Peters Jim: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18547] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Nga rangatira nga kaikawe o tenei kaupapa mo Ngati Awa tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker and greetings to you the chiefs and those who handled this matter for Ngati Awa greetings to you greetings 
.] 
On behalf of New Zealand First I stand to speak to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. On behalf of the only non-aligned political party in this House I will address some matters raised in the second reading. 
I tender the apologies of my colleague Pita Paraone our Maori affairs spokesperson who would have spoken in this debate but because of the inability of the Leader of the House and the Minister of Maori Affairs to show due consideration to those who considered this bill is not able to be present at this time and instead is away with the select committee looking at other matters. As I heard the Minister make that grand statement about partnership the Treaty of Waitangi and so on I thought that it would have been more appropriate and more fitting if there had been some consideration for the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who carefully went through the submissions who made changes and who will make further changes in the Committee of the whole House so that they could be present today to state their minds on the matter. 
This bill as we see is the culmination of what has been a long and arduous period of endeavour by the people of Ngati Awa towards a satisfactory claims settlement. Therefore it may seem churlish on the part of New Zealand First to signal at the very beginning that at the Committee stage we will propose two Supplementary Order Papers. The first is with regard to the landmark definition of hapu and the second is to omit all present references in this bill to the undefined principles of the treaty. 
The real matter before us is the culmination of a long endeavour. In 1999 the Waitangi Tribunal issued its report. Its principal findings as are related in the preamble to the bill were that the confiscation of Ngati Awa’s lands was contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi that there was no rebellion to justify confiscation—and that is a core matter here—and that the confiscation appeared to be beyond the authority of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. We know that the Government did not present evidence at the time nor did it necessarily agree with the findings of the tribunal but that was the core matter before the beginnings of this bill. We know that between 1996 and late 1998 the Crown and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa worked towards a negotiated settlement and that in 1998 the Government made an offer. Ngati Awa did not concur and the Crown made a revised offer in 2000. That agreement was a joint deed statement. Finally we come to the House and pick up a bill that records the acknowledgements and apologies given by the Crown to Ngati Awa in a deed of settlement on 27 March 2003. 
So we have before us a document that gives effect to the historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Ngati Awa and passes the governance responsibility of the assets of this settlement to that entity that the majority of the beneficiaries of Ngati Awa have indicated support for. That last statement may seem to be in contrast to that raised by the deputy leader of the National Party but there is some reason to believe that there has been increasing support by beneficiaries for this bill. So along with the Ngati Awa governance bill which the House is looking at this bill will lay the foundations when it is finally passed for the future development of Ngati Awa and New Zealand First would applaud that. 
We note that the level of support was deemed sufficient by Te Runanga o Ngati Awa for it to proceed with the signing of the deed. We note that this is a timely and satisfactory settlement of claims before the Waitangi Tribunal by way of either hearing or direct negotiation that have taken over almost a decade of time. But we have serious concerns about what is a landmark departure from established and known practice. I am referring to clause 13 which covers the hapu of Ngati Awa and particularly to subparagraphs (xx) and (xxi) which refer to Ngati Awa ki Tamaki-makau-rau and Ngati Awa ki Poneke. We believe that the inclusion of these two entities as hapu for the purpose of this bill is outside the traditional concept of what establishes or creates a hapu. 
In this House we know that the social structure of Maori is made up of whanau or family; hapu which are a number of families that have a common ancestor who is normally a descendant of an iwi ancestor; and iwi which is aggregated hapu with a common ancestor. That is common understanding in the wider society. But in this bill we have a departure—we have a landmark—and that is that these two hapu we are advised descend from the other hapu and from iwi descendants of Ngati Awa. Essentially Parliament is being asked to include them in the bill to ensure that those who are living in Akarana and those who are living in Poneke or Wellington are assured access to the benefits that this settlement will bring to Ngati Awa. 
During the course of the hearing submissions on this very issue were made. I believe that they were made very cogently. I want quickly to go through what they say. One submitter said this: “These entities are not hapu but have been created for political expedience and convenience. They don’t qualify. They do not have urupa. They do not have any place to stand in. Every member registered to these entities”—that is No. (xx) and No. (xxi)—“has whakapapa links back to the official hapu within Ngati Awa area in the same way that other Ngati Awa have residing anywhere in the world.” The conclusion this submitter stated—and he is well known in this land—is that as a result these two entities have got another meaning and significance. 
The question that one would ask is why this was regarded as a matter of expediency and convenience. Should the authority to create a new hapu be vested in Parliament for the first time? This is indeed very very strange. What of the other Ngati Awa descendants living elsewhere in the world? Why about those living in Sydney Brisbane or Perth? Why should they be expected to connect with their hapu at home while residents in Tamaki and Poneke have the convenience and the choice of connecting with either? This is indeed a very strange landmark departure. 
In New Zealand First we acknowledge the intent of Ngati Awa to have a governance structure that ensures their people are easily able to access the benefits of their settlement with the Crown. But we believe that what is proposed in this bill in clause 13 is not a matter for this House. We believe that for this House to legislate for the creation of hapu as proposed will pose a question long into the future and subsequently people will be asked why Parliament legislated for this strange new entity. 
So New Zealand First will seek to amend the bill by way of a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage in the belief that the creation of hapu as proposed in this bill is not the responsibility of this House nor should it be. That should be the responsibility of those who sit elsewhere in other places. When they have resolved the issue as to how they are able to maintain and govern in their structures and ensure that the benefits of the settlement are conveyed to their people they should be deciding that issue. It is not for this House suddenly at this point in 2005 to decide for the first time to create something that has not been known in Maori traditional structure. The Associate Minister who has departed made great talk about traditions and the like; this issue is certainly a departure which he should have thought about very very carefully. 
We will seek to further amend the bill by way of a Supplementary Order Paper as we have stated to omit all present references in this bill to the undefined principles of the treaty. 
We commend the bill to the House. We say these words in sorrow because we would wish that Ngati Awa their beneficiaries and their people have at this time the ability to realise what this settlement could do for their present and their future. But my having said that the matters that I have raised are important. The creation of hapu in this bill is alien to Maori. It is alien to this land. And the references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi undefined as they are need to be expunged. We wish Ngati Awa well. With those reservations we will support the bill proceeding to the Committee of the whole House and hope that at that stage these matters can be defined.