Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20685] 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and especially for those who have travelled here to join us in the House for this very important occasion. Sadly some of those who began the long task of settling these claims are no longer with us and I take this opportunity to acknowledge them and their contribution. 
The passage of this bill will make a significant contribution towards the goal of promoting harmony between the peoples of this country in two ways. Firstly it will provide tangible and intangible redress to NgatiTuwharetoa in the settlement of their claims allowing them to rebuild their economic base and shift the focus from addressing grievances to developing and building the future. Secondly it will restore the honour of the Crown. All New Zealanders want a Government that is fair to its citizens—one that recognises when Governments have made mistakes in the past. Making amends is at the heart of being fair. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and settles all their historical treaty claims. Those grievances are at the serious end of the scale. 
NgatiTuwharetoa were faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership and sought to build strong relationships with the Crown. But the Crown did not treat them fairly in return. This bill contains a formal apology to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown. 
NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty began direct negotiations with the Crown back in 1998. The main components of the settlement package were agreed in February 2001 and a deed of settlement was initialled by negotiators in October 2002. A significant majority of iwi participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly representatives of the Crown and NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 6 June 2003. The passage of this settlement bill is the final hurdle to enable the Crown to transfer the settlement redress to NgatiTuwharetoa. 
The historical treaty claims of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty relate mainly to the confiscation of land in the bay in the 1860s and to the damaging effect the confiscation had on their welfare economy and long-term development. The claims also relate to the loss of control of and access to geothermal energy and to the pollution of the Tarawera River. NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are based around Kawerau and Matata. NgatiTuwharetoa are of the Arawa waka and are descended from the ancestor Tuwharetoa who lived in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. 
The NgatiTuwharetoa people located in the Bay of Plenty are distinct from the whanaunga around Taupo Moana. Although many descendants of Tuwharetoa migrated south and settled around the Taupo area others stayed in the Kawerau and Matata areas and have their own separate and distinct identity. NgatiTuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty have also been closely interlinked and have a shared history with their neighbours Ngati Awa. They share an interest in some of the same sites around the Eastern Bay of Plenty. 
It can be difficult for the Crown to negotiate separate settlements in such circumstances but in this instance it was clearly the right thing to do. In 1999 shortly after negotiations began the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau as they were then known were entitled to stand alone in any settlement with their distinct lineage and identity properly acknowledged. 
This is the second claims settlement bill to be passed through the House this year and it will probably not be the last. The additional effort this Government has put into settling treaty claims is paying off. This year is likely to see at least three claims settlement bills passed—more than ever before in a single year. I want to acknowledge the support of many members around the House in making that possible. 
This legislation will move NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty beyond the stage of lodging historical claims at the Waitangi Tribunal or in the courts. In this sense they will join Waikato-Tainui with respect to their raupatu claims as well as NgaiTahu NgatiTurangituku Pouakani Te Uri o Hau NgatiRuanui Ngati Tama and Ngati Awa. These groups have all been through the negotiation process and have agreed that they can no longer lodge further historical claims. At the same time others have been exercising their rights as Maori to register historical claims. There are hundreds of registered historical claims now. 
The Waitangi Tribunal has already produced significant bodies of research at a general level as well as examining the detail in its district inquiries. I do not believe that 20 years after historical claims were first lodged there are many remaining issues still to be brought to the Crown’s notice through the Waitangi Tribunal. The time is coming soon when we must all increasingly shift our focus from the gathering together and presenting of historical grievances to resolving them in either a tribunal inquiry or by direct negotiations. As NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty know lodging a claim is only the beginning of the process and long years of work have been put in by the Waitangi Tribunal the Office of Treaty Settlements and especially NgatiTuwharetoa themselves to reach the end of the settlement process we are all achieving today. It is important that hearings and negotiations be resourced sufficiently to proceed apace but not constrained by any artificial deadlines. Settlements should be done once and done right. 
I am pleased to acknowledge all those in NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown who have worked towards making this day possible. In particular I acknowledge BevAdlam the chief negotiator for the settlement. Bev’s leadership and determination over past years has steered the claim through some challenging times. I would particularly like to acknowledge the dedication and goodwill that Bev has demonstrated to ensure that this bill has proceeded smoothly and is able to proceed today through the House. I also acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Margaret Wilson for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of NgatiTuwharetoa’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Conservation the Minister of Finance the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotitations and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the contributions of the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the first Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the early stage of the negotiations. 
I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty deed of settlement. Stories such as these are scars on our collective history but remembering them is vital to understanding the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those whose ancestors arrived here later. We must know our history if we are to truly learn from its lessons. Only then are we able to build our nation’s future together on the foundation of those lessons. I wish all the best for the future to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. They will shortly begin the critical task of managing their settlement assets. I am confident that they will do so with the judgment tenacity and commitment they have showed throughout the settlement process. I look forward to witnessing their future endeavours. Kia ora tatou. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Mai Maketu ki Tongariro ki takuwhanau o Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahikua tae mai ki koneii te ranginei aku mihi ki a koutou. Ki taku tuahine kaha tuahine toa a Beverley e mihi kau atu ana ki topakari topuka tomaia. No reira tenatatou katoa. 
[ 
From Maketu to Tongariro to my family from the Bay of Plenty who have arrived here today my greetings and wishes to you. To my strong sister Beverley I acknowledge your strength your patience and your courage. Greetings to us all 
.] 
I am very proud to stand here today and contribute to the third reading debate on this settlement bill not least because the people who are the subjects of the settlement are my own relatives NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I am very pleased to acknowledge their presence and to stand and support this bill on behalf of the National Party. I am also proud when we come to third readings of settlement bills because I came into Parliament with the National Party under the leadership of Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham. Their team at the time in 1994 decided to commit to a genuine settlement of treaty claims and Doug Graham as was his way—he was very competent and very good at this work—set about in quite a short space of time developing a treaty settlement framework that has stood the test of time and is still the framework under which this settlement comes before this House today. So I do want to acknowledge those past colleagues of the National Party and those in the National Party now for their foresight and for their commitment to put in train a process that allows tribes—iwi such as NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty who are here today—to put the past behind them and to move forward. 
To suffer confiscation at the hands of an authority that one might have expected would be one’s protector cannot be a happy event. Of course not all settlements are based on confiscation but this one was. I think that we today in the 21st century can only guess what that must have felt like at the time when a tribe or tribes were depending on Governments to protect them. Some of those confiscations occurred not far out from the signing of the treaty which promised that their lands and other resources would be protected and then they found out some short time later that that was not to be the case. 
I do not think that anybody can really understand the hurt and the burden of pain that must descend upon the generations and the difficulty that Maori have had in looking forward while they were carrying that burden. Happily today my relatives in the gallery will be able to put that hurt behind them hopefully and really begin the process of healing. The Minister has acknowledged as I also want to that this is a really really important thing that we members of Parliament are doing in this House this afternoon. For other New Zealanders who say: “Let’s hurry up can’t we get these things out of the way?” I point out that Maori claimants are the first people to want them out of the way. They are the ones carrying the burden. 
What other New Zealanders must understand and what they must also have a sense of is that these settlements are about injustices to their fellow countrymen and countrywomen. This is about injustice. From time to time we stand and say: “One law for all. Equality before the law.” but not until this sort of injustice is removed can a group feel that there is indeed equality before the law. That is something we must all remember. There is no equality before the law for groups who carry this kind of burden and this kind of injustice. 
As I said this is a good day for this Parliament. I hope that it is an even better day for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and a good day for New Zealand overall. I am proud of New Zealand. I am proud of New Zealanders because we in this country at least have shown that we are prepared to find a way to help put past grievances right. When we see on our television sets what happens in other countries we can only be grateful that generally speaking we are a fair-minded people and that if we show enough tolerance and patience we can get through this process and not only restore to ourselves all of us a measure of honour but also restore to the tribe their honour and allow them to exercise the mana they have been seeking to exercise all these years. 
Again—I keep repeating it but it is important to say it—this is a good day. Settlements are not an end to the matter; they are of course a beginning. But they do bring closure for the current generation enabling them hopefully to feel that in some way they are able to shake off what has happened to their tipuna in the past. Looking forward to the future I think these settlements are also about reconciliation. It is only when people start to feel equal that they can behave in an equal manner. Otherwise the notion of equality is just something floating in the wind. 
I expect that pretty soon Beverley who I know will not shuffle around getting dirt on her shoes will be up and doing the business. She along with the elders have driven this settlement. I am sure she already has developments in train and I wish her and certainly the tribe and all the elders much success and goodwill for their future. It is important for New Zealand children to understand that they live in a nation that can exercise fairness and tolerance and do the right thing and that can when called upon do great things and this is one of them. 
I say to the Minister that yes he certainly can acknowledge that this is the second—or is it the third—settlement. [ 
Interruption 
] OK. We certainly look forward to others occurring. Of course National is likely to be in Government pretty soon and as we have had such a lot of experience in the area I can only imagine that settlements will become more timely. Settlements should flow. Either way it is my view that it is incumbent on all MPs in this House to understand the nature of what is happening today to understand the importance of these settlements for the tribe concerned and to support them. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tenatatou katoa. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
NgatiTuwharetoatena koutou. Tena koutou ihara mai i te nuku o te whenua ki te whakatutukiitenei kaupapa hirahira e paana ki a koutou Rau Ropata koutou ra. Ko koutou ra te kanohi o ratoukuahinga kuangaro ki tua o te arai. Naratou te huarahi iparau na koutou te waka itoia kia tau ki uta. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Tuwharetoa. Greetings to you who have come from a distance to complete this matter of great importance to you and especially you Rau Ropata and others. You are the face of those who have passed on and are lost from view beyond the divide. They were the ones who ploughed the way and it is you who hauled the canoe ashore. And so greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you 
.] 
Along with my colleague the Hon Mark Burton I stand here to support the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I welcome here today the representatives of NgatiTuwharetoa mai i Te Moana a Toi who have come here on a very important occasion. This bill comprehensively and finally settles the historical claims of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. It is a hugely significant milestone for NgatiTuwharetoa and the Crown and it addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by the iwi. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew their relationship as treaty partners. Prior to the 1860s NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty were prosperous and economically successful. That is well known. However the loss of NgatiTuwharetoa land and resources through confiscation and other means has hindered their development throughout the past 150 years. 
The two issues of historical grievances and Maori economic and social development are deeply interconnected. Although settlement redress cannot hope to fully compensate iwi for their historical losses or address all their future needs it provides a platform for future development. This also marks a break from the past. No longer will the relationship between NgatiTuwharetoa and the Crown be focused on the grievances between them. We can get on with the business of working and building a strong and inclusive country together in the spirit of partnership originally envisaged by those who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The governance structures that iwi develop for receiving the redress also play a vital role. As part of its duty to the people of NgatiTuwharetoa and other claimant groups the Crown requires that a representative—an accountable and transferred governance entity—is established to receive and manage the settlement assets. Good governance is vital to development. 
This will be the fifth Act that settles raupatu or confiscation claims. There were many ways in which the Crown unfairly deprived Maori of their land and resources but warfare and confiscation is viewed by this Government as the most serious. The Crown has made significant progress in settling raupatu claims. The first of course was Waikato Tainui. In the last 6 years this has been followed by NgatiRuanui Ngati Tama Ngati Awa and the settlement bill for Nga Rauru Kitahi is currently before the Maori Affairs Committee. Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty are partially completed. In the last year the Waitangi Tribunal has reported on two more districts where there was raupatu. We hope that the negotiations can begin for the Gisborne claims soon once the mandate for negotiations is resolved. Officials have met on the Tauranga claims and already discussed possible structures for negotiations. 
To maintain this rate of settlement progress depends on bringing new groups into negotiations and last year we began negotiations with Te Arawa for their non-lakes claims Ngati Kahu ki Whaingaroa Taranaki whanui ki te Whanga-nui-a-Tara Moriori NgatiManua and Ngati Whare. We have recognised mandate negotiators for NgatiApa ki te Rangitikei and are working with Waikato River and North Island and South Island claimants to progress mandates there in addition to those I mentioned earlier. I look forward to the day when these groups will be celebrating the passage of their legislation. 
During the select committee consideration on this bill attention was drawn to the statements of association listed in the legislation. These statements describe the association of NgatiTuwharetoa with particular sites owned by the Crown. Some have questioned what the Crown is doing putting the legends and spiritual values of a particular iwi into legislation. This settlement legislation like all others before it as far back as NgaiTahu records NgatiTuwharetoa’s views for a specific reason. It is not to give their views primacy over anyone else’s; it is so that in any decisions about important resources their views are not overlooked. Many grievances throughout the country relate to the failure of decision makers to make decisions that affect Maori on an informed basis. For instance wahi tapu could have been unintentionally destroyed because a local authority had never been aware of it. Statutory acknowledgments give the claimant group the opportunity to record its association with the site in a publicly accessible form. Redress instruments like this will make it easier for the Crown to avoid causing further grievances and give iwi confidence that processes exist to protect their interests. 
In conclusion the passage of this legislation marks the end of a long journey for the people of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I acknowledge the dedication and hard work put in by all those people who contributed to this settlement—NgatiTuwharetoa negotiators the Ministers the officials and iwi members themselves who voted 95 percent in favour of the settlement. This is a ringing endorsement of the work put in by negotiators. I also pay special respect to those elders of NgatiTuwharetoa who began the journey so long ago towards settlement but who have passed on before it was completed. Once again I join my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending this bill to the House. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker a tena hoki tatau o te Whare nei. A tena hoki nga manuhiri mai i Te Moana a Toi Te Huatahi koutou o NgatiTuwharetoa nga rangatira ngakaumatua ngakuikuia. Koutou hoki te ropuikawe mai itenei kaupapa mai i te waitonoa atu e koutou ki te Taraipiunara tae noa ki teneira. Na reira nga mihi whanui ki a koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and indeed to all of us here in the House. Greetings as well to the visitors from the Bay of Plenty especially you NgatiTuwharetoa the chiefs elders men and womenfolk you also of the group who brought this matter here who took it before the tribunal and as a consequence is here today. Therefore a great acknowledgment to you 
.]  
It is my pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First—and I remind members once again that it is the only non - politically aligned party in this House—to contribute to the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and in particular to signal our support for it. 
I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty who are in the precincts of this Chamber together with members of the claims negotiating team. I also acknowledge their whanau who were not able to travel to be here today and who remain at home listening to what is essentially an important day for their iwi. They have arrived at this point after a period of almost 16 years; it has been 16 years since they first initiated their claim. From that time to this a number of their fellow tribesmen who were involved in this claim have passed on. I support the sentiments expressed by the member for Waiariki in acknowledging those who have returned to the spirit world. 
The passing of this bill will give final effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty back in 2003. It will also see another chapter added to the history of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty—a chapter intended to place some closure on events that have had an adverse effect on this iwi since the 1860s when war broke out ironically in the Waikato. I say “some” because although this settlement is full and final and all parties to this settlement have signed up to it no one can say that it fully compensates NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. 
Like many other claims already made to the tribunal this claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and in particular to the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe the inadequacies of the compensation court process and the subsequent alienation of the remaining lands that were subject to the native land laws and Crown purchasing. 
It is important to acknowledge the team representing this iwi who have been able to confront the difficulties that are becoming quite common for those who are charged by their respective iwi to negotiate with the Crown. Those difficulties include getting the mandate for their own appointment; getting the mandate of the tribe to negotiate on the tribe’s behalf for what they believe is their entitlement much of which is consequently not accepted by the other party; negotiations with Crown representatives; and getting the mandate from their iwi to accept final offers. Added to that list is the length of time taken to get to the settlement point—a matter that is clearly a sad commentary on the current process of negotiation and settlement. 
However those difficulties will pale into insignificance given the task that lies ahead for the iwi of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in terms of how they deal with the proceeds of this settlement. To that extent I make this point to the present and future leadership of NgatiTuwharetoa. If they thought that their journey thus far has been one of challenge I say that the future will provide further challenge as they confront the demands of the future and of their iwi. I say to the leadership to never forget to look back from time to time so as to ensure that those they lead are in fact still there. 
Before I conclude I make reference to two particular issues that arose during the earlier debates on this bill. The first one is in regard to references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in the bill. It is well known that New Zealand First is seeking to have all references to the expressions “the principles of the treaty” “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and the “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles” eliminated from all New Zealand statutes including all preambles interpretations schedules and regulations. 
The references to the principles of the treaty as articulated in this bill refer to an apology already given and to the definition of historical claims. It is stated in clause 15 that in terms of the deed of settlement and this Act the settlement “is final”. The settlement therefore ensures that there is finality to these claims. New Zealand First is able to vote for this bill because we support the settlement process and because the bill makes no functional reference to future decision-making around the expression or the concepts of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The second issue is that during the Committee stage an amendment was made by way of Supplementary Order Paper 367 to amend the English text. I refer to recital 32. The Supplementary Order Paper from the Government asked for the omission of the words “NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) around Kawerau” and the substitution of the words “NgatiTuwharetoa around the Kawerau area”. However the Maori text was not amended. New Zealand First subsequently lodged an amendment to reflect that amendment with the suggestion that the Maori text be amended to read: “iwaenga te rohe o Kawerau”. 
To my utter surprise the Minister in the chair at the time the member for Waiariki Mita Ririnui a Maori whom I regard as quite fluent in the use of the Maori language refused to support the proposal. In his words it was purely a matter of semantics. I tell that member that we in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation made here is clear and accurate to all New Zealanders and in particular to those affected by it. Although it may be said that the amendment is unlikely to affect the intent of the bill or the durability of this settlement I think we have a responsibility to ensure that the use of te reo Maori in legislation is correctly translated whether it be from or into te reo. 
In furthering the use of te reo Maori in legislation passed by this House I had intended to propose that the title be amended to read “NgatiTuwharetoa (Te Moana-a-Toi-te-Huatahi) Claims Settlement Bill” but because of the earlier lack of support by the member for Waiariki I felt compelled to pass up that opportunity. History provides enough evidence to give credence to what I have said. If anyone has any doubt in that regard I refer them to a particular document first signed in 1840 at Waitangi in which the Maori text was not a clear translation of the English text. 
Finally on behalf of New Zealand First I wish NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the best for their journey—a journey intended to bring them economic social and cultural prosperity. Their success in that regard will be of benefit not only to them but also for New Zealand Aotearoa. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Te manuhiri tuarangi ngakaumatua nga rangatira o NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau kua tae tautoko mai iteneiahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar the elders and chiefs of NgatiTuwharetoa of Kawerau who have come here this afternoon in support welcome welcome alight here 
.] 
The Greens extend to NgatiTuwharetoa congratulations on their achievement in this claim for restitution and redress for the crimes committed against them in the past. We will be voting in favour of this third reading. That said it is always very hard I find to vote in favour of these settlement bills. I know that other parties take a very surface and simplistic approach to them but the Greens understand deeply what a sacrifice their achievement has meant. We recognise the hurt and the difficulty the potential for fracturing caused by a process whereby winners and losers are specifically picked. We support these bills because we will not perpetuate the cycle of legislative and structural abuse that is the treaty settlement process. We will not undervalue the enormous achievement of iwi getting as far as this through the settlement process. 
But our objection to the settlement process is also because we do not want to be complicit in a process that is unjust that returns no more than 1 percent if that of the original stolen resources and that requires iwi and hapu to make sacrifices they should never ever have been required to make. I know that those involved in the treaty negotiation processes across the board feel similarly. But they also acknowledge and work with the duress of poverty that is the settlement process and that the settlement process exploits because they see that steps to rangatiratanga in some form need to be made for their people. We understand that. 
The Greens want to see a settlement process that is developed by Maori. If we are to be committed to restorative justice it is critical that the wronged party has control over the nature of that restoration. Otherwise as with other justice processes the victim will remain disempowered. We completely oppose the notion of time limits to treaty settlements because to impose such time limits purposefully excludes iwi from restoration of the historical wrongs committed against them. The capacity to engage in the settlement process is already critically dependent on Government funding or funding through the Crown Forestry Rental Trust which ties its criteria to the needs and desires of Government agencies. If iwi miss out on Government funding soon they will have no chance of obtaining the redress that justice entitles them to. That is structural racism. 
The bill before us tells a story about the old Compensation Court which tried to provide redress. But because it implemented only the values and processes of the dominant culture at the time it not only failed to provide redress but in returning individual and not collective title enabled the further alienation of land and the loss of precious economic and cultural resources. Those resources have not been fully restored by this bill. The Compensation Court processes described in the bill are written again in what we are doing today. We have to learn from our mistakes. We say that often in this House. We have to learn from our mistakes but this and previous Governments have blindly refused to do so. Maori iwi and hapu suffer as a result. 
I refer to some of the issues briefly raised at the Maori Affairs Committee by other iwi and hapu who have been struggling to have their claims and views heard in the settlement process. There are stories of losing battles to get funding because of the arrangements—ad hoc though they seem to be—between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust that pick winners and losers. There are stories about claimants’ struggles to get the research to back their tribunal claims and to stand alongside other iwi as independent and capable of negotiating their own claims separately. They are not new stories. Neither will they be the last that the Government the select committee and future Governments hear during the treaty settlement process. 
I acknowledge that claimants’ rights are undermined by this bill. Until the Government—having talked to claimants—reviews and alters the treaty settlement process in accordance with the actual needs of claimants settlements will always be in part at least tools of oppression used against the claimant groups because of the pauperisation that the process requires and used against the other iwi and hapu whose rights are legislated away because of Government haste and political expediency. Part of the structural violence that is the colonisation process is seen in the more recent failures of the Government properly to address related issues. It has not been just this Government either but also previous Governments. 
The bill refers to the pollution of the Tarawera River by the Kawerau pulp and paper mill. The clean-up of that river has not been done. It remains poisonous. The toxic sites remain unclean exposed to the environment and vulnerable to floods. When I was there last year I saw asbestos rubble lying fully exposed on contaminated sites along the main road to the mill. Whose responsibility was it to clean it up? Nobody took responsibility. Who suffered the effects of the pollution? It was the workers and the people who live in the area. Many of them were NgatiTuwharetoa people who have lived and worked near that site for years. Is it a treaty issue? Yes it is. It was only a month ago that the Sawmill Workers Against Poisons Greenpeace and others came to Parliament to tell MPs what was really happening as a result of the poisoning of the environment in their rohe—the sickness the birth defects the intergenerational illnesses. Where is the restoration of these historical wrongs? They are nowhere. 
Today is a very important day for Tuwharetoa and for all New Zealanders as they see the conclusion of this settlement claim for this iwi. Some resources are being restored and that is a good thing. We celebrate that as a good thing. We also celebrate that the iwi is now able to step away from the demands of Parliament from the criticisms the accusations the abuses of Government and members of Parliament in this House and the demands and requirements of Government agencies and will finally be able to concentrate on their own needs and meet their own aspirations themselves as they have always been entitled to do. The Greens want to see a just process that is durable and acceptable because Maori have been part of the development the architecture of it. We want a process that meets the standards set by tikanga Maori and not by political expediency. Kia ora. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is always hard to follow some of the speeches on the settlement bills and it is particularly hard to follow speeches from members like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu Metiria Turei and others who have a very honourable purpose who want to see the best for their country and who are making acknowledgments to folk who have been hurt. They wish the parties all the best and certainly they wish the recipients of the treaty settlements all the best. They wish them to have prosperity pride and a focus on the future which are things that every New Zealander hopes for from the treaty grievance process. But I believe it is important that someone in this House—and ACT is prepared to do this however much the other parties may howl at us—warns of the danger of believing in one’s own rhetoric and of being persuaded by one’s own fervent wishes. I look at the settlement bills and I see that they are being passed as Acts of Parliament. They are statements of law and the claim is that they are intended to put grievances behind us. So I look at them as a lawyer and as a lawyer who is aware of just how tempting it is to other lawyers to find more problems where there should have been settlements—to turn what was intended to be a solution into permanent grievance work. 
When I look at this bill I see in it a pattern that this Government and earlier National Governments have perpetrated: a pattern of self-deception. The bill contains deliberately vague terms. It contains deliberately fuzzy language. It contains promises that are deliberately intended never to be called upon. One clause may contain assurances but 10 or 20 clauses later those precise assurances are negated. The generation that we are part of may understand that the bill is an attempt to reach a political compromise. It may be well meant but the generations to come will simply look at it and be mystified. They will ask how it could have been that the Parliament of New Zealand in trying to settle grievances that had festered for decades and decades because of a complete mismatch in understanding or because one side thought the other had been tricky with regard to language could go ahead and pass law designed to do exactly the same thing again. 
We look at the protocols and the statutory acknowledgments that the Crown sets out in the schedules—accounts of mythology accounts of special value and accounts of guardianship values that NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty will be given an opportunity to impose on areas that are important to it. It looks at first sight as though the Government is handing over a genuine power of protection. Then we go a little further on and find that the clauses expressly state that all bets are off. The environmental authorities and the various bodies that have delegated government powers in the Bay of Plenty are told that they must have regard to those things that they must be solemnly recorded on titles and that they have to be drawn to the attention of people who are looking to use land. However we then find that those same bodies are told that they are to give them no more weight than anyone else’s submissions and that they have no effect in law. They are simply statements of empty rhetoric. I do not think that that is a recipe for a durable settlement. I think future generations and courts will say that they cannot imagine that Parliament actually meant this settlement to have no practical effect and they will make it have effect. What effect? That will be invented by judges on the basis of contending bitter claims. 
Another reason why ACT will not vote for these kinds of settlements is that they rewrite and falsify history without even making it consistent. In this legislation the Crown apologises because land was handed back presumably in a good-faith attempt to try to mitigate what had been a wrong. It was handed back in individualised titles. The complaint now is that the original wrongs were wrong because collective punishment was meted out. Although some of the iwi had rebelled others did not but the Crown did not distinguish between them when it exacted its own redress—when it took revenge if you like; utu or muru—on the land that was held collectively. So why do we now have pages and pages of grovelling apology that states that the Crown “done wrong” because it handed back individual land titles when the people complained initially that their collective land was taken? One cannot have it both ways. If people are to be treated as individuals and as not being responsible for what their whanau or hapu have done and if they are treated as individuals and the only assets that are available for seizure are those that are held individually why would the Crown not create individual titles? One cannot have it both ways. 
