Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21857] 
Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 On looking at the preamble I see that it certainly follows the kinds of recitals to be found in treaty settlement bills. I recall my colleague Dr Mapp I think in relation to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill making a comment about whether we should look at making the preambles a little bit more aspirational than they sometimes are. National supports the bill but as I think I commented last night we certainly learn more as we go. I do not think there is any harm in that. The basic format of these bills has not changed since the 1990s when Sir Douglas Graham set the format in place. We have moved through a number of settlement claims now—although not so many in the last 6 years—and we have learnt things all the time and National members now think that maybe this could have been done in a different way. 
I acknowledge that the preamble is a very important part of the bill. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations might give some thought—well this Minister may not have time to think any more about it because once we have an election there will be a different Minister in the chair; it will be somebody from our side. The preamble is important. National acknowledges that. I imagine that the claimant group in question has had considerable input—claimants certainly used to—on the way these recitals are written. We must keep in mind that a settlement bill while it brings to a conclusion a certain phase of a tribe’s seeking to have injustice righted by the same token also represents a beginning. For every tribe that reaches a settlement it is an important beginning and it is important that the bill in some way reflect that. We all like to believe that once a settlement passes into law the tribe will be able to look forward and move on leaving injustice behind and having concluded with the Crown an agreement it is comfortable with. 
So this preamble probably does the job but in future we may give some thought to whether we can make the opening statements so to speak of a settlement bill more aspirational. I am sure my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp will have something more to say on that because it is important. Legislation like this is recognition by all of us of the important step a tribe has taken and the courage it has shown in finally concluding a settlement—in finally putting the burden of the weight of injustice behind it and moving on. That is essentially what these bills do. They form the basis for a better future the building blocks with which a tribe can further its own economic development. So it is very important that in these bills we get the right feeling in relation to the aspirations of the tribe—not only what its members want to achieve but also certainly what we as parliamentarians seek for them. 
As the Committee moves through the bill we will come to other matters that National members want to raise. National signalled those matters last night. We want to look at the relevant clauses more closely and particularly at schedule 12. We will certainly make some serious comment on that. We look forward to the debate proceeding. We support the bill but we think that improvements can be made and we hope the Ministers will listen. I know that the Hon Mark Burton has said he has taken on board the Opposition concerns which means I suppose that he will try to address them. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to pick up on some points that have been made by my colleague. 
I have to say generally that the preamble in this instance is relatively restrained. Some preambles have constituted essentially something of a rewriting of history. In this particular instance the preamble sets out to a large extent the oral traditions in relation to boundaries the places where the Nga Rauru Kitahi live and have lived and their relationship with those places. Those are of course quite legitimate things to put into a preamble. That is the first thing a preamble should establish: the relationships of the claimants with the place. That is a legitimate and reasonable thing to put into a preamble. 
The second thing a preamble must state is the nature of the breach that has caused the need for a settlement. By definition some breach of property rights some injustice must have occurred before a settlement takes place. National of course initiated the whole process of the Taranaki settlements of which this is one some years ago. So we acknowledge that breaches did occur. 
I am somewhat concerned however about the acknowledgments set out in recital (15) of the preamble in particular. I raised this concern last night in the second reading debate. My concern is that this paragraph presents in essence a one-sided view of history in which the Crown is completely wrong and the claimants are completely right. I do not believe that that is an accurate description of what occurred in 1860. It is not accurate to state: “the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed constituted an injustice and were therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi …”. It is certainly true that those events did involve some injustices. That part is not in dispute. But to say without qualification that the totality of the events constituted an injustice misdescribes the historical record. 
The causes of the wars were multiple. Misunderstandings occurred. There were different views as to the extent and scope of the sovereign power. That is not I would have thought really in contest. Yet the way the preamble and particularly recital (15) is written gives no sense of the nuance of history. I guess that is the problem. 
When we put these things into the legislation we would not have needed much more to be done to give at least some sense of nuance in recital (15). That would have been a more honest approach. 
It is noteworthy—and I refer to this specifically because I know that Mr Pita Paraone will do so—that the leader of New Zealand First has called for a more honest examination of the nation’s history in both pre-European and post-European times. Frankly I think he has a point there. I believe that a preamble written in the way this is written simply does not acknowledge any of the nuances. It would have taken only an additional paragraph or paragraphs to have addressed that effectively in a way that provided a sense of weighing the reality of the history. It would have been more accurate to say that the Crown created injustices through the way it acted. It is not accurate to say that the Crown’s seeking to impose sovereignty through the Taranaki region—because this is effectively how it now reads—was of itself wrong. To say simply that the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed constituted an injustice does not adequately or properly recognise the events that actually took place back in the 1860s. That issue needs to be more fully considered in future settlements—a more dispassionate approach to New Zealand’s history that recognises the broader context in which these events actually took place. 
 That is probably my major concern with the way it is written. 
