Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21917] 
Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 22 June. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedules 2 to 11 agreed to. 
Schedule 12 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to schedule 12 be agreed to: 
to omit from under the heading “Rauru of the gods sky lands and seas” the following wording: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard down through the generations of the Kahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and therefore so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi. 
This divine origin is particular to the sacred mystical and theological insight of the people of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi. The esoteric nature of these claims is expressed through their own pertinent whakapapa link. It is through a knowledge and awareness of this whakapapa that one is able to gain a perception of the attitudes of the tribe towards the almighty powers of the celestial realm the cosmic emanations of the divine beginning the world and its creation and the evolution of earth and its people. 
Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi makes a direct acclamation by stating its origins from the period of the Absolute Void to Rangi and Papa to Rauru the man and Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi the tribe. This claim draws together the spiritual and temporal manifestations of which Rauru is the central figure it deals specifically with the origins of: the gods man vegetation and taonga.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 12 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Schedule 12 agreed to. 
Schedule 13 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Clause 1 deals with the title of the bill. There can be no doubt that the words in the title “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement” by and large reflect what the bill does. I do not want to argue that the title of the bill should change. What I have to say is that at the end of a very long process we are very disappointed to have been put in a position today where it becomes almost impossible for us to support the passage of this settlement bill. One may ask why I bring that up now. It is because of the use of the very word “settlement” in the title of this bill which is to become an Act. When that is considered alongside schedule 12 then I think that those who have read schedule 12 will begin to see the difficulty that the use of the word “settlement” in the title creates because it confers something upon this particular iwi that is not there for other New Zealanders. We will speak further of that in the third reading debate but I take this moment simply to indicate the difficulty the National Party is currently wrestling with. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Again on behalf of New Zealand First I want to say that the title is quite clear. The bill is about a particular claimant group. The title identifies the name of the claimant group and that is really what is needed from a title. 
The previous speaker Gerry Brownlee said that this bill gives some rights to the claimant group that are not available to other New Zealanders and I accept that he is quite right to raise his concern about that. But this bill is about Nga Rauru Kitahi’s claim; it is a settlement between them and the Crown. However we do express some concerns about some of the entitlements that it gives this claimant group that are not available to other New Zealanders and that should signal to the Government and therefore the Crown that care and thought should be given when considering future claimant settlements that come before this House. 
In terms of the commencement again I ought to say that there may be a technical reason why the bill cannot come into force until the day after the royal assent is given but this claimant group has waited a long time for this settlement to take place. Although some people may consider that an extra day is not too long I think that if it were technically possible the bill should come into force the moment the royal assent is given. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say we support clauses 1 and 2. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Before I start may I ask for some guidance. I have assumed that the expanded form of preamble that is now in some of these bills is in fact part of the title. The title used to be called the long title and this is a very very long title. It seems to me that the preamble would not have been debated under any other heading and I propose to address some parts of the preamble. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The preamble has already been agreed to. However the member may wander over any aspect of the bill from the first page to the last—any issue at all. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The debate being a title debate—I understand. The matters I wish to draw attention to are matters that one day will be seen in the same light as the issue that Mr Brownlee has now indicated—and I think the people of New Zealand should be grateful for that—the National Party is starting to treat seriously and that is the language that appears in settlement bills and the importance that that language might have for future generations. We must try to make sure we actually are settling claims and are not simply creating fresh foundation for new claims. 
The title states that the legislation is a settlement and it immediately follows a preamble that recites a series of events in what I imagine the Crown would argue are non-judgmental terms but which I believe future generations will cite as some kind of parliamentary confession. There are statements about facts there and there are statements that are probably highly controversial. 
I do not know whether this particular claim and the lead-up to it were involved but about 8 years ago I was told by one the Crown Law Office people who had been engaged on treaty claims work that when he left he could not stand the work any longer. He had been instructed not to challenge evidence that he knew came from people who were unreliable their having been declared unreliable in completely unrelated court proceedings and he was not allowed to put forward matters that he believed were relevant. I have no idea whether that relates to the Nga Rauru Kitahi claim but I am reminded of it because this title follows a preamble that records that the Crown gave the Waitangi Tribunal an indication of a number of matters on which it would not give evidence. It then recites what undoubtedly were very nasty events 150 years ago. But at the end of it the Crown says that the “disempowerment” recited by the Waitangi Tribunal the “denigration and destruction of Maori autonomy or self-government” is a breach of the treaty and its so-called principles. 
That disempowerment theory that autonomy notion is at odds with the treaty itself. It is at odds with the principles on which any healthy society works. We simply cannot see around the world any prosperous forward-looking healthy society where people spend their time arguing about who has ultimate authority on a race basis. By reciting the disempowerment theory and the autonomy theory in the preamble to this bill the Government is setting this country up for another argument in 20 years’ time. If the money runs out if it is lost if the settlement does not bring a new millennium of prosperity and happiness there will be some people who come back to visit it. A document that purports to be a full settlement should not contain within it by deliberate obfuscation the seeds of more argument. We should know whether this bill is endorsing that tribunal decision. We should know whether this House by simply recording that decision without comment is trying to separate itself from it. I am sure that in 20 years’ time someone will say: “Parliament never meant to endorse it. It simply recited it.” But I believe that it has been put there to mislead the claimants into thinking it is being endorsed and that is wrong. Either it is endorsed or it is not and the legislation should state it. 
The title talks about a settlement but as Mr Brownlee says there will be no true settlement in a document that sets out to try to mean one thing to one side and another thing to the other side—or maybe multiple things. There may be more than two sides here. There may be those who oppose claim settlements on one side and in the middle is the vast body of New Zealanders who want to see injustice remedied who are embarrassed by what happened in Taranaki and who wish they did not have to learn about Parihaka and the treatment of Maori rightly defending their property and existence—their turangawaewae. There is huge goodwill and a huge wish that these things be put behind us. But by recording the autonomy theory and the disempowerment theory—as if disempowerment were itself a breach of the treaty—we are setting up this House this country and this Government to have the next generation come back and say: “Clearly we still don’t have power. Clearly we still don’t have autonomy. Clearly there’s a standing breach of the treaty.” 
