Smith Murray: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Murray: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10079] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is very pleased for Ngati Tama that it has reached the point of the second reading of its bill and the finalisation of its grievances. I begin by paying respect to the history of Ngati Tama as outlined by the Hon Tariana Turia. It was very appropriate that as a member of the executive as well as tangata whenua she should outline the Crown apology and the history that has led to the necessity for recompense on behalf of the Crown and for the apology that has been given. 
Many times United Future has expressed concern at the slowness in resolving treaty issues and the importance of resolving those issues with some speed. It is with great concern that we note that it is now 6 months since the first reading of the bill and that in that 6-month period no other bills have been tabled by the Government in furtherance of the treaty settlement process. Of course that 6-month delay really comes down to the slowness of the Maori Affairs Committee process in bringing this bill back to the House. I have a lot of respect for the select committee and its members welcome me there when I turn up but I think 6 months was far too long. I would recommend that the select committee push matters through a great deal faster than it has been doing in order to have these processes go through. I note that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu commented that there was a need for speed. She is on the select committee and should push these matters along as well. 
The bill was referred to the select committee on 15 April. Submissions closed on 30 June. Now 4½ months further on the bill has come back to the House. There were 10 submissions and the committee spent some 6½ hours on consideration—that is approximately 2 days. In my view 4½ months was far too long even given that the committee was questioning the issue of mandating. But if the select committee which is primarily comprised of Maori members really wants the grievance process to be dealt with and resolved urgently it needs to demonstrate that it is committed to that by getting through its part of the process as quickly as it can and getting bills reported back quickly so that they can be progressed quickly. 
It is not as though the committee is overworked. I have respect for the chairman Mahara Okeroa and I have a good friendship with him. I know that he may consider these criticisms as being criticisms of him but I think the committee itself has to bear responsibility. I could also say that I think there is room for the Maori Affairs Committee to be more proactive because of the time it has available. For example I note that there is a hold-up in the Rangitane o Manawatu claim. There is meant to be a formal review going on. There is no reason why the select committee should not be looking at that proactively or even initiating an inquiry if appropriate and trying to move some of these procedures along. There are things it could do things it could initiate in order to help the settlement process. 
But we have not seen new legislation either. The Office of Treaty Settlements had a funding increase at United Future’s push in order to get a second claims development team. The office had an extra $895000 provided to it. The Government at United Future’s push has now made a commitment to have 90 percent of claims go through by 2015. When that came through I indicated that rather than our dealing with one bill every 6 months—which even today the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said was the target—we should really be looking at having five to six bills go through in a year. I note that we have had three bills over the 2002-03 period; why can we not increase that? 
There is plenty of scope for doing so. For example the Ngati Awa deed of settlement was signed on 27 March and we are waiting for the legislation and for the mandating of the governance entity. Where is that legislation? We are dealing with the Ngati Tama one now but where is the Ngati Tuwharetoa one? That deed of settlement was signed on 6 June and we are waiting for that legislation. There are other matters. I think it is quite tenable to have four to five pieces of legislation go through this House in the next 12 months. I note that the deed of settlement for Nga Rauru was signed on 4 October 2003 so it seems to me that there is no reason why we should not be able to have that legislation go through next year. The Ngati Mutunga heads of agreement was signed on 24 September 1999. Just what is stalling that? I notice that a deed of settlement is meant to be signed in December 2003 so maybe we can progress that one. The Te Rarawa terms of negotiation should be able to come into the House next year. The Ngati Kahu terms of negotiation were signed in May 2003 the Te Arawa lakes terms of negotiation were signed in July 2001 and the Whanganui River terms of negotiation were signed in March 2003. Those are all matters that I would expect the Office of Treaty Settlements to be progressing so that we can get the legislation into the House and passed. The Office of Treaty Settlements does need to be more proactive than reactive. I notice that it significantly underspent its budget last year even without the increased funding it now has. On that basis there seems to be a lot of scope for it to do more work. 
Turning to this bill in particular I note that two particular matters were of concern to the select committee and are fetters on this bill going through. One is the Ngati Tama WhanauWhanui claim. I note that they have whakapapa links to both Ngati Tama and Ngati Maniapoto and are concerned about the lack of democracy and transparency in the trust structure that has developed. The select committee with some concern notes: “We respect the concerns and arguments that Whanau Whanui raise. At the hearing we had clear evidence from Whanau Whanui and other Ngati Tama iwi living outside the tribal area that the mandating process by the Ngati Tama Trust was inadequate. We are concerned about the level of dissention that has occurred within Ngati Tama over these issues. We consider it essential that the mandating process be improved to ensure that Treaty settlements are fair and durable.” That gives some concern in terms of the way that the process has gone ahead. However I am very pleased to have read and to have heard today that effectively there have been positive moves to be more inclusive of the whanauwhanui people—in particular the restructuring and the elections that are due to take place in January. The fact that 40 percent failed to respond seems to suggest there is quite a strong element within whanauwhanui who can use the democratic process to their advantage and I would really encourage them to do so. 
In terms of Ngati Maniapoto I note the overlap of claims but independent research and the Waitangi Tribunal do not support their position. I would like to strongly encourage Ngati Maniapoto to reach their own settlement with the Crown as soon as possible. It concerns me that they are not yet even on the Office of Treaty Settlements radar screen. I understand that they are wanting to pursue matters through the Waitangi Tribunal. However Maori are the third party to these negotiations and the third party needs to take responsibility for its own sake if not for the sake of New Zealand as a whole for having these treaty grievances resolved. So I would strongly encourage Ngati Maniapoto to go into direct negotiations. They seem to me to be a prime candidate for that. There could be a speedy resolution and they could have considerable money in their own hands to benefit their own people a lot more quickly than if they go through the much more arduous and under-resourced Waitangi Tribunal process. 
As I said United Future is very pleased to see the second reading go through. We look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading going through with speed so that at least we can tick off this grievance and can get on to having legislation go through on other grievances as well.