Of course it raises a much broader issue. I have taken a particular quibble if you will with recital (15) but the issue is much deeper. As this nation goes forward it cannot be realistic or indeed be of good grounding to say that everything that occurred in the 1860s was the fault of the Crown that the Crown was entirely in error that Maori were in every single case the aggrieved parties or that the war was simply an act of Crown aggression and that was all there was to it and that the Maori were simply the hapless aggrieved partner going about and minding their own business when suddenly they were attacked by this overwhelming Crown force. In reality wars have multiple reasons. Was it actually reasonable for Maori to be raising armies in a country governed by the Crown and where there was a single sovereignty? Is that the way we would really expect a modern nation State to exist? Is that a proper analysis of our history? 
I think that in reality the fact that the wars occurred bespeaks of itself Maori having difficulty coming to terms with the reality of sovereignty and the fact that they had actually lost the power to raise armies and to have whole regiments of troops and the like to resist Crown sovereignty. Certainly there were disputes—I am not doubting that—and certainly there were injustices but I query whether war was the right answer because it then precipitated war on the other side. So I think that the way these settlements are being written does not do justice to the events themselves. 
I might contrast it to the Ngai Tahu settlement. In the Ngai Tahu case there was absolutely no doubt that the Crown had breached a contract. It simply had not set aside the 10 percent that it was duty-bound to under the land purchase contract. There was a complete failure on the part of the Crown. We can say in the case of Ngai Tahu that Ngai Tahu were in essence suing on a breach of contract which is a self-evident fact. 
Wars that are in some respects in the nature of a civil war have much more complex origins. They also have a sense of misunderstandings about what had occurred in 1840 through the treaty. I think our history needs to be honest enough to recognise that complexity but I do not believe that this preamble does so. That is not to doubt that there were injustices for which there ought to be compensation but when we are passing legislation—because that is what we are doing today; writing it into the law of the land—we do need to be a little more honest with what actually happened because otherwise we do not have a solid foundation on which to advance forward as a nation. 
Surely that is what the whole point of these settlements are—to advance forward as a nation; the peoples of this nation going forward. We cannot do that with a revisionist approach towards history. We suggest to the Crown negotiators and to Ministers—irrespective of which Government they are in—that a more honest approach needs to be taken to truly advance forward and to close this chapter of our history. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I do appreciate the opportunity to hear Dr Mapp speak on these matters. I think that we have had some of the most interesting analysis over the past 3 or 4 months on these vexing issues that could be imagined. I think it is a great shame that nothing is being reported of the thoughtful reconsideration that has been given to the role of the settlements the treaty and the language. 
But I am concerned that it is all a waste of time because however wisely we analyse this bill or however much we might want to change it during the debate on the last bill of this kind for which I put forward amendments to change it the amendments were ruled out. They were ruled out because of Assistant Chairperson Simich’s statement that an amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill intended to give effect to that agreement. In other words that ruling made in 2003 makes this whole Committee stage nothing more than members flapping their gums. I do not say that members should not have time to do that but I wonder what this Committee thinks it is doing when it ratifies these agreements and debates them in a Committee stage—which is supposed to be the members’ chance to correct and amend them—when the Chairperson has ruled that members cannot amend them. 
It is a little odd because the Maori Affairs Committee itself has proposed some amendments and in this case they are amendments to the very section that we are looking at. The select committee has reframed the Maori text. So I think it is time that that ruling was reconsidered because it means that ACT cannot vote for this part. We too believe that this recital is wrong and we think that it would not take very much to correct it. But as we have found from experience no amendments will be accepted because this preamble is part of what has supposedly been agreed between the Crown and the iwi in question. 
Dr Mapp I believe probably would not have stated it as bluntly as I would have but he is absolutely right that this bill projects a view of the treaty that is utterly untenable. Article 2 of the treaty was an assurance of classical English property rights. The Maori version was an assurance not only to rangatira but also to the ordinary people that they would all have the rights of a king in his castle. To use that very eloquent English description the peasant in his hovel has the same right to exclude the king as the lord in his castle has. That was a novel and quite astounding assertion at that stage of human legal development. That kind of property right was being held out to Maori in the treaty and they agreed to it. 
Instead what we have in this part of the bill asserts a kind of mystical power to the treaty or a set of values that the Crown was assumed to have signed up to that no Government could ever sign up to. No Government could ever sign up to an agreement to hold people indemnified for the consequences of losing their land. People often sell land. In fact the whole treaty was supposed to ensure that they could sell their land instead of having it stolen or seized from them by force of arms. 
Here we have a craven Government solemnly promising people 160 years later that it will make amends for the inevitable accidents of history. What would be the fate of the United States if it was still apologising for Sherman’s March in the Civil War? And this stuff happened at the same time as that. Where would any modern country be if it spent its time examining its navel rewriting history and wailing over grievances—[ 
Interruption 
]—which are very real grievances and there is a good reason for them but it is not a good reason to be rewriting history—and then producing a bill like this which actually does not make amends. It gives the shadow of making amends and a whole lot of spurious rights. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to talk in a few moments about some of the points raised by Stephen Franks but before that I want to compliment Dr Mapp on his contribution to the Committee and on his comments relating to his concerns about the veracity of the preamble particularly recital (15). It is interesting that he chose to use the example of the Ngai Tahu settlement as being such a clean-cut sort of arrangement. He may be interested to know that when the dissidents from Parihaka were put in custody they were first incarcerated in Dunedin until some time later a helpful group from Rapaki offered to contain them on an island in what is currently called Lyttelton Harbour—those groups being supposedly more friendly to the Crown but ultimately in the position of having to settle grievance as well. 
