Bradford Sue: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6387] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei and the Green Party I congratulate Ngati Mutunga on their settlement. Although we state regularly our objection to Government policy on the settlement process there is no doubt that extraordinary work and effort by the iwi have gone into this settlement and we acknowledge and applaud that work. 
Ngati Mutunga is one of the eight Taranaki iwi to bring their settlement to the House. Their history similarly is one of dispossession and disenfranchisement at the hands of the New Zealand settler Government which unlawfully confiscated their lands and imprisoned their people. The confiscations were indiscriminate and the entirety of Ngati Mutunga’s rohe was stolen from them. The compensation process established to mitigate the thefts was never implemented. Ngati Mutunga rightly supported the acts of passive resistance organised by the prophets Te Whiti and Tohu at Parihaka. The subsequent military invasion of Parihaka led to the destruction of homes the confiscation of assets like stock imprisonment and the forced removal of some 1600 women men and children. Maori were effectively made refugees in their own country. It was one of the most shameful episodes in our history. 
During the select committee process for this bill there were no objections to this settlement. I thank those who made submissions particularly the runanga and negotiators for Ngati Mutunga. Their submission was very powerful. I will refer to two issues they raised. 
The first issue was around the quantum of the settlement. Ngati Mutunga raised very serious concerns about the quantum effectively being a fait accompli. When they talked to the Office of Treaty Settlements about the quantum the office refused to reveal how it had come to the initial amount. It told the committee that it does not go into a negotiation with a quantum in mind but after further questioning it conceded that it does have a figure as a starting point. But the office set it all up before the negotiation. In the case of Ngati Mutunga the initial figure proposed by the office changed by only a fraction in the final settlement. The office argued that commercial sensitivity prevented it from disclosing how it came to the initial figure. That is not good enough. The office must demonstrate clear and transparent processes for determining its initial offer. To do anything less puts the claimants at a very serious disadvantage and makes the process a pay-off not a negotiation. 
The second issue was a reflection on the phrase “fair in the circumstances”. Although the iwi were prepared to accept that statement in the settlement as a pragmatic concession it is clear that “fair in the circumstances” really means “in accordance with the political circumstances” not what is just. Again this creates a fallacy around the settlements being a genuine negotiation for the purpose of righting serious wrongs and providing restitution. We must remember that Maori are extremely generous in accepting these settlements. Like Taranaki iwi before them Ngati Mutunga have agreed to accept less than they would otherwise be entitled to for the significant losses they have suffered. They have agreed to cooperate with the Government and within a Government process that does not recognise their tikanga but requires them to operate within a Pakeha framework. Only about 1 percent of the potential value of compensation is paid in Treaty settlements and any initiatives designed to lift Maori to any kind of equal footing with the rest of the community are considered by far too many politicians in this House as being too generous. 
The Green Party has in the past been very clear that but for the work of the iwi in concluding these settlements and the costs in time money and people that this awful process requires we would vote against settlements. We remain in complete opposition to a process by which the Government dictates the way in which things should be done in the tangata whenua domain and in complete opposition to a process by which the wronged party is expected to submit to terms imposed by the wrongdoer. 
The Greens believe that the Government should develop with Maori a diversity of models for restitution that is premised on the tino rangatiratanga of hapu as the first principle. Clearly hapu must not be punished for choosing not to participate in a Crown process that is extensively designed for their benefit but that fails to recognise their needs and concerns. Crown policy could be changed to engage with individual hapu as set out in Te Tiriti. The Crown could engage in a resolution process that focuses more closely on ongoing relationships and less on fiscal and time constraints. It could accept alternative models through resolution that are determined by Maori themselves. This method of dealing with injustices of the past could achieve a real resolution. Meanwhile we will be voting for this reading of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill.