Borrows Chester: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5376] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I stand to address the title of this Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. The question asked earlier by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell was: “What is a lake without any water in it?”. In actual fact the only thing being given in respect of each of these lakes is the bed of the lake. It seems that the new definition of a Crown stratum is a huge move to change the goalposts. I propose that the title of this bill should be the “Te Arawa Lake Bed (Take It or Leave It) Bill”. 
We know as discussed earlier that Ngati Whaoa have a claim but in respect of this claim the Government is saying it needs some settlements under its belt so it is moving with this one and is not worrying about the existing claim. At the same time it is not worrying about the uncertainties or issues that remain in respect of Te Arawa. The Government has moved in spite of that and said that Te Arawa must take the settlement or leave it and just move along. That is the first point. 
Sitting suspended from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Before the dinner break I suggested that the new title of the bill should be the “Te Arawa Lake Bed (Take It or Leave It) Bill” to account for the fact that it has nothing to do with lakes but only lake beds in so far as what is being acknowledged in the settlement to Te Arawa. I also made the point that some cognisance needs to be taken of the fact that the settlement is contested by Ngati Whaoa in respect of Lake Opouri. To move on with the settlement while that is still unresolved seems to be unfair and seems to endorse the “take it or leave it” part of the proposed new title. 
Another obvious inequity is the proposal that we grant the holder title in fee simple. But fee simple entitles holders of land to be able to deal with the land as they see fit such as selling it or raising mortgages on it and this legislation explicitly denies that right—although I note in another inconsistency there is the ability to grant a lease over that land. So that seems to be in line with: “We will promise you everything and give you nothing and before you get it we will take it away from you.” That was not done in the Ngai Tahu settlement so there is a real inconsistency there and one has to wonder why if Treaty settlements are to be dealt with in a consistent manner that would be the case. 
The creation of a Crown stratum which did not exist under other settlements and seems to be a new animal under this legislation seems to warrant some sort of explanation but that has not been given. Other than a definition of what it is there does not appear in the legislation to be any tie-in with where that comes from in law. Some explanation is needed because it seems to add to the “take it or leave it” bit as well. What it boils down to is that it is pretty much the “We won you lost. Eat that.” approach alluded to late in 1999. That seems to be the approach to how this entire legislation has been dealt with and the settlement. 
Through the course of this debate a number of issues and concerns have been raised by way of seeking explanation and some sort of fleshing out of what the terms mean yet no attempt has been made to do that. The whole point of debating this legislation in the Committee is to get clarification on those issues so that people can have some clarity. The people who are talking about their legacy and about what they in turn wish to hold in trust to then pass on to their future generations have a right to know exactly where the Crown sees itself on this. If it is unclear as to what this legislation means precisely then what is it handing on? Is it really just handing on a headache not only for the people of Te Arawa and the people of Ngati Whaoa but also for the rest of us? 
We have seen in the past that every time Maori have tried to redress some inconsistency over time it is Maori who cop the flak. They are the ones who get whacked around the ears by the rednecks who say: “This is a Maori problem. Here they go again.” and it detracts from the sovereignty Maori have over the things that are acknowledged to be theirs pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi. If we do not sort this out now we will ensure there will be a problem 5 10 50 or 100 years down the track. The point was made earlier that the 1922 decision has come back 80 years later. What we are creating is just another headache for people to deal with in years to come.