 I do agree that in these recitals history should be well recorded and give ample weight to all the views and motivations around at the time. The problem we face here of course is that to get picky about that right now at this stage deprives those who are expecting a settlement and who have negotiated that settlement in good faith the outcome they are looking for. I know that that was not what Dr Mapp was intending. He was signalling that in a very short period of time when a different administration is handling these matters preambles such as the one in this bill will be dealt with in a different way. 
It is worth noting that when a bill like this is being dealt with increasingly the  
Hansard 
 record becomes important. The motivations of MPs in supporting this arrangement or in pointing out things they find are not quite right can be well understood by those who might look back on it in some years to come. I suggest to Mr Franks that in some part that is an answer to his concern. Obviously every party cannot be at every select committee looking at every piece of legislation. But ultimately Parliament has to try to deal with things in a way that recognises the fairness intended in any law before it. In fact we do that in this settlement process for the very reasons Mr Franks outlined—for the reason that article 2 guaranteed to Maori the same property rights that all British subjects understood they had. If that were not the case there would be no basis on which to bring treaty grievance claims to the Government for settlement. If the House were to consider that to its fullest extent we could be left to conclude only that the Maori Party will have very very soggy ground to stand on in future if it continues to be a participant in the process of this House because there is no room if these settlements are to progress for any suggestion that anybody other than the Crown has some obligation to settle grievances around land issues. 
I conclude my remarks by saying that although the National Party has reservations about a number of aspects in the textual arrangement of this bill we do not think it would be fair to vote against it because although we can all argue the history history is something that has a perspective applied to it. 
Jill Pettis 
: Because there’s an election looming. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Members have just heard the Wanganui fishwife scream across the House that an election is looming. Everyone knows that. The National Party has never voted against a settlement bill that has gone through the due process of consideration by this Parliament. It has indicated that there is only one arrangement of those the Government is entering into that we will not support. This bill is not one of them. These settlements are in fact a legacy of the former National Government and a testament to our commitment to the settlement process. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I thank the speakers for their contributions to what I might call a very minor part of the bill and I also thank Dr Wayne Mapp for his 10 minutes’ history lesson on matters totally irrelevant to it. As his colleague described he was probably being overly picky. I remind the previous speakers that basically the preamble is the summary of Nga Rauru Kitahi’s claim describing the tribe’s rohe. It is also a summary of the negotiations it entered into and agreed to with the Crown. 
In the Maori Affairs Committee we had a technical matter to deal with—and I think the ACT member Stephen Franks touched on it—in relation to the use of the Maori language. As a select committee—all the parties on it—we agreed that there were some matters in the Maori text that when translated we did not totally agree upon. We sought to amend them but because of technical reasons parliamentary counsel could not just make amendments; it had to remove the entire text. Following consideration by the committee the text was replaced with what was considered unanimously to be the correct text. So this is basically what the preamble is designed to do—as well as of course to include the title and commencement date of the legislation. 
I just needed to make that clear to previous speakers because this is one of those bills that did not receive a lot of controversy from other claimant groups that also share boundaries with the claimant group. For that reason I think that we are dealing with one of the very few pieces of legislation that we can describe as having a positive process and outcome. I did hear Dr Wayne Mapp refer to what he considered to be a clean-cut arrangement on the Tainui and Ngai Tahu claims. My recollection in having dealt with those two claims is that the preamble was not unlike the preamble in this bill. So let us say that they are all clean-cut. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I make this contribution on behalf of New Zealand First. Essentially we are talking about what the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui referred to as “a very minor part” but I think that its importance is much greater than the import the Minister might put on it. 
The preamble provides a background. If we are to talk about the issue which Mr Mapp referred to that it did not quite catch the facts of the matter—firstly I would suggest that the preamble would be much bigger than the rest of the bill and secondly it would also provide a much more detailed picture that might come back to embarrass not only the Crown but the claimants as well. While those are insufficient reasons not to have the preamble included as it stands now it does cover the more important issues. 
The member from ACT made an allusion to Sherman’s attack being revisited as if that is what we are doing in this whole process. I remind him that the tangata whenua the subject of that attack did not have the luxury of a treaty but I believe that his allusion does highlight the whole difficulty as I see it in terms of the process. Comments made from this side of the Chamber do have some validity. However we are denied the opportunity to contribute to that part of the process because by the time the bill comes to this House and goes to a select committee much of that part of the work on the claim has been done. 
If people want to start questioning the contents of what eventually ends up in the preamble then they need to be part of that process. But having said that I think that those who negotiate on the part of the Crown have been signalled the concern that this side of the Chamber has about the whole process. The Government may wish to consider those thoughts with dealing with future claims. 
