Brownlee Gerry: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2788] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is appropriate that we acknowledge in this House those who have gone before us who were part of the Te Arawa iwi and recognise that the discussions over these lakes have gone on for a great number of years. We should recognise that those discussions by and large were conducted in good faith and that those who were party to them were participating in those discussions and decisions in a manner that was determined towards getting the best result for Te Arawa and for the rest of the nation. 
When it comes to treaty settlements it is extremely important that the concept of full and final is well embedded. Although we freely admit that in most settlement cases—probably all—there is great generosity from the party being settled when it comes to comparative values today versus the time of either the confiscation or other grievance we none the less have to move forward and we do not have opportunities like this one simply to keep relitigating issues that should have been dealt with once and for all. So although National Party members will participate fully in the select committee process that considers the bill and will ask many many questions about the construction of the bill itself as well as about the intentions of the settlement we are not in a position today to support this reading. 
I hope during the select committee we may come to understand why Te Arawa have got back into this negotiation today when in 1922 they wrote to the King—I think it was George IV at the time—stating: “We thank you and Parliament for this year’s legislation fulfilling all promises and engagements made to the Arawas since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi thus again proving that England’s stated word is a sacred bond capable of fulfilment.” I do not think we could get a more powerful statement accepting that an arrangement should endure. 
National is prepared to recognise that the annuity needs to be tidied up. It is ridiculous. No one can do anything with such a small amount of money so on a commercial basis yes we should increase it. We support that provision in the bill without reservation. But the mere fact that there is an annuity gives weight to the argument that the settlement in 1922 or in the years subsequent was genuine and valid and should have been considered full and final. If the Office of Treaty Settlements has some other view then I want it to be made clear that it has never conveyed that viewpoint to National members. If the Government has another view and has some reason to back it up I want it to be made clear that it has never conveyed that viewpoint to us. 
So although we appreciate that there is a great need to speed up the process of treaty settlements in this country and a great need to move on from our times of grievance we are not able to support the bill in its current state. We will take some convincing that those who have gone before—who made a decision who accepted an undertaking from the Crown and who complimented the Crown on the arrangement—were somehow wrong and were somehow duped and that those who duped them somehow cheated them. That is not what the words of the letter say. 
It is worth pointing out that although the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations says the Crown is very happy with the bill Crown Law advised the Government that the settlement was not required. It advised that it was a political decision. If a Government makes a political decision then it should say so. It should not dress it up as being the settlement of some sort of longstanding grievance. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: It’s a justice decision; you know that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I believe that that letter to the King was sent with good intent. I do not think Te Arawa sent the letter to the King in 1922 as some sort of joke. I do not think their acknowledgment of the legislation as “fulfilling all promises and engagements made to the Arawas since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi” was just something out there in the ether that they could say then but that 82 years later their descendants could turn over. It worries a lot of New Zealanders that this process may never end. This bill unfortunately gives weight to that argument. It makes it difficult to move to the point that all New Zealanders would like to see where things are dealt with in a fairer way. 
I say to Mr Samuels that the part of this that is unjust is no doubt the annuity. We do not have any problem with fixing that. It is a crying shame that it was not fixed a lot sooner. If it is such a deep heartfelt thing for Mr Samuels why was it not fixed when he had the ministry—he having sat on that side of the House for 6 or 7 years now? 
As I said before we as a party have a commitment to seeing Treaty settlements completed speedily. We have a view that grievances should be settled fairly and that those grievances should be settled as a recognition lawfully that something was wrong. That is not the case here. It is very clear. The Crown’s own advisers are saying this is a political decision. Notwithstanding that let me again give our assurance that although our vote will not be in favour of the bill today our participation in the Maori Affairs Committee will be full and attentive. We will work to deliver a bill that does not see people back in this House in 82 years’ time saying that what we did today was somehow dishonourable and disreputable and that they need to have another go at it.