I think there are very few if any—perhaps the Green Party—in this Chamber who would agree with that. Perhaps Labour would have agreed until 2 or 3 years ago—until the Orewa speech until Mr Mallard started his review of the effects of race distinctions. I think it is wrong to have a vote on this bill treated as a form of endorsement of a theory that when the Waitangi Tribunal came out with it immediately generated a storm of justified protest. I am not sure whether it was the interim Taranaki report that contained the famous holocaust words—[ 
Interruption 
] It was. Well that is not a report that this House should be reciting in the preamble to legislation as if it were something we endorsed. It was a report that discredited itself by its extremism. I am sure there was some very sound historical work in it but the judgment that was applied to that work by the tribunal in the writing of the report means that it should not be given weight and it should not be recited as if we accepted its authority. It appeared during a period of the tribunal’s outpourings that actually lowered the tribunal’s mana. It meant that the tribunal became something of a mockery after that. The recital of that report as authority immediately precedes the title provision and Parliament is not doing itself any service by passing law in that form. 
The Maori Affairs Committee corrected minor matters of Maori presentation. It went to the trouble of having a translation in the bill rewritten but it did not look at the substance. The substance of the preamble is what people will look at in the future—not whether there was some clumsy translation. 
In this Committee stage I am glad to hear that National is actively considering whether it can vote for the bill as a whole. I urge Mr Brownlee to take into account as well the effect of voting for a bill that implicitly endorses the “holocaust” report because I suggest that that is the effect that will be claimed in terms of recital (18) of the preamble which precedes the title. 
Clause 1 agreed to and clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 There were negotiations earlier this afternoon about Parliament granting leave for this bill to progress immediately following the Committee stage. The reason for that was that we were told that a large number of people from the iwi were making their way to Parliament for the third reading. On that basis obviously we did not want them to come here for no purpose. I know we are not meant to refer to the galleries but it is patently obvious that the group that is on its way has not yet arrived. Accordingly I would seek leave that we hold this third reading for perhaps another 35 minutes or so in order that the group may be able to be present in the Chamber. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. In doing so I acknowledge the significance of this day to the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi and to the representatives who are in the House today to witness this very very important occasion. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Nga Rauru and settles all its historical treaty claims. The past actions of the Crown that are acknowledged in this legislation contributed to the dismantling of Nga Raurutanga and the loss of Nga Rauru Kitahi language land and social structures. That has affected the economic capacity and the physical cultural and spiritual well-being of Nga Rauru Kitahi. What happened to those people in the past was at the very serious end of the scale in terms of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. This bill contains the Crown’s formal apology to Nga Rauru Kitahi for those breaches of the treaty which are acknowledged by the Crown. 
The historical treaty claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi relate mainly to the wars in Taranaki and to the consequent confiscation of land from Nga Rauru Kitahi. The effect of those actions on Nga Rauru Kitahi was severe. Nga Rauru people were forced by Crown troops to leave their homes and marae for several years in the 1860s and 1870s. When they joined the peaceful settlement at Parihaka they were arrested and imprisoned. I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Nga Rauru Kitahi deed of settlement. Stories such as that are scars on our history but remembering them is vital to an understanding of the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those whose ancestors arrived later. We must know our history if we wish not to repeat it. 
Nga Rauru Kitahi started its negotiations with the Crown in 2000. An agreement in principle that set out the basis for settling the historical claims was signed on 16 May 2002. A draft deed of settlement was then prepared. More than 67 percent of the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi voted on whether to accept that draft deed and of those 92 percent agreed to accept it. On 27 November 2003 the deed of settlement was signed. Nga Rauru Kitahi has recently established a new governance entity Te Kahui o Rauru to represent all 12 marae of Nga Rauru Kitahi. The trustees have pledged to uphold and be guarded by manaakitanga rangatiratanga whanaungatanga kotahitanga wairuatanga mana whenua kaitiakitanga whakapapa te reo and matauranga. Their vision is to live as Nga Rauru Kitahi to enjoy good health and a quality lifestyle to foster unity and to enable their people to embrace Nga Rauru Kitahitanga. It is a great challenge they have set for themselves and we all wish them well into the future. 
One of the key features of the negotiations has been an emphasis throughout by Nga Rauru Kitahi on the need to enhance its relationship with the Crown into the future. I am encouraged by that fact. In negotiating its settlement Nga Rauru Kitahi expressed a desire to establish a forum to provide an ongoing relationship with the Crown. That has been done through the establishment of a paepae rangatira—a chief-to-chief forum. The forum will assist in contributing to the development of an ongoing and a positive treaty relationship. 
The passage of this settlement bill represents the final steps of a journey for Nga Rauru Kitahi and the Crown that began when the leaders of Nga Rauru Kitahi courageously decided in 1999 to try to move from grievance mode towards a more positive future. I acknowledge that that was a very difficult decision for Nga Rauru Kitahi to make. I commend it for negotiating with the utmost good faith and for demonstrating that it was willing to cooperate and compromise in order to reach an agreement. 
This is the third claims settlement bill to pass through the House this year. The additional effort this Government is putting into settling treaty claims is paying off. This year has seen three settlement claims passed—more than ever before in a single year. That means that three more claimant groups have had past wrongs acknowledged and that there are three more groups with which new and better relationships with the Crown are now possible. I am pleased to acknowledge all those from Nga Rauru Kitahi who have worked towards making this day possible: the kaumatua and kuia who provided leadership and support throughout the marae delegates on the iwi authority the authority’s chairman Mike Neho who made the hard decisions and Martin Davis the authority’s kaiwhakahaere who led the negotiations with the Crown. I also acknowledge the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Margaret Wilson for all the work she did in negotiating the settlement of Nga Rauru Kitahi’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Finance and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. 