The member Mr Mapp referred to the aggrievedness of particular parties. I say that Maori certainly felt aggrieved and we need to look at that aggrievement in the context of those times. If my recollection of that part of New Zealand history is correct then in respect of the attack at Parihaka only one party really adopted what one might regard as a “going to war” stance. So if the preamble as set out does any injustice it does so to the claimant group because the preamble does not quite identify the true intent of those who initiated the attack nor does it give a true picture of the effect the attack had on the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
It is also said that we need to be honest but I say that honesty in this case may prove to be of some embarrassment to the Crown. In a way the preamble protects both parties and the protection is not just on one side of the ledger. The preamble provides a good outline of the situation the claimant group endured at the time and the course of action taken by the Crown and it reflects the Crown’s acknowledgment to the claimant group. 
I want to comment on the Maori text and although I take on board what the Minister had to say I am conscious that during the debate on the last settlement bill before the House when I called for an accurate—in my view—amendment of the English text into Maori he responded that it was just a matter of semantics. So I remind the Minister that we need to exercise some consistency because I have always maintained the view that the use of te reo text will provide a learning instrument for those learning the language in the future. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call. I was listening very carefully to Pita Paraone and was most interested in what he had to say about the preamble to the bill and what it did not contain. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Maori Affairs Committee so if the member gets another opportunity to take a call I would be interested to hear an explanation. If the preamble is lacking in its description of what actually happened to Nga Rauru Kitahi and the history of the area why was that not inserted into the preamble during the select committee process? I would genuinely like to hear about that. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Firstly I want to address the point raised by Stephen Franks about Speakers’ rulings. I listened to him with some concern because I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper with regard to Part 4 and was therefore a little concerned that my amendment might be ruled out of order. I am pleased to say that when I look at Speaker’s ruling 102/4— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Your amendment is not out of order. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson. I note that the ruling basically says that one cannot change a settlement agreement reached between the Crown and other parties and I would be very wary if the House in dealing with legislation could not change it as long as it did not interfere with the terms of the settlement. Of course it does not do that. I thank you Madam Chairperson for your assurance that my amendment is not out of order. 
I want to look at the preamble to the bill and the comments that have been made about the retrospective analysis of history and the appropriateness of doing that. I note that the essential points of the preamble are in recital 15 where the Crown acknowledged to the Waitangi Tribunal in its interim response that: firstly the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed constituted an injustice and were therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; secondly that the confiscation of land as it occurred in Taranaki also constituted an injustice and was therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; thirdly that the confiscation had a severe impact upon the welfare economy and development of the iwi of Taranaki; fourthly that in general terms the delays in setting aside reserves contributed to the adverse effects of the confiscation; and finally that events relating to the implementation of the confiscation leading to the invasion of Parihaka in 1881 the invasion itself and its aftermath constituted a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. 
Firstly I should state that I acknowledge that it appears from the recitals that the Crown acknowledged those issues to the Waitangi Tribunal so that they were non-contested matters. I commend the Crown for doing that. I have no problem with looking back in terms of history and doing a reassessment of the events that happened. Clearly the process in the Waitangi Tribunal through the historians that it employs is to try to reach an accurate view of what went on. To some extent the Crown is prepared to admit certain events so they are not contested. In other circumstances they are contested and it is the job of the tribunal to sort out just where the facts lie. That is an important role and I do not see it as a biased rewriting of history at all even though we look at it in the light of a new understanding perhaps of what was happening at the time. 
There is an underlying factor here that I think we do not take much account of in terms of the relationship that the Crown had with Maori at the time. It is something I think we need to recognise and I see a failure to appreciate it particularly in the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the ACT party. I see those parties really coming at these issues in terms of Maori grievance on the basis that the Crown arrived the Crown in one way or another assumed sovereignty and therefore the Crown through its Government imposed certain things and the Maori resistance was therefore somewhat unlawful. I am not sure whether they go so far as to believe that the Crown reaction was over the top which is effectively what this is talking about in terms of confiscations—that effectively the reaction was over the top. Nevertheless there is this simple understanding that the Government was the Government that it had the power and that resisting the power and Maori action were exactly the same and should be treated the same as any New Zealand citizen who resisted the authorities and resisted the police. 
One of the things we tend to lack in all this debate is to understand that the coming of particularly the British to New Zealand was the conflict or the “bringing together” to use a more impassive term of two sorts of governance entities. The Crown in the British tradition is one that had a Government ruling on a national basis and the people. In the Maori tradition one did not have a Government that ruled all the people. There were a number of iwi who were regional groups that had a governance role over the people. So here we had a “single Government ruling its people” system confronting a governance entity that was disparate and comprised a number of different iwi. 
 The question is how we amalgamate that. What is an appropriate way to amalgamate those two sorts of governance relationships? What has tended to happen—and I see this from the parties I mentioned—is an assumption that the governance of the country then became the governance of all people and iwi did not play any part in the process. That was largely because the sort of iwi groupings in that sort of governance authority had no parallel in terms of the British justice system that was then imposed. The closest one could get is local authorities but then local authorities were subject to central governance. Therefore it was a question of how iwi and the iwi governance structure then related into this process. I think that is what the treaty was endeavouring to do. 
I see a big distinction between article 2 and article 3 of the treaty. Article 3 states that Maori individually would have the same rights and duties as British citizens. That meant that as individuals Maori had the same relationship with the Government as any other individual. That is why I think it is legitimate to say that all New Zealanders are equal and there should be one law for all and all that sort of stuff that we hear from National members. I agree with that but what they fail to recognise is that article 2 of the treaty protected the place of iwi as a distinct authority that was unique to the New Zealand context. It is really the issue of how the iwi structure as it existed at that time relates to modern New Zealand that is the issue we are always confronting. 
It seems to me that we have to and we ought to acknowledge that iwi as a whole have a place that is somewhere between the governance of the whole country and the people as individuals and that the iwi protection in article 2 is something that we need to somehow acknowledge and recognise as we move forward as a nation. Therefore in the blending of the two cultures or the two nations—two peoples in one nation is perhaps the best way of phrasing it—we need to recognise that there is a place in terms of iwi. I do not think that at one extreme it is a replacement of governance so that effectively it is a two-tier system where Maori have their own authority. That is an apartheid-type system and I do not think that is what it intends. But neither do I think it means that iwi are simply no better than any other social grouping—the local club or society or someone else who might get some sort of grant from the Government. Iwi have a particular role in terms of their own people that needs to be acknowledged. I think it needs to be acknowledged in some sort of partnership function. 
So I come back to the preamble. When the Crown starts to take away the rights of iwi in terms of their own property and their governance structure and starts to destroy that as happened in these instances then that is where things get out of line. I think it is quite appropriate for the Crown to look back now looking at a fresh approach in terms of an understanding of the place of iwi in traditional New Zealand and say that iwi were destroyed and that there was an undermining of the governance authority that was protected by the treaty. So this acknowledgment is quite appropriate and it is appropriate to look at it from a contemporary basis and to say that these were wrongs that were done and we need to put them right. Of course this is a settlement agreement and therefore we are looking historically. I am also very interested in looking at the future and asking what is the place then of iwi in that sort of structure in today’s New Zealand. That is what I think we should be focusing a lot of our debate on and I am certainly keen to see that progressed as we talk further about the place that iwi should have within the structure of New Zealand governance. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call to respond to the question from the member for Whanganui. My comments were made in the context of the implication by the National member—which was in a way confirmed by another speaker—that the apology itself seemed to be over the top and the implication that there should be more accuracy in the preamble. My response was that if we did make it more accurate it could be more embarrassing to both parties to the agreement. 
I want to comment on the remarks made by the speaker before last. I remind him and the people in this Committee that we should not place too much emphasis on the word “iwi” given that those who signed the treaty were of hapu. I would suggest and even argue that the concept of iwi is not a Maori concept but is something that came after the missionaries imposed their will on this country. Be that as it may the preamble may in some people’s eyes seem over the top but given the historical events that affected the claimant group I think that it is in order. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Part 1 Acknowledgements and apology by the Crown to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi and preliminary provisions 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 This is the part that deals with the apology and the acknowledgments of those matters that formed the basis of this claim in the first place and are the underlying reasons why Nga Rauru have laboured for some time now to reach a settlement. I think that given that colleagues have been quite fulsome in their comments on the preamble it is probably helpful to look at clause 8 “Text of acknowledgements in English”. Some of it I think is worth traversing because the reality is that while we in this Chamber are privy to a number of settlements now to the point that we often become a little bit used to what they are about and the provisions they contain I guess that as parliamentarians we should always be mindful that the public on whose behalf this House settles these claims are not always so privileged. 
In the case of the Taranaki claims particularly which is where the confiscations began it is a part of our history that—notwithstanding the comments made by my colleague Dr Mapp and others—is sad and the reason for which we are now in this Chamber to make amends. 
Clause 8 states that the Crown acknowledges the cumulative effect of its breaches of the treaty and its principles and that these have contributed to the dismantling of Nga Raurutanga and loss of Nga Rauru Kitahi land language and social structures. Further on clause 8 talks about Nga Rauru Kitahi suffering loss of life during the wars that preceded including the lives of unarmed children killed by Government militia at Handley’s woolshed in an unprovoked attack. They suffered the destruction of their homes property cultivations and taonga at the Crown’s hands during the wars and as a result of the Crown’s “scorched earth” policy. The Waitangi Tribunal of course traverses this in much more detail and those who are interested should be referred to the comprehensive reports issued in relation to the Taranaki claim. 
When we read of children being killed in an unprovoked attack then clearly that is a part of our history that we would prefer to forget and of course the only way we can have that put behind us is to make the kinds of amends that have been made in this particular settlement. 
 Having said all of that I think the comments I made in relation to the preamble are applicable as well. It is very important to acknowledge just exactly why the Crown the Government on behalf of New Zealanders has reached a settlement with this tribe. It is not an inconsequential settlement either although in terms of what the tribe went through I guess it is. In the end how does one make amends for loss of life due to an unprovoked attack? Looking back at that—and I am referring particularly to the attack at Handley’s woolshed—I am not saying that the whole of it necessarily was unprovoked. On the other hand if one tries to look at it from the point of view of the tribe we see that not many years earlier a treaty had been signed ostensibly giving the tribe protection for its land resources etc. It had agreed to the establishment of British government and laws only to find some few years later that in fact those undertakings promises call them what you will—Maori actually call it a sacred pact—were being totally ignored. 
It is all very well for us to stand here in the 21st century in 2005 to try to set these provisions or set out the history and make judgments. As I have said the acknowledgments are basically the heart of the settlement. They are very important to the tribe and it is very important that the public of New Zealand know why Parliament in voting for a settlement commits the kinds of resources it does in order to make amends for what took place many many years ago. 
The apology is a very important part of a settlement. Over the last 15 years I have interacted with numbers of claimant tribes. Having sat on the tribunal for 10 years I think I have quite a keen appreciation of how important the apology is. I have heard some tribes say that although a settlement of money and lands is great because of course they need that to provide a base for them to move forward in an economic sense an apology is an absolute must. In the end it gives credence to the fact that they suffered hurt and harm many many years ago. In the case of the Taranaki tribes the losses were quite tragic. So it is only right and proper that an apology is set out in this settlement bill. 
In clause 10 the Crown apologises to the ancestors. It is clearly the wish of the tribe itself to have those acknowledgments put in. The current generation on behalf of the ancestors take and accept the apology. Clause 10(2) states: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises” for its actions during the wars for “the destructive and demoralising effects of these actions … and loss of life during the wars.” and so on. 
The apology in this case is reasonably brief but not so brief that it does not do the job the claimants wish it to do. We recall that in the Tainui settlement the apology was actually presented at Government House. That is how important the issue of an apology is to the tribes. 
So all in all although this bill follows the accepted format this part is very important. It acknowledges what has occurred to the tribe and also apologises for those events. It is hoped that as with the preamble all these parts together will provide the backdrop that enables the tribe to put behind it those things that have hurt it over the generations—those causes of harm it has carried for so long. They are very very important. 
So on balance I do not have any queries to the Minister in relation to this. No doubt other members may but I for one certainly accept that Part 1 is a very important part. The reason that National is supportive is reasonably set out in it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 First of all I would like to acknowledge the very thoughtful contribution made by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu in relation to Part 1. 
I want to turn to two particular points. The first is the apology and the second is the text of the acknowledgments. I am doing them quite deliberately in that order because the apology essentially refers to regrets to the destructive and demoralising effects of the wars on Nga Rauru Kitahi and the confiscations. That is actually how it should be because the fundamental reason that we as a Parliament with the exception of one party only are dealing with the settlement process is that there is profound recognition that one of the consequences of the wars—the most significant and enduring consequence as it affected Maori communities—was pretty much the complete loss of those communities’ ancestral lands and economic base. We live with the echoes of those actions today and I accept the reality of that. Much of the interracial problem that exists in New Zealand today has its origins back then and we would be less than honest not to recognise that reality. 
Jim Bolger before he was Prime Minister in a speech to a National Party conference in 1989 which I remember well challenged the National Party—and one can imagine that back in 1989 it was actually quite a significant challenge to the National Party—that this was part of New Zealand’s history that we simply had to address because if we did not we would not be able to bring closure and harmony to our country. It has been a more difficult process than anyone accepted back then it would be and I acknowledge that both the National Government and the current Labour Government have found that to be the reality. But the whole point of the restoration—and the claims settlement process is intended to provide an element of restoration—is about recognising the totality of the confiscations and that they wreaked such havoc not only on the Maori economic base but also I suggest on the Maori psychology and I know that from speaking to members of my own family. 
That is I guess the activating reason for the settlement. The second point I wish to deal with is the events that occurred in the 1860s—not the confiscations so much but the wars themselves. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu properly noted the attack on the lives of unarmed children which we would all deplore but I want to go back a little from that to the totality of the wars themselves. What were they actually about? In 1840 there was a sovereignty treaty a transfer of sovereignty and that is not really disputed today except by the radicals. Even Mita Ririnui as a Minister of the Crown—let us not forget—must recognise that he accepts the sovereignty of the Crown; otherwise he could hardly take the warrant of the Crown. The reality is we have the modern-day Parliament and the modern-day Government. That is a direct outcome of the treaty of the transfer of sovereignty. 
Although the wars had a whole variety of causes—improper purchases in the Waitara case invasions responses and so forth—I think the wars can properly be characterised as sovereignty wars. Dr Belich has done some work on that in his own books along with Michael King. Imagine if the Crown had not won—what would the consequence have been? The consequence would have been a loss of sovereignty—in effect the overturning of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840. There would not have been a transfer of sovereignty. Sovereignty would effectively have been regained by the iwi where they had won their war if you will. 
Dr Belich’s books refer to Titokowaru’s war and he was actually successful. In a series of quite brilliant at least in a military sense engagements he defeated Crown troops. It has always been a bit of a puzzle to modern historians as to why he did not capitalise on those successes because he had a window of opportunity if you will effectively to regain sovereignty in the South Taranaki. He never did. He withdrew from the field of battle. Maybe the relevant iwi simply did not have the long-term capacity to sustain it and they recognised the reality of that. 
So the wars in essence were sovereignty wars rather than land wars. They had a series of causes and I do not think it is right that the Crown should apologise for that and indeed it has not and that is an interesting point. It is one might say the contradiction between clause 8 which sets out the events of the wars and some of the depredations during the wars—in particular the loss of life when unarmed children were killed by Government militia—and clause 10. Clause 10 does not apologise for the retention of sovereignty. What it does apologise for are the destructive actions of the confiscations and the loss of the economic and social base. I believe that it is important that we record some of this in  
Hansard 
 at this point. 
The final point I want to turn to is this particular acknowledgment in clause 8(4)(f): “when land was finally returned”—and some 3000 acres were returned—“Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi found that its customary title to this land had been compulsorily extinguished by the Crown’s confiscation and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles:”. I have to say that is a misstatement. If the land had remained as customary land it could not have been sold. That was the whole problem with customary land: it was incapable of being mortgaged being sold or being dealt with in any realistic way. Many people might say that was a good thing but I would argue that economic development actually requires modern title. I acknowledge that Maori land law title under the current Act Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is a form of modern title; it enables people to deal with the land. So rather than that being a loss or indeed a breach of the treaty which it was not it was actually an enhancement. That is not to suggest that all the things that occurred in the initial phase of what was then known as the Native Land Court were right—they were not—but the principle of turning customary land into a modern land tenure system was actually a benefit for Maori. They needed to have it. If the land had stayed as customary land I suggest it could never have been properly dealt with. That is one of the tragedies of much of the Third World—those countries do not have modern land law systems. That is widely recognised by development economists. So I think it is false for that issue to be part of the acknowledgments. 
I close with this final point. I have made these points and I am putting them on the record in  
Hansard 
. I know perfectly well that we cannot change these acknowledgments or the apology and National is not seeking to do so. We recognise that when the select committee gets these bills there has already been an agreement. But what is important to do in the debate is to record the way we view these things and how we might do them differently in the future. That is the value of the debate. Mr Stephen Franks made the point that it is a pity it is not recorded. It actually is of course; it is recorded in  
Hansard 
. It is there for us to read and the intent of a number of us is to develop over a period of time a collection of ideas that can inform us in the future as we do our settlements. 
National will be voting for this bill but we do make those points for the record. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate particularly in relation to the clauses that cover the text of the acknowledgments both in Maori and in English. I want to say straight off that I have no problem with regard to the Maori text. It is an accurate translation of the English text—or should I say the English text is an accurate translation of the Maori text. But I believe that in the acknowledgments lies the nub of this whole bill. They articulate the reasons for this settlement. I want to pick up on the comments made by the previous speaker and say that I believe that what is missing from the acknowledgements is the background as to why the events happened in the first place which is needed so that readers in the future will have a better understanding of why martial law was proclaimed in Taranaki and of all that sort of detail. I think that understanding is important particularly for those members of our society who have some ambivalence about the whole settlement process. I think that if the background is articulated more in that context then people may have a better understanding of why we are going through this process. 
Of course this settlement will it is to be hoped put to rest the effects of the loss of life and the land confiscation and the impact of all that on Nga Rauru Kitahi all of which has been found and acknowledged to be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. Therefore the apology is important as it is in any settlement. How effective an apology is can be felt only by the recipients of that apology which in this case is the claimant group. In terms of the outcome of this bill although it is laudable that the Crown is acknowledging all that and that some compensation is being considered it will never suffice and therefore will never provide full restitution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PITA PARAONE 
: As I was saying before the break clauses 9 and 10 which state the text of the apology in both English and Maori actually comprise in my view the nub of the purpose of this bill. Although some members feel that the content of the apology may be over the top if I have any criticism of it in terms of being wanting it relates to why certain activities for which the Crown is apologising occurred. Those activities were clearly a breach of the treaty. For instance why did the Government of the time decide to go to war? What was the real purpose of going to war? Although some who take an interest in New Zealand history may have their own views if I have any criticism of the text of the apology then it is in that area. Other than that I think the bill is a reflection of the intent of the Crown. The fact that the claimant groups have accepted the apology means that this Committee should lend its support to these clauses. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take part in the debate on Part 1. I do not think there is any doubt that New Zealand had an appalling history of failing to honour the treaty that the Crown signed with Maoridom in the early days. There is an obligation for us to try to find some way to settle the Crown’s failure to meet those obligations. I was happy to be a member of Cabinet when it settled a number of those obligations along the way. Having said that I want to give a warning to everybody. 
Actually let me deal first with what Part 1 is about. It is an acknowledgment and it is to do with an apology. I do not mind how strong the apology is. 
Mark Peck 
: I’m sorry. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It can be much more than: “I’m sorry.” It can be: “We were wrong.”; it can be: “We shouldn’t have done that.” Quite frankly I think that an apology often solves a problem and allows one to move on quickly. One thing I have learnt in politics is that whenever people get themselves on the wrong side of an issue they should very quickly say that they are sorry about it and move on. There is no question that from the Crown’s side if we want to talk in labour relations - type language about good faith we can say the Crown did not act in good faith. It did not act in good faith in a number of the settlements that have been done—in the cases of Tainui Ngai Tahu Taranaki and others. 
