parliament indulges in. The Government says that it will send this bill to a select committee but that it does not care if somebody points out that Ngati Awa are entitled to extra than what has been negotiated at this time—it will not happen. It could well be that during the select committee process we find problems that have occurred and sort those matters out with the result that Ngati Awa are better off under this settlement. But that will not happen it cannot happen because the deal has been done and that is totally inappropriate. 
There are a number of issues I would like to address but in the limited time I have I will address only one other. It is in the schedules which quite frankly I find bizarre. I read from schedule 4: “All elements of the natural environment possess a life force and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngati Awa …” to the harbour. That is animist belief. As I said earlier I speak with passion about and believe I have a spiritual attachment to the land. I understand what is meant by “mauri” but spirituality comes from the individual. It does not come from a rock a piece of water a landfall or some statue. That is animist belief. If this House will indulge in such forms of animist belief why do we not write into statute the beliefs of the Anglican church? Why do we not write in the beliefs of Catholics Methodists Muslims and anybody else? If we are going to introduce this spiritual belief into statute why not introduce everything else? Why is it appropriate to write into statute only the spiritual belief of Maori? Why not the spiritual belief of every other person in this country? Of course we should remind ourselves from time to time that this House is secular; it does not write into statute the spiritual beliefs of any particular party or any particular individual and long may that continue. But that particular aspect is written into this Ngati Awa settlement and the ACT party says that is wrong. 
If I were to hazard a guess as to why it is written in I would say it is part of the ongoing settlement with Maori; they can have another bite of the cherry because this is not a full and final settlement. Any Maori can go to a resource management hearing and point out the requirement in the Resource Management Act that regional councils take into account the spiritual beliefs of Maori. Ngai Tahu for example did just that at the resource management hearing on the Clutha River and said that they had lost their spirituality their special relationship with the river. That cost the electricity consumers of this country $1.5 million. So it appears that under the Resource Management Act with special reference to Maori spirituality can be bought for $1.5 million. That is outrageous. It is impossible to buy the spiritual beliefs of an individual yet they can be traded under the Resource Management Act—in that particular instance for $1.5 million. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What a lot of nonsense! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs who is not even sponsoring this bill says that is nonsense. I ask Mr Parekura Horomia why he is not even sponsoring this bill. Why is his colleague Mr Maharey sponsoring the bill? A number of aspects of this bill are inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate that past grievances are addressed and settled and ACT applauds that. But I cannot stand in this House and say I applaud the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when I do not even accurately know—nor does anybody in the House—what those principles are. Mr Peters from New Zealand First has stood in this House and constantly challenged the Government to tell us what those principles are and the Government has not come out with them. It will be very interesting to see what New Zealand First will do about this bill.