Flavell Te Ururoa: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1290] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou koutou katoa tatou e noho nei i roto i te Whare. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to all of us seated here in the House. 
] 
During these last few days I have listened to some of the debate about the state of the nation. For te ao Maori there is a different view and in the time available I intend to place before the House just one matter that the Maori Party believes is important to this nation and must be addressed urgently. We go further and offer a solution to that problem—a solution that is practical and could be positive in its outcome for Maoridom and this country.  
To put things in context 166 years ago Te Rarawa chief Panakareao told the people at Waitangi: “Ko te atakau o te whenua i riro i a te Kuini ko te tinana o te whenua waiho ki nga Maori.” Only the shadow of the land goes to the Queen but the substance remains with us. What followed was the first Government purchase: the Mangonui transaction. It would not be long before 16000 acres of Northland land would be awarded to six Europeans and the remaining 446 acres left to several hundred Maori. It was these sales that led that same Te Rarawa chief to reverse his famous saying by concluding that only a shadow remained after all.  
The Treaty is and always has been about an ongoing partnership. I listened just the other night to a collection of speeches pulled together by Henare te Ua about Prime Ministers and Maori leaders and all have the same tenor about their hopes and dreams based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In fact all spoke of nationhood and a need for all parties to address mistakes made. For our people we talk about it in statements like: “Kei te Tiriti tona ake tapu tona ake mana tona ake wairua tona ake mauri.” The Treaty has its own sacredness its own strength its own spirit and its own life force. Many refer to it as a covenant.  
The trouble is that the Treaty is generally spoken about only in terms of the English version. There is in fact a version written in Maori which is quite different from the English version but it gets little press. We will revisit this matter in the future but it is clear that there have been breaches of a document that was intended to set out how we would live together. The greatest challenge this nation faces is the need for successive Governments to demonstrate a willingness and an openness to respect that contract. The dollar may rise and fall and mortgages may move by half a percent every 6 months but the relationship between us causes the biggest disruption to the country. We remember the land marches Bastion Point and the great hikoi of 2004.  
To address issues around relationships there is an urgent need to develop a solution that will resolve historical Treaty claims—a solution that achieves fair timely and durable settlements and creates a pathway forward for us as a nation. We must address issues of past land alienation and confiscation get rid of the Crown’s assertion of unconstrained sovereignty and take action.  
The Maori Party is calling today for an independent and immediate review of the settlement process undertaken by the Office of Treaty Settlements. We do this for several reasons. The signing of the Treaty implied that two distinct people were willing to regard and respect the other as a party to the Treaty for the benefit of the nation. One party should not profit at the expense of the other. Each party should honour the other. 
The Office of Treaty Settlements currently controls both the outcome and process on Crown terms. Our people refer to them as the thief the prosecutor and the judge all wrapped up in one. Fairness demands that the negotiations framework must be agreed to by both parties upfront. Yet when looking at the issue of settlements the Hon Margaret Wilson a former Minister stated: “the Crown does not adopt a full compensation or ‘damages’ approach to redress recognising that the cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive.” Well hold on. What about the grievance? What about justice? It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. We need to face it. 
Professor Margaret Mutu suggested that the settlements that have been arrived at are but a fraction of the amount that should rightfully have been paid. The professor concludes that the settlements paid so far are in fact 0.06 percent of what they are worth. The difference between what was taken and what can be returned represents a massive contribution by iwi to the national economy. But our people talk about settlements in terms of the land. He whenua muru he whenua me whakahoki mai. Land taken land returned. Whatungarongaro te tangata toitu te whenua. People may perish but the land remains. 
I hear a lot of talk in the House about fairness about the need for one law for all—for justice. So ponder this: is it fair that Ngai Tahu’s $170 million was 0.01 percent of the $1192 billion it should have received? Is it fair that Tainui’s $170 million was 0.4 percent of the total value of its claim? Is it fair that the Government is working to a predetermined fiscal cap and that it expects the total value of land settlements to be set at about $1.3 billion? We are talking about the $1 billion fiscal envelope cap. 
We remember the policy that was rejected by all tribes when it was taken around the country. Sir Hepi te Heuheu the paramount chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa facilitated the discussion at a national level. The policy of the National Government of the time is now being maintained by the current Labour Government. It seems the policy Maori rejected outright in 1997 is actually alive and well. Maori should have learnt back then that consulting with us is but a farce. A dozen or so hui were held on the foreshore and seabed legislation. Everyone rejected it in its intent and content but it is still on the books. 
The problem is that the benchmark has been set against that cap and new tribal settlements are gauged against that level. In other words an injustice created at the start is an injustice transferred to every tribe now and into the future. Will injustice be a durable solution for the next generation? No way. It will come back and bite hard. Think about this. Nga iwi Maori to settle 23 claims were offered half of what was paid out to save Air New Zealand. That is $100 million less than the Government allocated in the 2000 Budget for Skyhawks and frigates. 
I would hope that members of Parliament as representatives of the nation are fair-minded people. That being the case we need an opportunity to consider the whole process from go to whoa. Fairness is about having a transparent process in place in order to have the opportunity to be heard. The Crown has set and controls the process by which iwi representatives are selected to settle the claims and establish the governing bodies. The Crown has a hands-on role in deciding who can speak for the tribe in negotiations with the State itself. This is the sort of approach that has resulted in serious splits in iwi hapu and even whanau. The Maori Party is determined to see an end to the sort of “divide and rule” tactic that we are so used to. 
If we are committed to moving the shadow of injustice we must reduce the burden of the process on claimants. A critical part of this is to review the guidelines for ratification to ensure that participation rates are raised and that the issues of mandate and cross-claims are given due weighting. The Crown has made some moves towards acknowledging the real difficulties that exist in this area. The Waitangi Tribunal’s 2002 report which dealt with claims by Ngati Haka Patuheuheu Nga Rauru o Nga Potiki and others in relation to the Ngati Awa claim is useful in this regard. Judge Carrie Wainwright identified in her report that “the Crown did not adequately disclose its policy agenda to the parties affected by the proposed settlement with Ngati Awa.” 
In the interests of fairness and justice one would think it logical that if settlements are to be achieved with tribes that may serve to disadvantage other tribes where there are cross-claims then that process will be well-managed or managed better in such a way as to prevent conflicts. This is not how it works at the moment. Those same issues cropped up again in the case of Te Arawa. Again the tribunal highlighted the glaring shortcomings in the Crown process: “In the case of the Te Arawa mandate we find that the Crown had failed to adequately identify and address critical issues surrounding the representivity and accountability of the executive council to the kaihautu; and that these were at the core of claimant dissatisfaction.” Some tribes have returned to the tribunal three or four times over issues of mandate yet still the Office of Treaty Settlements has failed to recognise the problem. 
The resolution of grievances and redistribution of resources should be a catalyst to improve Maori economic and social well-being. It would also accrue benefits to the nation. But we have to do it right. An economic report which was commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust claims funding agency concluded that New Zealand would benefit to the tune of $96 million a year if the claims were settled earlier. So some would call for the whole process to stop now in order to allow tribes to reflect on the settlement process and to have wananga amongst ourselves without the threat of being put to the back of the queue. We say the time has come for us to review the whole process and we ask the Government to consider that notion. Kia ora tatou.