I wish all the best for the future to Nga Rauru Kitahi to its elders and descendents to the negotiating team and to the trustees of Te Kahui o Rauru. The trustees will shortly begin the task of managing their settlement assets. I am certain that they will do so with the judgment tenacity and commitment they have shown throughout the settlement process. It is important for the House to be aware that a son of Nga Rauru Kitahi is currently the centre of attention on the world sporting stage—and I am talking in particular of Michael Campbell. His message to the people of Nga Rauru and to us all here in Aotearoa is that if he can win a tournament like that so can we all. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party is very proud to have been the first party in New Zealand’s parliamentary history to settle in a full and final way grievances that have arisen out of treatment that reflected a lack of understanding of Treaty of Waitangi rights. We have both in Government and in Opposition participated in the process of settling grievances with good faith. We strongly believe that for these grievances to be settled in a way a manner and a style that is enduring they should receive the overwhelming support of Parliament. That is why we are very annoyed to be put in the position we are in today. 
We recognise that Nga Rauru Kitahi have had a long wait for this settlement. But we find it amazing that at this point things had to become rushed. Throughout the select committee process the report back to the House and the Committee stage we raised an important issue about this settlement bill with the Government. We still do not know whether the Government went back to Nga Rauru Kitahi and asked whether there was something they could talk further about. We suspect it did not. The issue I raise is that of the points put forward in schedule 12. 
Let me say before I turn to that schedule that we think it is appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi is the document of reference when it comes to settling treaty claims. It may seem self-evident but it does not appear to be all that evident in this case. One of the things the treaty did under article 2 was to guarantee to all New Zealanders—and Maori if one wants to make that separation—that there was freedom in this country to hold close to oneself things that were taonga. Surely the most obvious thing for all people in that regard would be their spiritual and religious beliefs. A Government has no business in a country like this either putting down spiritual beliefs or for that matter promoting one particular type. The problem with schedule 12 is that that is exactly what the Government proposes to do. 
I argue that if there are people inside the iwi who do not want to believe some of this their treaty rights are being trampled on because once this bill is passed the law of the country will prescribe this as being their belief and will determine that this is what their origin is. If that were not a big enough outrage the law will also prescribe the idea that if one is of Nga Rauru Kitahi one is no different from the land the sea or the sky. That is what schedule 12 says. We know that in other settlement bills various iwi have said that they have a special spiritual connection. None of those bills has said that the connections are such that there is no difference. 
I urge people to read very carefully all the aspects of schedule 12. There would be no problem at all with this statement being in a settlement deed but there is a big problem with putting it into the law. As unbelievable as it might seem schedule 12 states—and will cause the law to accept—that anyone who is of Nga Rauru Kitahi is of demigod status. That has to be quite unacceptable. People might like to say: “Oh no that’s not right. That man’s being silly.” but it is right here in the proposed law. I am very disappointed that those who were responsible for negotiating this particular settlement bill did not have this put into its right context. It means that this settlement will not endure and it may be the first to come back to Parliament so we can have another look at it because no sane Government will allow this sort of provision to exist in law. 
I say again to those who think this is some sort of joke that it is in fact a breach of treaty rights to prescribe this in law. I see on the other side of the Chamber various people shaking their heads. By and large they are people who do not respect the law. That is my observation. So I am unconcerned by the tut-tutting and finger-waving. This is an enormous decision for the National Party and not one that anyone should think is taken lightly. We asked Ministers repeatedly through the Committee stage for answers and we got silence or we got some sort of addressing of the question which in this Parliament is acceptable even though it may not in fact be an answer. So we are left in the very uncomfortable position of having to vote against a settlement bill. 
 We are voting against it because it will not achieve settlement. There cannot be a significant number of New Zealanders marginalised in a settlement bill. I thought the reason we settled these issues was that all of us in this country have rights before the law and that where those rights are trampled on and we have the appropriate historical reports there is redress. But redress cannot go as far as conferring additional rights on some but not on others. These are not relatively small things like customary rights which everybody understands; these are very strong rights inside the law. I thought that the Hon Richard Prebble made a very good point last night when he asked how a judge in a court would deal with something like this. We might like to speculate but the only real conclusion that can be reached is that the judge would struggle and the decisions would cause trouble. So there cannot be a concept of settlement whereby people in this Parliament know that what they are doing will cause further trouble. 
For that reason with deep and sincere regret the National Party cannot vote for this bill. We want settlements. We want iwi to get their assets. We want redress. We want acknowledgment of past grievances. But this has to be one of the most poorly negotiated bills ever to hit the floor of the House. We are saddened to be put in this position by a Government that seems to be in an awful rush to pass this bill. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I see this as a very propitious occasion. 
Pita Paraone 
: What was that word again? 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: I am sorry. I am not here to close gaps in people’s literacy. I see this as being a very propitious occasion. It is propitious because the settlement before this House is taking place i te wa o nga whetu a Matariki me Puanga ara nga whetu e tohutohu mai ki te tangata o te ao. Mai ra ano ka puta mai te whtu a Puanga i runga i te maunga Titohe o tatau Nga Rauru Ngati Mutunga me nga korero e whakaputa ana. 
[ 
during the period of the stars of Pleiades and Rigel indeed when they pointed the way to the people of the world. From the beginning of time the star of Rigel has appeared above Titohe our mountain of Nga Rauru and Ngati Mutunga with the stories. 
] 
So it is propitious for that reason alone. 
However the timing of this bill before the House also coincides with three other magnificent occasions that are positive for Maori. Let me briefly talk about those because they relate to my theme in terms of why I want to support this bill. A huge occasion for all of Aotearoa took place in Hamilton kei roto Tainui—the Maori All Blacks versus the Lions. The second magnificent occasion was when we saw a gladiator transform himself into a twinkletoes. Then on top of that a descendant from Ngati Ruanui in Taranaki achieved a global distinction kei roto i tetehi o nga hakinakina. 
[ 
involved in one of the sports. 
] 
What does this mean? How does it relate to this bill? It relates to this bill because each and every one of those individuals showed tremendous determination against great odds. Look at Jonno Gibbes. He got off the ground tackled this fellow then fell on the ground again. That shows strength of commitment and absolute concentration on the task. That illustrates what Nga Rauru Kitahi have done mai i te timatatanga o te raupatungia o te whenua tae noa mai ki tenei wa. 
[ 
from the time when land confiscation began to the present day. 
] 
Then we come to the transition of a gladiator to a twinkletoes. We know that our history has been characterised by actions that should never have happened. Last night Norm Hewitt talked about actions that should never have happened as far as he personally was concerned. But then he accepted the responsibility publicly. Maori have had to wait 200-plus years to get any apology at all. He did not wait; he gave his apology succinctly and publicly. So finally we get a Crown apology. 
Let us look at what was achieved mai te uri o Taranaki in that golfing tournament of high esteem. It shows that Maoris have a character to match against trials and tribulations both personal and professional. Nothing seems to stand in the way of achieving the goal. 
In relation to Nga Rauru Kitahi in spite of what the previous speaker has said in outlining reasons why there should not be a codification of one’s spiritual beliefs and cosmology I am of the opinion that if one wants to tell one’s story one should do so. I think the decision to do that rests very firmly with the claimants. If that is the way in which they care to identify their mana tangata whenuatanga then they have every right as far as this side of the House is concerned to express it in like manner so that it becomes part and parcel of the accepted beliefs that are shared not only by people who believe that a snake talked to a person about eating an apple. That has become part of an accepted cosmology—we have read about that. We accept that as being part of some people’s cosmology; that is fine. If we are to go forward together then we must accept that there are other cosmologies that are relevant to our existence as a people going forward in Aotearoa. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will have a turn to speak no doubt and he can add his own opinion. 
Murray Smith 
: I will. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Yes—and I would say that it is an opinion only. I would like to end this brief statement of total support by borrowing the quote “It is not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning.” In that context Nga Rauru Kitahi a anei te korero tautoko mai i tenei na no Te Ati Awa Nga Rauru Ruanui kia kaha kia maia i a koutou i runga i te ara tika a e takoto mai ra a nga tauheke paheke mo tatau katoa kia ora mai. 
[ 
And from this descendant of Te Ati Awa Nga Rauru and Ruanui a statement of support: be strong and bold as you make your way along the right path for those who have passed on for the generations to come and for all of us greetings. 
] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena ano koe Mr Speaker. E nga rangatira nga kaikawe o tenei kaupapa mo Nga Rauru Kitahi e kara ma e kui ma koutou katoa i tae mai ki te Whare nei mai i te hau kainga o Nga Rauru Kitahi mai hoki i raro i te maru o te maunga tapu o Taranaki tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings again to you Mr Speaker. To the chiefs and negotiators of this matter for Nga Rauru Kitahi to the men and women and all those who have arrived in this House from the home winds of Nga Rauru Kitahi from beneath the shelter of the sacred mountain of Taranaki greetings to you and greetings to all of us 
.] 
On behalf of New Zealand First—and I just want to reiterate that we are the only non-aligned party in this House—I rise to speak in the third reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. This bill will see the culmination of what has been a long and an arduous period of endeavour for the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi towards what we all agree is a satisfactory claims settlement. The bill records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Nga Rauru Kitahi the detail of which is articulated in the deed of settlement dated 27 November 2003. The bill also gives effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Nga Rauru Kitahi. It passes governance responsibility for the assets from this settlement to the entity known as Te Kahui o Rauru which the majority of the people and the beneficiaries of Nga Rauru Kitahi have indicated their support for. 
New Zealand First supports the timely and satisfactory settlement of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal whether by way of hearing or of direct negotiation. This bill is the outcome of an agreement reached by Nga Rauru Kitahi and the Crown. I am happy to note that the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi have supported the ratification of this settlement agreement and that their support of the management structure put in place to receive and manage the settlement assets is almost unanimous. That bodes well for the future of the iwi and it displays unity and concord. This agreement acknowledges that the Crown acted unlawfully during and after the colonisation period and in particular that iwi land was illegally confiscated during the war of the 1860s. It also acknowledges that the Crown acted abominably both morally and legally in its treatment of iwi members including children. It acknowledges that many lives were lost in the Crown’s pursuit of its aims during that period. 
New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill. In doing so I would like to include a comment regarding the part of the bill that relates to cultural redress for not to do so would be very remiss of me and the party that I represent. New Zealand First is of the view that the inclusion of a statement of the beliefs and values of Nga Rauru Kitahi in legislation is actually erroneous. The references that describe the divine origins of Nga Rauru Kitahi are clearly a matter for Nga Rauru Kitahi alone. We in New Zealand First do not disregard or question the beliefs of Nga Rauru Kitahi or for that matter the beliefs of any group whether Maori or non-Maori in that context. But we do question their place in legislation and we believe that their inclusion may actually give credibility to them. That is not the purpose of this bill. This settlement is not about cultural beliefs and we see no valid reason for their inclusion in the legislation for this settlement. 
Of course the inclusion of that statement of cultural beliefs raises further questions. The first one is what the effect is of including those beliefs in legislation and I add that in considering that question we must look to the future. The second question is whether those beliefs are what future generations of all New Zealanders will now have to believe in. The third question is how the judiciary will be able to make judgments on issues that may arise as a result of the inclusion of those beliefs in this legislation. Last night that very question was posed and although it may be considered that the response addressed the question it certainly did not answer it. We note further that the exclusion of reference to those beliefs would have no effect on this settlement proceeding or on its durability. During the process that has seen the bill arrive at this stage I heard that the inclusion of reference to the cultural beliefs of Nga Rauru Kitahi was done at the insistence of the claimant group and I ought to acknowledge that the Minister in the chair said during the Committee stage that an approach was made from the claimant group in that regard. I also heard reference to the tino rangatiratanga of Nga Rauru Kitahi. We in New Zealand First do not question the tino rangatiratanga of Nga Rauru Kitahi. We do note however that insisting on the inclusion of its beliefs in this legislation means the subservience of that tino rangatiratanga to that of this House and indeed to the tino rangatiratanga of the Crown. 
 Despite those comments I extend my congratulations on behalf of New Zealand First to the people of Nga Rauru Kikahi. I sincerely hope that this settlement allows them to reach closure on past injustices and to move forward creating opportunities for their tamariki and mokopuna. They are the future and this settlement is ultimately for the benefit of them. I also acknowledge the ancestors and their descendants of the iwi who have passed on and I express my sadness that they cannot be here to see this settlement. 
In conclusion I offer these words to the present and future leadership of Nga Rauru Kitahi. Today they begin a new journey that will require them to lead their people to economic and social destinations never seen or imagined by some of them. However that should not deter them in their endeavours in that regard. It is often said that we should never forget our past for to do so may condemn us to making the same mistakes of that time. I say to the leaders of Nga Rauru Kitahi that they should not live in the past and should not be afraid to take on the best people to take the iwi into the future be they members of the iwi or not. I ask the leaders of Nga Rauru Kitahi never to forget to look behind themselves from time to time to ensure that the people they purport to lead are still there behind them. 
Na reira e te iwi o Nga Rauru Kitahi nga hapu hoki o koutou haere i runga i te huarahi i whakapai era o nga matua tupuna i whakatimata mai tenei kaupapa. Kua puawai te kakano i whakatongia e ratou mo koutou me nga tupuranga kei te heke mai. Kei ia o o koutou te kawenga inaianei ki te whangai i a ia. Na reira e te Whare nei tena koutou tena koutou huri noa i tenei o o tatou whare kia ora mai ano tatou. 
[ 
Therefore to you the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi as well as your subtribes travel along the pathway blessed by those elders who began this matter. The seed that they planted has blossomed for you and future generations. It is your responsibility now to nurture it. And so to all of us throughout this House in this building greetings greetings and greetings once again to all of us 
.] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to speak on this third and final stage of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitaki Claims Settlement Bill. I stand in Richard Prebble’s shoes at the moment having seen the speech notes of his contribution to the debate on the Committee stage. I adopt what he said because in speaking for the ACT party on a number of these bills he has said it so much more simply and clearly than I could have attempted. 
I express endorse and adopt his concern that in effect we demean this House by passing bills like this. We demean this House because instead of confining ourselves to doing what a legislature should do which is to authorise the redress of wrongs—and there were wrongs—we have got into the habit of using legislation to make rhetorical statements and worse than that of making a patently greasy submission to views and values that say this country is no longer protecting the notion of the secular State. 
In a bill that goes so much further than is necessary we are also recording apologies. All this bill needed to do was to authorise the transfers and to record the status of the lands being vested and the lands over which coast stewardship was being created. By having a bill that records apologies based on partial recitals of history we actually make those apologies much more easy to repudiate. I think that a future generation will come to this legislation and say: “That was then; this is now.” A future generation will say that this bill can be read only as a creature of some very curious times—of times when two old political parties who had got into the habit for over 20 years of consoling each other that although the rest of New Zealand did not believe a word of what they said in those areas they because they held hands and pretended they were on a sacred mission could put anything in legislation provided they had the right spirit. 
Their spirit and their intention was good. They wanted to help settle grievances. They wanted the people involved to put behind them the brooding sense of injustice they had. But behind it all too were two decades of politicians who had been covertly using race as a means of distinguishing “them and us”—of deciding who were the out-group and who were the in-group. 
So we have these fanciful “principles”. I do not blame judges for finding principles. The legislation told them they had to find principles. The legislation told them they had to develop a theory of why they were finding principles where there were none so they invented a mythical partnership and this House sent New Zealand down a long blind alley of race discrimination—when the treaty had been signed by people who knew it was intended to lead to our being one people! 
ACT then will be obliged to vote against this bill because we will not be party—as we have not been for years—to legislation that recites principles that do not exist and that directs courts to take account of spiritual and cultural values on one page and then two or three pages later tells the courts they do not need to give them any weight but instead to act as if they were not there—in the sergeant’s terms: “As you were.” So we end up with a bill that is creating a form of power and authority; it has smoke but not substance. 
The bill is not giving what it should have given which is a clean break. Just as in matrimonial law the idea is that one does not force parties who have been unhappy with each other to spend time negotiating and continuing that relationship this bill sets up the iwi to be involved in repeated discussions of trying to emphasis their heritage and of trying to assert their traditional views of what should happen in relation to land with local authorities with the Environment Court and with ministries under protocols when in fact all those bodies will be then told: “As you were—listen to them and then ignore them.” 
 That is the effect of those parts of the bill and if this legislation had been a matter of a simple transfer of property a straightforward endowment of money or a restoration of something that had been lost the ACT party could have voted for it. But instead we go through this bill and in so many places we see a Government that is deliberately creating dismissible legislation. 
I say that honourable apologies are apologies given in full knowledge with both sides fully accepting the position of the other and deciding to go forward on a basis that is a fresh start. This bill does not create a fresh start. It has a whole lot of words in it that for years from now—forever if one believes the legislation—courts are going to have to grapple with. 
What will it mean when a submission is made about a piece of Department of Conservation land by people earnestly believing they have been given a special right and then the submission is ignored? Why do we put something in legislation that we direct the courts to take account of but then tell the courts that the provision has no weight? Parliament is demeaning itself by passing that kind of legislation. 
I am absolutely delighted to be in this House on the first day that the National Party has voted against one of these claims settlement bills. I hope the House will not be served up with anything like this legislation in future. These bills should be unanimous. 
When the ACT party first voted against the Ngai Tahu settlement it should have been noted that that was a principled position. As the party that stands for property rights ACT wanted to see the claims settled. We wanted to see property theft remedied and that matter put behind the claimants. All the other parties treated our protests—which were principled—as if we were racists. At last we are now seeing— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That is not correct. National did not. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Well I am sorry; it certainly appeared that way but I say let bygones be bygones on that. 
I have now heard speeches from New Zealand First—indeed a very fine speech made by the leader of New Zealand First on Tuesday—about treaty matters. To see at least some parties putting their votes where their mouths are is an encouraging sign for New Zealand. 
However I heard New Zealand First speakers indicate they were voting for this bill despite the bill’s inclusion of the term “the principles” in I think seven places. That is a bit baffling because if New Zealand First members were really going to be consistent—if they were really going to send a message to the public servants who of course are required to negotiate those matters that in future they had better negotiate with a different set of instructions because otherwise they would run the serious risk of the House not approving the matters—then it would have been helpful to have them not only make fine speeches out in the provinces but use their votes to be consistent with what they had said. 
The bill has four main flaws. The select committee did change the bill although we have been told so often that it is not appropriate for this House to change a settlement bill. The select committee did change the bill—it changed some translation. It could easily have held up the report back and come back to the House and said there were matters it was very uncomfortable about—for example members of two parties did not wish to see religious views embodied in legislation. The committee could easily have suggested that the settlement would have been just as powerful without the reference to the so-called principles and that would have made it acceptable to the ACT party and probably more acceptable to New Zealand First. 
Instead the select committee did not. It came back with a very unhelpful report so the ACT party is left in a position where the only way we can mark that is by voting against a settlement that in its substance we want to see proceed. We want to see those properties vested and we want to see those people’s grievances redressed. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 E te manuhiri tuarangi nga kaumatua nga rangatira koutou Nga Rauru Kitahi kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tenei ahiahi nau mai whakatau mai haere mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar to the elders chiefs and those of Nga Rauru Kitahi who have arrived here in support this afternoon welcome alight here welcome. 
] 
The Green Party congratulates Nga Rauru Kitahi on its settlement. Many years and many dollars from pockets that can ill afford it have gone into the pursuit of this settlement and that work will be rewarded at the end of today. We are very pleased to see the return of moneys and land to the iwi who lost so much in the wars and in the past. We are particularly interested and pleased to see that Nga Rauru Kitahi has put forward the proposal of the paepae rangatira which has developed a new way for iwi and the Government to deal with issues between them. It is very innovative and exciting and the Greens look forward to seeing it succeed. This settlement will provide Nga Rauru Kitahi with enormous opportunities. 
Much has been made during the discussion on the bill about schedule 12 and the iwi’s decision to include in the schedule a statement of association of values over an area of land. The Greens are fully committed to the iwi’s entitlement to have its legislation its settlement bill reflect its views in its own words. The complaints from various political parties in this Parliament have been immature and pathetic and show just how desperate politicians can be to keep iwi Maori in their place—faceless and voiceless. 
During the second reading of the bill the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations asked why the Greens treated this bill as if it were a black day for Nga Rauru Kitahi. The Greens do not consider that this is a black day for the iwi. The Greens are prepared to face the hard truths about settlements and to be honest about the real costs of settlements both to the claimant groups and to those hapu marae and whanau for whom these settlements are not a resolution. We want to make sure that all the voices of the iwi and hapu are heard not just those that the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements have picked as today’s winners. We have to be honest about the real and full costs of settlements; otherwise we will not continue to pursue the best the most just and the most equitable means to resolve the crimes of the past. If we cannot expose the difficulties and the inconsistencies in the direct negotiation process then we are certainly committing further wrongs. Iwi and hapu have worked too hard lost too much and come too far to be left treading water replacing one wrong for another. 
Once this bill is passed this Government and this Parliament will have no further control over the way that Nga Rauru Kitahi manages its affairs. At last the State will have to butt out and leave the iwi and hapu to get on with the job of managing their own resources and responsibilities answering to their own people and not to this Government. This is not about getting out of grievance mode. It is not about moving forward. Those are platitudes and they mean nothing. Iwi and hapu must by now be sick of hearing these statements made by politicians that are designed to sound profound but are based fundamentally on ignorance. Iwi are not living in the past. Iwi and hapu have never been in grievance mode. They have struggled for years and years for a modicum of justice in an inherently unjust system. Iwi and hapu do not have to move forward; they have never stopped moving. They have never surrendered their struggle. It is the Government it is politics politicians and political parties in this House that are in grievance mode. It is the Government and the State that now have to move forward and leave these people alone to exercise their own rangatiratanga. 
This is a very short contribution because the Greens want to see this bill passed swiftly. The Green Party acknowledges the gift that Nga Rauru Kitahi has made to the country in accepting this settlement. We wish it the very best for its future. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This is a very positive day for Nga Rauru Kitahi. I therefore want to give a speech that is positive not dwell on the negatives. I cannot avoid making reference to the spiritual values clauses as it was my amendment that brought about so much debate on that issue last night. But I do want to be positive and congratulate Nga Rauru Kitahi on reaching this milestone. It certainly has been a great week for them with the passing of this bill at the same time as Michael Campbell won the US Open golf tournament. No doubt through his victory there has been an increase in the mana of Nga Rauru Kitahi as well. I congratulate them on that double hit this week. 
As I mentioned in the first reading of this bill I have historical connections with the Nga Rauru Kitahi area and in particular the infamously named town of Maxwell through my great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents who farmed in that area and who no doubt had connections with the ancestors of Nga Rauru Kitahi at that time. I have outlined in previous speeches the relationship there and some of the events at that time—the infamous Handley’s woolshed being one of those—and my sadness about those events. 
It is appropriate with the third reading of this bill that there is some reference to the history as it has been accepted by the Crown and Nga Rauru Kitahi in terms of the wrongs that were committed. There is a lengthy historical account in the deed of settlement which I am not going to read at length—partly because I would run out of time if I did so. But I do want to read an extract from it because I think it is important on this occasion when we are dealing with the third reading of the bill that at least some of the grievance that has been settled through this bill is put on the record. The deed of settlement states: “7.26 After Tauranga Ika Pa was abandoned as a defence stronghold in February of 1869 Crown forces pushed all Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi out of south Taranaki and pursued them into the interior destroying crops livestock and dwellings at every opportunity. Pursued by Crown forces and deprived of food and shelter Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi were forced to place themselves under the protection of Whanganui iwi. Prior to 1873 most were forbidden by the Crown to return to their land. This was in response to both settler fears of Maori attack after the war with Titokowaru and the desire of the Crown to settle military and colonial settlers on the land. 
“7.27 The confiscation which was to have such a long term and damaging impact on Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi was effected by the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The preamble stated that the North Island had been subject to ‘insurrections amongst the evil-disposed persons of the Native race’. There was no mention of the Crown’s role in initiating the wars. The Act was used to effect the confiscation of land of Maori whom the Crown assessed to have been engaged in rebellion against the authority of the Queen since 1 January 1863. Where the Governor in Council was satisfied that an iwi or a ‘considerable number’ of an iwi had since 1 January 1863 been engaged in rebellion he could declare the district available for confiscation. Subsequent settlement of those districts by colonists was considered the ‘best and most effectual means’ of achieving the three purposes of the Act: permanent protection and security; prevention of future rebellion; and maintaining the Queen’s authority. 
“7.28 The Act did not provide a definition of ‘rebel’. It did provide that no compensation would be given to those who had been ‘engaged in levying or making war or carrying arms against Her Majesty the Queen or Her Majesty’s Forces in New Zealand’ or those who had ‘aided assisted or comforted such persons’.” 
That is just a taste of some of the historical grievances. The deed of settlement goes on to talk about the Sim Commission and the inadequacy of that commission in dealing with the grievance that was there. It particularly reflects on the importance of the land to Nga Rauru Kitahi as it is important to all Maori and also on the importance of cultural redress. So it is important we note that and acknowledge the serious grievances that are there. We can rejoice that this bill and the deed of settlement are resolving those. 
I now want to talk about schedule 12 and the spiritual values matter because that has played a big part in the debate and because of the amendment to schedule 12 that I proposed. I would like to express my thanks to National New Zealand First and ACT for their support of my amendment and for the contribution to the debate they made. 
It seems to me that we were dealing with two issues with regard to this matter. The first is the appropriateness of any theological or doctrinal statements in legislation. I do not want to talk at length on that because it has been covered quite a lot in the debate in the House. I question whether it is appropriate even for a deed of settlement to include those sorts of theological statements but that is a matter between the Government and the iwi group concerned and is therefore not a matter that the House should be directly concerned with. This House is concerned with the matter of the legislation it is passing. 
What I intended to do and endeavoured to do with my amendment was to omit the relevant wording in schedule 12 that effectively will constitute a doctrinal statement. It has been rightly said that the difficulties in enforcing that statement are huge. No law should be passed in this House that is impossible to enforce. How can the High Court or the Waitangi Tribunal if that should be the forum determine whether the clauses that state that the Crown must acknowledge reflect and encourage Nga Rauru Kitahi values have been complied with without first defining their meaning in contemporary terms? The court has to take a doctrinal statement of origin and somehow bring it into a contemporary situation before it can determine whether that contemporary situation has been fulfilled in terms of the legislation’s provisions. What authority does such an institution have to interpret theological statements? That is just the beginning of the problems we have in regard to this. Mahara Okeroa said that if the iwi wants to tell their story they should be able to. I have no disagreement with that. Deeds of settlement have been the appropriate places for that to happen but it should not be embraced in legislation. 
The second issue is the specific language that is used and I thank the officials for being willing to come to talk with me to explain the rationale of how they got there. Thus I can enlighten the House on that. The point that was made in terms of the technical language is that clause 88 states that the “Crown acknowledges Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values”. But the term “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values” is then defined as being the statement made by Nga Rauru Kitahi of their cultural spiritual historical and traditional association. Therefore it is thought that effectively all that the Crown is doing is acknowledging a statement not those values. However it seems to me that when a statement is made in legislation then the drafting of the legislation—and I think that the Parliamentary Counsel Office should take note—needs not only to be precise but also clear. It needs to be clear to the lay person. The officials admit that it is confusing. I wanted to amend that by stating clearly that the Crown acknowledged the statement of Nga Rauru Kitahi values but it was felt by the Minister that it was impossible to go back and get Nga Rauru Kitahi consent to make that alteration at the last minute as would have been desirable. 
The Government has however in view of United Future’s approaches and concerns made a commitment to us. First of all the Government will make a public acknowledgment that it was a mistake to have the theological statement in the legislation and it will also make a commitment that doctrinal statements will not be included in future Crown settlement legislation as far as this Government is concerned. On that basis United Future has indicated that it will support the passing of this bill at its third reading. We do that not only because of that acknowledgment by the Government but also because settlements are important and ever since we arrived in this House we have been at the forefront of pushing for treaty settlements to be resolved as quickly as possible. We have been instrumental in getting more resources dedicated to the Office of Treaty Settlements in order for that to happen. 
We also think it is important if the legislation is to be passed that it be passed by a substantial majority and I note that Gerry Brownlee said the same thing. For that reason United Future will in fact support the third reading. I also note that the Government indicated that it did not want to rely on the Greens providing support which says something about them. So I congratulate Nga Rauru Kitahi on the passing of this legislation and express United Future’s best wishes for their future. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 E tu ake au ki te tautoko ki te mihi i mihia mo nga rangatira mo nga uri o Rauru Kitahi a kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi i mihia mo nga tipuna o ratau me nga tipuna o koutou Nga Rauru Kitahi no reira haere haere haere atu ra. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I rise to endorse the greetings extended to the chiefs and descendants of Rauru Kitahi. A huge and immense tribute to you all. I endorse the tributes paid to your ancestors Nga Rauru and to ours as well and so to all of them farewell farewell farewell 
.] 
I want to deal with three issues in relation to firstly the treaty principles as outlined in the legislation; secondly the property rights expressed in the legislation; and thirdly Nga Rauru Kitahi’s cultural and spiritual rights expressed within the legislation. 
I first of all turn to Nga Rauru Kitahi’s cultural and spiritual rights embraced within the context of the legislation. At 2 p.m. every day when the business of this House starts members track into the Chamber sit down and listen to the Speaker administer a prayer—a prayer to a supreme being; a prayer to suggest that we should have wisdom and a whole range of other things— 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s not in law. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: There we go—Pita Paraone says it is not law. It is not in law because it pervades everything about the law that is embraced in this House. 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When people refer to other members of the House they should have the courtesy to pronounce their names correctly. For the benefit of that member my name is actually “Pita Paraone”. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: It is also translated as “Peter Brown”. I will use “Peter Brown” for him because it is far easier to say and because that is what it really is. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he must refer to a member by his or her correct name. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: So when we track in here the very essence of this House in terms of the concept of Christianity pervades most things that we do led off by that prayer. The fact that certain people here believe they come from Adam and Eve—good on them; right that is great. But at the end of the day this House now has a right to recognise Maori rights and Maori issues and that is what treaty settlements are about. They are not about pouring ourselves into the mould of others any more. New Zealand First knows that. It has six Maori members supposedly led by one but they do not want to admit that. The reality is that Nga Rauru Kitahi has a right that has been expressed here. 
I go to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the way in which the great Maori speaker on behalf of the National Party expresses himself. I have never known a member to stand up in this House and not have any knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter of the legislation talked about—and Gerry Brownlee expresses that very well. Even with the meandering moaning all-over-the-place member Wayne Mapp even in the tortuous requirements he presents in this House every time he stands up to speak at least there is a modicum of some sense in it. The member who is the National Party spokesperson on Maori showed not only a distinct lack of knowledge of education but had not done any work on this legislation whatsoever. That is a disgrace. 
Bring on Georgina te Heuheu! I note that she will not take a call in the third reading debate. I note that she does not accept National voting against this legislation and that is a fact. 
I shall move on to property rights. As for Mr Stephen Franks and his well-moneyed mates in the ACT party who will be around another 12 weeks I wanted to say and express quite clearly that when it is not their property they can have a go at it; when it is their property they will have a go at it. I suspect he is wearing the Destiny ribbon. Brian Tamaki is the only one who will save Stephen Franks. 
The reality is and I shall conclude on this as we move on that I am grateful for the support of New Zealand First. It is great that its members can talk absolutely against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and then vote for it. It is great that United Future will also support this legislation the Greens are supporting the legislation Labour is and we now know that it is a dirty election campaign because National will not and that is an absolute disgrace. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 All I can say is that I hope the previous member is proud of that speech because it will be his valedictory. That is the reality of it. The member knows that and I know that because I know literally hundreds of people in Tamaki Makaurau who will be voting against that member. That is the reality of it. 
Darren Hughes 
: Name them. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Most of my relatives actually. The third reading is the opportunity to give voters powerful symbolic value. National is voting against this legislation because we are expressing our deep concern about the trend in these settlements. Members should look at schedule 12 of this bill. I have been examining a number of settlements that over time have ramped up if you will the inclusion of references to spiritual values beliefs ideas and so forth. Frankly I have never read anything like schedule 12 of this bill in any other legislation. Just a month ago we were debating the Tuwharetoa legislation. I raised my concerns at that point about some inclusions in that legislation. They amounted to maybe one particular line. But this bill has pages of arcane references to all sorts of beliefs ideas and values that have as other members in this House have said today no place at all in our law and we debase our law if we make those references. So it is right in a third reading speech to express our deep concern about that. 
A month ago the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mr Mark Burton said that the Government was going to look at this issue. He was very clear that it was an error to include those kinds of reference in legislation and that the Government would re-examine the issue. What do we have instead? Not the same but more of it—more intensified and deeper references. Frankly that serves only to bring views and values into disrepute. That is the real problem is it not? The Government does not understand why this nation has secular values at the heart of its belief system. The issue is about respecting everyone’s belief. Mr Murray Smith acknowledged that particular point in his contribution. How can one do that if one elevates one particular belief above all others by putting it into law? There was not even just a general reference to it in this bill but page after page of detailed references to the microcosms of belief. That is simply wrong in principle so National is using its third reading vote to record its deep displeasure about that inclusion which goes completely contrary to what Mr Burton said just a month ago when he said the Government was going to re-examine the issue. It has not done so. The Government has in fact made the situation worse. 
I also wish to refer to another issue which is the way that we record our history. I think we are falling into error there as well. We are getting a very distorted view of our history which can only do damage to race relations. That is what I suggest to members on the Government side of the House. There is a distorted view that says that the Crown is completely wrong and Maori are completely right and an abject apology then flows from that when people know the history is actually different from that view. Civil war—because that is what it was—has a much more complex origin than this deed of settlement records. We are damaging people’s understanding of the history. We lack the honesty to take an approach that avoids doing that. I suggest that when we undertake these settlements we take a more critical analysis that enables the recording of history to more properly reflect the nuance of what occurred back at that time. 
Those are two profound points. National is putting them on the record because our approach to settlements will be different in the future. It was different in the past. National Governments did not make the kinds of references to beliefs and values that the current Government has done—and the Government is intensifying them. National will take a more measured and considered approach that respects all the beliefs of this nation; it will not ask that beliefs be put into law. When I heard the Minister say in his opening speech that the references were put into this bill at the request of the claimants all I can say is that that Government misunderstands the role of the House. We are not here as supplicants; we are here to make the law of the land. When people ask for their beliefs to be put into the law frankly we should say to them that that is interesting and that they are entitled to their beliefs but that we as legislators for all New Zealanders decline to do as they ask. Labour in an obsequious way has simply agreed to include those references so we are using our third reading vote to record our displeasure about that. 
I conclude on this point. National acknowledges that wrongs were done in the past—Mr Brownlee acknowledged that wrongs were done in the past. We acknowledge that a settlement was required in this particular case. There is no question about that. We have no quibble with the vast majority of this settlement. If schedule 12 had not been there particularly in the way it is phrased in this instance—as opposed for instance to the phrasing of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—we would have been able to come to a different view. But National is using this third reading vote to make a statement of intent for the future: that there will be a different way of doing settlements. We can stand proudly on our record on settlements actually because we have done many settlements in the past. National’s record is different from that of another party in this Parliament which votes only in one particular way—and we know which party that is. In this particular situation we are using our vote to indicate that there is a right way to do settlements which is in fact the way of the right and that there is a wrong way to do settlements which is the way of the failed left Labour Government. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.