I also think it is shameful that this Parliament is apologising for actions that as clause 8(3)(f) states “eroded the traditional social structures mana and rangatiratanga of NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty). The Crown failed to adequately protect NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) from the impact of these actions and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles.” The “Winston Peters Party” which is busy promoting a bill to abolish the so-called principles of the treaty is voting for this bill despite that utterly fraudulent apology. This is a Government that is deliberately eroding social structures. It is not only eroding the social structures of Maori but is eroding the mana of men throughout our community. It has changed schooling so that courage is a lost virtue. It has specialised in making everyone victims in whining over spilt milk and in providing a remedy for every pretended wrong. That has nothing to do with the grievance industry of the treaty. This Government has set out to undermine the status of men and families. It has set out to take any concept of muru or utu out of justice. This Government does not believe in punishment and in right or wrong yet we have a formal apology in this bill for eroding traditional social structures. That is unbelievable. The Government has destroyed the distinction that New Zealand was so proud to have created over a century ago between Church and State and that is now included in the bill. We passed a secular education Act and we tried to make sure that we knew the difference between religion and the State. Now we have a bill that deliberately recreates a form of coercive force to statements of spiritual values. 
This is not a bill to be proud of. It grasps at a temporary political solution to an embarrassment for both National and Labour which set out and encouraged completely unfulfillable expectations. Now they are creating documents that are full of weasel words that no one even in this Parliament understands or can define. The Government will leave it to the judges and to future generations to argue about what it meant. The bill does not deal with the treaty. It cannot be a full and final settlement. It does not even pretend to be full and final in terms of contemporary claims. It is a shame that the members of another generation are being set up to regard each other with suspicion. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future for the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and I welcome members of NgatiTuwharetoa to the House today. 
I do not want to delay the passage of the bill by taking a long time but I want to reflect on the fact that this settlement begins with an agreed historical account including Crown acknowledgments that form the basis of a Crown apology. The simple fact is that 87000 acres within the traditional rohe of NgatiTuwharetoa were confiscated. Of that acreage 20000 were returned into individual ownership rather than to iwi or hapu so that the tribal estate remained unaffected. Part of the consequence of being dispossessed of their land was the loss of access to traditional foods medicines and housing materials. In the 20th century Rangitaiki swamp lands were drained and access issues were overtaken by a complete loss of those traditional tribal resources. 
Accompanying the acknowledgment of the historical facts is an apology for the past breaches of the treaty and the cumulative effect of those breaches on successive NgatiTuwharetoa generations. Following close on the heels of the acknowledgment and the apology is a series of provisions for cultural redress which includes establishing at Matata a reserve that will restore access to traditional foods for non-commercial purposes. The bill will also secure and provide protection for places and sites of traditional cultural significance to NgatiTuwharetoa. The commercial and financial redress is valued at an extremely modest $10.5 million with first right of refusal on significant sites. 
United Future wishes NgatiTuwharetoa well and congratulates them on this settlement. We acknowledge all those who have negotiated this claim and we acknowledge those generations who never lived to see this day but who shared in the loss and the process that brings us to today. United Future is therefore very happy to support the third reading of this bill. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
Tenei e tuana ki te tautoko nga mihi mai ingatahataha o te awa o Waikato mai i te maunga o Taupiri ki NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau tena koutou. 
[ 
I rise and in turn add my acknowledgments from the river banks of the Waikato and the mountain of Taupiri in support of those expressed to NgatiTuwharetoa of Kawerau; greetings to you all 
.]  
I join with my colleagues to support the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Already the House has heard that the bill is in part connected to historical events subsequent to the Land Wars of the 1860s and confiscation of lands. Much of that historical account is included in the bill. More particularly it includes the avenues for redress. 
I want to make my contribution in light of discussions that were held before the Maori Affairs Committee. We spent some time debating two particular aspects of the settlement and they are worth restating in the third reading. Firstly we debated the issue and definition of “whangai”. I reiterate that the committee felt that claimants should decide on how they want to express whangai in their settlement bill and more important to determine just how benefits are to accrue to tribal members according to their tikanga. This was a subject of some discussion before the select committee and it was noted in our report back to the House. 
The second issue was around the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. Our deliberations became quite fixated on the way in which a geothermal statutory acknowledgment would be referred to in an Act of Parliament. It is important to mention that many members around the select committee table did not believe that the particular origin of association to geothermal resources as told by ancestors and passed down through generations should be included as such in an Act of Parliament. Quite frankly none of us could guarantee that the iwi’s stories would not be made a mockery of in this House as is so evident from derogatory remarks that are being and have already been made with regard to taniwha and the like. 
I think that what is in the bill safeguards the iwi’s particular association to the geothermal resource and the integrity of the iwi’s own story. Albeit it was not the wish of its particular negotiators at the time it was the reasoning for the committee’s decision. 
I sincerely look forward to any development opportunity that looks likely to arise from that statutory acknowledgment as it is the first of its kind and we should celebrate that—certainly on this side of the House. 
