Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18544] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This settlement bill does address grievances that the people of Ngati Awa have had with the Crown and it raises interesting questions to consider: who is the Crown and who is not and why has this group of New Zealanders had its grievance with the Crown dealt with in this way? The answers to those questions are not terribly complex but answering them does allow us to see the treaty settlement process in a much more positive light than it is seen by some New Zealanders. 
The point I make is that the Labour Government constantly talks about the partnership between the Crown and Maori. We do not accept the term “partnership”. It is rubbish because when the treaty was signed if it was ever to have any validity at all it had to be that there was one form of governance in this country from that point on and that had to be that all New Zealanders would stand as equals before the law. Anyone who comes to the Government—which is the representative of the Crown these days—to have a grievance sorted out and who then negotiates to have that grievance dealt with does so because he or she has a right to be treated as an equal under the law. And at some point or over some period of time since 1840 people have not been treated in that way. So in settling a grievance like this the Crown which is all of us Maori and non-Maori simply says it recognises that a group of us was not properly dealt with according to the law and there are grounds for redress. That is the basis on which the National Party has approached treaty settlements since we started the process back in the early 1990s. 
We are happy that this bill is before us today. We do want to see the people of Ngati Awa receive their settlement and get on with things because in so doing we all benefit. But I cannot help but make a few comments with regard to the Minister’s blasé approach to the appallingly low number of people from that iwi who have ratified this settlement. In saying that 40 percent of the eligible iwi members voted for this deed of settlement and that of those only 78 percent—78 percent of the 40 percent—support it one is saying actually that less than one-third of that iwi says that this bill deals with the iwi’s grievance. I do not feel at all comfortable about being able to say to New Zealanders that the process of settlement of these treaty claims is full and final when two-thirds or more of an iwi will be able to say for some generations that it was not part of that. Those people will be able to say that a particular leadership which clearly they did not support committed them to it and that Parliament imposed it upon them. 
Although we will vote for this bill to progress to the Committee stage today I hope that Ngati Awa may take some time to give us confidence that that appallingly low vote is enough for us to support this bill through its third reading. It is a failing on the part of the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements to accept such a low vote. I am sorry to be so strong on this point but if this is the settlement of a long-held deeply emotional grievance what is so hard about getting a much bigger number of people to stick their hands up and say they want it? I do not think it should be too hard at all. I would like to know whether the Office of Treaty Settlements which I must say I find to be an office of Government run by people who are very very light on life experience let alone experience of the matters they are supposed to be dealing with— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What about the National Party? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Labour Party is getting upset! After 5 years of being in Government it has brought to Parliament the very first treaty settlement bill that it has put together totally by itself and we are not allowed to expose that the ratification process for it is a sham. The Minister Margaret Wilson does not have her hand on the throttle of that department; it is being driven by someone else. 
If Labour knows a compelling reason why this Parliament and the people of this country should accept that one-third of an iwi that has a grievance can say that what the Government is offering is okay and that it is full and final with never another comeback then it should tell us what that reason is. If I were part of the other two-thirds I would be making my argument. There is silence—absolute silence. There is a look of stunned disbelief on the face of the Minister of Maori Affairs. The Minister who spoke on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations today should not offer much more comment because it was noted that he simply read the notes that the Office of Treaty Settlements had provided for him—and as I have said we do not think its credibility is all that good. 
Although we do want to see claims progress—and we want to see them progressing at a much quicker rate than one every 5 years—in the future we will require in the ratification process that the buy-in from the settlors of any agreement be much greater than one-third of an iwi saying it is all right. Effectively that calls into question the issue of “full and final” settlement. I hope that the people of Ngati Awa who have heard our considerations today do accept the challenge to convince us that everything is OK. Maybe there is a good reason why two-thirds of the iwi who were eligible to vote for the deed of settlement decided not to. We will consider what those reasons might have been. Perhaps during the Committee stage we can test just what the failing has been.