Perry Edwin: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Perry Edwin: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10084] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this bill. New Zealand First supports this treaty settlement namely the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill and when we look at the documentation available and at the preamble to the bill we see nobody should be against the bill’s passing. I want to cover some aspects of the information in the preamble to the bill which is a written document that points out a lot of the disharmony in terms of what happened to Ngati Tama as a people. There are some disturbing aspects set out in the preamble. Obviously the bill records an acknowledgement of and an apology given by the Crown to Ngati Tama and when we read the preamble document we see that the apology is deserved. I wish Ngati Tama all the best in the processing of this bill. What a great day this is for Ngati Tama—for its representatives to be able to come into the House and then go back to their people and discuss the settlement due to them after all the difficulties they have had. 
I want to read out part of the “Background to negotiation process” from the commentary on the bill. It states: “The historical claims of Ngati Tama were heard by the Waitangi Tribunal between 1990 and 1995. In 1996 as part of the process for achieving a mandate from Ngati Tama to negotiate their Treaty claims in Taranaki the proposal for the mandate to be held by the Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust … was publicised.” Obviously there were some concerns with regard to the mandate. That has happened not only in Taranaki but also in the Wairarapa where currently a claim is being put together. But I believe that the mandating issue there has come to a conclusion now with the two factions having decided to make sure the claim goes through without any hold-ups. I wish them the best as well. In one part of the “Background to negotiation process” the commentary on the bill states: “The Crown received submissions from the Nga Hapu o Mokau Claims Committee objecting to the proposed mandating of the Trust. The vice-chairman and the treasurer of this committee are also members of Ngati Tama Whanau Whanui ...  the major group opposing the Trust’s mandate.” 
I want to talk quickly about the “Mandate to represent Ngati Tama” in the commentary on the bill. It states: “We were told by the Office of Treaty Settlements that in early June 1997 it received a challenge to the mandate of the Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust from Ngati Tama Whanau Whanui. … The challenge consisted of over 435 form letters which represents about 40 percent of Ngati Tama. The letters were written by individuals who affirm Ngati Tama affiliation revoke any other mandate and nominate one person to establish a mandate to represent their interests in the negotiations of Ngati Tama’s Treaty claim.” I want to read one further part under that heading: “We hope that Whanau Whanui and others who feel disenfranchised will make the most of the opportunity to fully participate in the first election of Runanga trustees on 31 January 2004.” I think that that is an important part of settling the mandating issue. 
There is another part of the commentary headed “Overlapping claim of Ngati Maniapoto” and I note that issue has been addressed. As well I would like to thank Mahara Okeroa for allowing me as the associate spokesperson in New Zealand First on Maori affairs to participate in the Maori Affairs Committee’s process of considering the bill. 
I want now to move on to the preamble to the bill. There are some important issues in there that disturb me and there is no doubt that if the public are listening today and hear me read these written words they will be disturbed by them: “(1) The Treaty of Waitangi as set out in English and in Maori in the First Schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was signed in 1840:”. Under the heading “ 
Taranaki Wars” 
 the preamble states: “(3) The Crown proclaimed martial law throughout Taranaki on 22 February 1860. The Taranaki wars of 1860-61 and 1863-69 followed. During the course of the wars the Crown built redoubts at Pukearuhe and Waiiti to secure military occupation of the land. These also provided security for military settlements that were established on confiscated land. Both redoubts were built on wahi tapu” which I find quite offensive. Under the heading “ 
Confiscation 
” the preamble reads: “(4) In 1863 the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 was enacted. This Act provided for the confiscation by the Crown of lands of Maori whom the Crown assessed to have been in ‘rebellion’ against the authority of the Queen. On 30 January 1865 the Governor declared ‘Middle Taranaki’ to be a confiscation district and set aside blocks at Oakura and Waitara South as ‘eligible Sites for settlements for colonisation’. On 2 September 1865 the Governor declared 2 further confiscation districts ‘Ngatiawa’ and ‘Ngatiruanui’. The Governor also designated ‘Ngatiawa Coast’ and ‘Ngatiruanui Coast’ as eligible sites for settlement.” 
The preamble then turns to the issue of compensation. It states: “(5) A Compensation Court was set up under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 to compensate some of those whose land was confiscated by the Crown. … All of the Compensation Court awards within the rohe of Ngati Tama were based on out-of-court settlements. By the time these were made most of the readily usable land in the north had already been disposed of by the Crown.” Today Ngati Tama will get their settlement on those issues and I applaud that being part of the bill that is being enacted. The preamble goes on to state: “Out of some 74 000 acres confiscated from Ngati Tama 3 458 acres were awarded to Ngati Tama individuals. By 1888 title had not been issued to that land. Some claimants were informally aware of the location of their awards and believed they had a right to occupy the land only to find that it was classified as Crown land. In 1867 the Crown promised awards of land to the absentee owners from each iwi. By 1880 these awards were still undefined on the ground:” and this is what this claim is all about. 
Let us talk about Parihaka. I can remember as a child at primary school Parihaka was one of the subjects that we studied—it was not very often that that happened but it did happen in my case. Paragraph 6 of the preamble to the bill states: “The prophets Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi introduced a policy of passive resistance to the surveyors and European settlers who followed. Prior to the Crown’s attack on Parihaka this policy was supported by the people of Ngati Tama and other iwi. Such resistance in 1879-80 led to more than 420 ‘ploughmen’ and 216 ‘fencers’ being arrested. Most were denied a trial and many prisoners were held in the South Island.” Obviously my fellow member from National said they were held in caves but we have been told that that was not the case. Paragraph 6 goes on to state: “Prison conditions were harsh and included hard labour”. 
To finish off my reading of the preamble paragraph 7 states: “On 5 November 1881 more than 1 500 Crown troops invaded and occupied the settlement of Parihaka. Over the following days some 1 600 Maori were forcibly expelled from Parihaka and made to return to their own settlements. Houses and crops were systematically destroyed”—shameful—“and stock was driven away or killed. Taranaki Maori report that women were raped and otherwise molested by soldiers:”—shame on the Crown! Paragraph 8 of the preamble then states: “The leaders of Parihaka Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi were arrested and special legislation provided for their imprisonment”. 
New Zealand First supports this bill and I wish Ngati Tama all the best with regard to the future of this settlement.