I take the opportunity to thank advisers from the Office of Treaty Settlements Heather Baggott and her team as we have had quite a few learning points in considering this bill and the issues that have arisen from it. 
From the committee’s perspective it is important that the information received by advisers is accurate and reflects agreements reached with the claimant group but that it also reflects concerns expressed by the select committee back to the claimant group. We felt that that is an important role the Office of Treaty Settlements plays and will be increasingly so as we deal with more and more settlements. 
In many ways the Office of Treaty Settlements became integral to the transmission of information while the bill was still with the select committee. No doubt our committee will continue to ensure that it is a full and robust process and I certainly thank Heather Baggott and her team for persevering with the deliberations before the committee. It was not an easy task at times. 
I want to make a comment on the use of te reo Maori in bills before the House. We are going into new territory with the claims settlement bills as most preambles are expressed in both te reo Maori and Pakeha. Mechanisms for redress often use Maori words in order to restate what that mechanism means in terms of redress measures. I agree with the member from New Zealand First in that as legislators and as Maori in this House we should endeavour to ensure that that is done in an accurate and robust way according to the intent of both the claimants and the Crown. That said I know that the process will probably be organic and I hope a positive movement forward. I look forward to the day when we are writing laws in Maori. 
Lastly treaty settlements in themselves cannot solve all the problems that continue to exist in our communities and neither should they. The treaty settlements provide a platform of opportunity for claimant groups like NgatiTuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty to move from grievance to reconciliation and to restoration and to the advancement of their own aspirations. That is as it should be. It is not an easy journey but deciding to start somewhere puts the next generation on a firm footing. 
No reira tenei te mihi ki a koutou iteneiwa tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
And so at this point in time I acknowledge you all greetings 
.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
Tuwharetoa o Te Moana a Toi tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
And so my greetings to you all Tuwharetoa from the Bay of Plenty.  
] 
This is a good day for the New Zealand Parliament because it marks more progress not only for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty but for the country as a whole. The National Party is very pleased to support this settlement bill because it has made a big commitment to ensuring that the settlement process moves more smoothly and with greater speed in the near future. 
Many people would wonder why we separate out some of our concerns about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from our commitment to the preservation of te reo Maori and the speedy resolution of treaty grievances. It is all pretty simple. Our view is that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed as many rights to non-Maori as it did to Maori. I ask people to consider that in light of this particular settlement. Many people will never understand quite why settlements are done but what we have today in this bill’s preamble is all the history that indicates why a grievance exists. 
In essence in the early part of New Zealand’s modern history post-1840 there were clearly occasions when the two main groups of people here Maori and non-Maori had disagreements. In this case the disagreement is well-documented right through to the start of the Waikato wars in about 1862. There was a subsequent confiscation from NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty of some 87000 acres because they fought against the Crown. Even though the Crown at the time afforded a certain amount of amnesty to many of the people involved in those early conflicts the land remained confiscated. 
As far back as 1863 the New Zealand Settlements Act of that year was designed for the hearing of claims for the return of confiscated land. But in the case of this claimant group the 87000 hectares was not given back to the entire iwi; rather it was split among about 14 people considered suitable to hold the land. I think that in essence that would be the reason for the long-held grievance of the claimant group. If that is not entirely the reason forgive me but it is what I seize upon as being a good way of illustrating why we go through the settlement process. 
All this legislation does today effectively is to confirm for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty what article 2 of the treaty confirms for any New Zealander today who holds and owns land or other property. Therefore as a settlement bill it is a statement that in this country people who are wronged can have that wrong put right with goodwill and with the right lead from the Government. I think that when we look back on this part of history perhaps in a hundred years from now when most of us will not be here—I will probably still be here but many others will not—we might well say that this was an interesting period in our history. We might say that it was a period in which a lot of the dislocation of direction that occurred in the early years up to about 1880 and then the ignoring of the grievances that were created right through probably until the mid 1980s were put right and that it was a period when as a nation we were able to be much firmer on the ground in relation to the rights the treaty guarantees to all of us. 
It is that claim—that the treaty guarantees as many rights to me a non-Maori as it does to anyone who is Maori—that probably causes the most contention and political discussion at the present time. Nobody who clings to the treaty as being important to him or her should see any threat to that relationship coming from the position we take. We simply say the treaty has a series of rights that all New Zealanders can claim and this settlement bill ratifies that. So our message to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty is: “Congratulations on reaching the end of a very long road and best wishes for where this settlement will take the group.” 
We know that there are some pressing problems in this country that cannot be ignored by any Government. One of those problems is the wealth-base of the country. New Zealand is not a wealthy country despite what we like to tell ourselves compared with our neighbour across the ditch—Australia. People ask whether that is a fair comparison. It is a fair comparison if people are choosing to leave here and go there. One of the interesting things is that groups like NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty will not leave here because this is very much their home—just as much as it is the home of anybody else who has come here. Individuals in families may well choose to leave so the need to address that economic gap between Australia and us is quite pressing. 
But when we look just at us we see there is a massive gap between the average incomes of non-Maori New Zealanders and Maori. That gap is about $6000 a year—a huge income gap. When people get wound up about treaty settlements and fisheries settlements and everything else I think it is interesting to consider that if we took all the money that goes into those settlements and divided it among the people who claimed to be Maori in the last census we would give them about $2000 each—once. But dealing with that income gap that disparity within our own economy would give them $6000 on average per year. 
So the sort of settlement that is being ratified in this bill the handing to NgatiTuwharetoa of the tools to carve their own destiny not only in their tribal and cultural sense but also economically is as important for the rest of the country as it is for those who receive the settlement. I say again to NgatiTuwharetoa that we congratulate them on the long years they have struggled to see this success. We wish them all the best for a bright future. It is not only theirs but also for this entire country—for us. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 That was an excellent speech from Mr Gerry Brownlee. I think it put very carefully the reason why National supports settlements and it gave our vision for our country Maori and non-Maori alike as we move into the 21st century. I want to emphasise the importance of looking forward in doing that and how we have to do that. 
I also want to pick up on a theme developed by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu who talked about justice and equality which of course are at the very heart of National’s philosophy not just on treaty issues but on much broader issues. It is actually the reason why we carry out settlements. We cannot achieve equality before the law—equality being probably the deepest single value for our country—unless we also achieve justice. So what we are doing today on behalf of virtually the whole Parliament is giving the Crown’s recognition of the need to do justice for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. That is why the settlements are so important and that is the reason we need to complete them. 
I must say I remain somewhat disappointed with the view of the ACT party. It seems to me that ACT members are saying that unless a settlement meets in each and every particular their expectation of what it should be then there is no way the settlement can be supported by them. The problem with that point of view of course is that it is such an exclusive approach to settlements. 
Settlements are of necessity something of a compromise and a consensus not just within this Parliament but also by NgatiTuwharetoa themselves. They also have to compromise or else there would no settlement. Compromise is an inherent part of the process and I would ask my colleagues in the ACT party to contemplate that particular issue. 
The promise of our country both in 1840 and today is that all our citizens will be treated equally and as I said part and parcel of that process is the completion of settlements. I noted the comments by the Minister that as a nation we have been in the settlement process now for 20-odd years. Many of the claims themselves have a genesis going right back into the 1980s but of course it is time now after 20 years to be able to say that we need to hasten the process. There seems finally to be some dawning recognition by the Government of that need and I suggest that that recognition would not have occurred but for Dr Brash’s speech some 18 months ago. 
During the Committee stage I pointed out some of the defects of this legislation. Some of those defects were also noted by Mr Franks. I also say that as we go forward with settlements a National Government would do things somewhat differently. I want to touch briefly on some of those differences. 
I do not believe it is necessary now to constantly take an apologetic view of history without any recognition of the standpoints of people back then. We must certainly recognise that injustices were done but we should at least acknowledge that both Maori and Crown representatives were living in a different experience in the 1860s. Both groups were in a different experience and had a different expectation. 
For instance is it actually so bad that some land was returned to individuals? For many Maori individual ownership actually laid the foundation for economic well-being. That fact does not of course diminish the accompanying injustice whereby the iwi did not get any settlement. But individualisation of title is actually part of the pathway to prosperity and I feel we make a mistake in not recognising that. 
There is a similar position in relation to the drainage of swamps. Where would the New Zealand dairy industry be today if swamps had not been drained? We can think of the prosperity right though the Hauraki Plains and in much of the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato generally. I know that Nanaia Mahuta well understands the importance of improving land in order to build prosperity. So rather than that action harming Maori it actually benefited Maori and we need to be careful in the way in which we record our history. 
The point about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty has been well made by New Zealand First speakers but I just add this: the problem with the inclusion of principles—not just in this legislation but generally—is that it blinds people to what the treaty actually promised which was the protection of property. That is the true foundation for the reason we are undertaking these settlements and we would do much better for ourselves as a nation if we had reference to the terms of the treaty—the actual undertakings—rather than to some fanciful notion of principles that frankly I have yet to hear the Government give any credible explanation of no matter how much it tries. 
Pita Paraone 
: Haven’t they given any explanation? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No they have not. 
I turn now to the vexed question of myth and legend. I am one of those who says that they have no place in the law of our land. Everyone has beliefs. It is impossible to be a human being yet to have no beliefs. The question is: do we put those beliefs in the law? The situation is not to say—as Nanaia Mahuta and apparently the Green Party say—that if we do not put them in the law they are therefore diminished. That is simply false. 
The whole notion of equality rests on the fact that we say our law applies to everyone equally. If we put into law the beliefs of some people but not of others what we are actually doing is introducing inequality into the law. [ 
Interruption 
] There is simply a lack of understanding it seems on the part of the Labour Party and obviously of the Green Party on the role of belief law and the meaning of a secular society. 
But this is perhaps not the day for the development of those issues; this is a day in essence of celebration and a day of restitution and restoration. Parliament is voting for these settlements—unfortunately I might say—not unanimously. It would be better if the settlements were being voted for unanimously with people’s particular concerns or parties’ particular concerns being recorded nevertheless. 
I want to congratulate NgatiTuwharetoa today. As a number of speakers have said this is the end of one phase of their journey but the beginning of another phase. I want to note particularly BevAdlam the chief negotiator. I know she will have a hugely important role in the next phase of development on behalf of her whanau hapu and iwi. 
I want to conclude with this statement: National is proud of its record in treaty settlements. We believe that they need to be hastened for the benefit of our nation. I stand alongside my colleagues Gerry Brownlee and Georgina te Heuheu in sketching for the benefit of this upcoming election our way forward which we anticipate will be endorsed by New Zealanders. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.