But I will say the following to the Maori claimants. I always have a really strong nervousness about any focus on the past. I want the claimants to make sure that their focus now once the settlement has been done is on their future in terms of breaking the cycle. For example I argued quite strongly in Cabinet when the first of these settlements was being done—Doug Graham was negotiating with Bob Mahuta—that there was no question that Tainui had been done a serious wrong. Doug Graham gave us a lot of evidence about what the British troops had done when they came south of the Bombay Hills and we learnt they had acted in a way that was just appalling. But my argument to Doug Graham was that we should try to settle the claim by trying to break what I thought was a cycle of dependency that Maoridom had fallen into. My view was that a good way to settle some of the claims would be to ask Maori to give us their best 500 kids each year whom we would put through the tertiary education system—not give them a low-grade hip-hop tour or twilight golf sessions—for free. I said that over say a 20-year period we should amortise the cost of that—$174 million I think it was—in order for us to see that figure. I said that we would break the cycle that we would create a Maori middle class that had high levels of productivity and that those people would be good-earning people who were focused on the value of education and so on. 
I guess I have a single message to the iwi for which this particular claim settlement is being progressed tonight. I say good on the iwi. It is probably getting only a very small percentage of what the actual damage to it was. However I ask the iwi please not to think that the best thing to do is to keep living in the past. I ask it to please say that it will make sure the settlement is focused on achieving outcomes. 
If I had reservations about the Tainui settlement they were dispelled dramatically by the way that Ngai Tahu began to act. Ngai Tahu just said that it would be there for the betterment of its people and that it would bring in whoever that took. That iwi brought in a few white honkies—I do not think “honky” is allowed any more is it Mr Chairperson? Was “honky” ruled out? I am happy to use the term because I am one of them. Ngai Tahu brought in some white honkies to manage the place. [ 
Interruption 
] If the Chairperson is shaking his head I will withdraw the term. I do not mind doing that but I did not think “honky” was ruled out. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What other colour do they come in? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Whatever. Honkies are only white I suppose; Gerry Brownlee is right. Ngai Tahu brought in whoever it took to get its investments to grow to get some relevant income streams for its people and to start to lift their performance. I say good on Ngai Tahu; I think it is a lesson to us all. A young guy from Ngai Tahu who was running Shotover Jet in Queenstown once came before a select committee. I have never seen a more stunningly focused businessman—he talked about outcomes and making it happen. There was almost a tear in my eye like I had when Michael Campbell won the US Open. I say good on Ngai Tahu. 
These settlements are about making sure that if we address the wrongs of the past we are careful about that. There have been wrongs in the past forever—for example what Britain did to the Jews. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 We are in the Committee stage of yet another settlement. This is a settlement for the Taranaki area and a settlement for one of the more outrageous actions against Maori. 
Having said that I say that when I read through this bill I have some grave reservations about it. Anyone reading this bill—and a lot of young Maori will read it—will think that this is an authoritative account of the history and of course it is not. 
One reason is that it fails to mention that this Parliament has made a number of attempts at settling this particular grievance. As early as the beginning of the 20th century there was an attempt. There was another one between the First and Second World Wars. The first Labour Government gave a settlement as well in 1947. The Hon Rex Mason Minister of Justice stood in this House gave an account of what had happened and said it was wrong. If we pull up the  
Hansard 
 we will find that he gave an account of what had happened in this particular case. Parliament then voted for a compensation package that people now say is derisory but if we translated it into today’s dollars we would see that it was a very substantial settlement. 
When I read this account I see unless I have missed it that that information has been left out. I think that is arrogance on the part of this Parliament. I think it is very difficult for us to apologise for something that happened in the past. We can regret it but who are we to apologise? It is like members here saying it is extraordinary that we sent young men to Gallipoli. We cannot apologise for that: those were the actions; that was the culture; and that was the time. So I have difficulty with an apology. 
I also have difficulty with the way the bill is written because I do not think it is written even-handedly. In saying that I am not failing to acknowledge that what happened was wrong. In fact many European New Zealanders—to use a politically incorrect phrase now but it would not have been so then—said at the time that what had happened was wrong. But when we read these sorts of accounts we see that that does not come through. 
I have also read the Waitangi Tribunal’s account. I think frankly that that is completely over the top because in portraying things it goes too far in creating a sense of grievance. 
There is a lot of truth in what the previous member said in that one cannot rewrite the past. One of the most unfortunate things about the settlement process is that we have seen some of the brightest and best of Maori looking back and spending their time in trying to find ways in which they can get a better settlement. The number of bright young Maori lawyers who I now see working in the treaty industry is a tragedy for this country. 
I hope that the claimants who get the money will use it well and use it to go forward. Having said that I think that we ought at least to record in the House that we are no better than the Hon Rex Mason who attempted to settle this particular claim in 1947—and the House did settle. 
I have heard MPs get up and say that this House has never acknowledged what happened. That is a load of rubbish. This House has acknowledged that what happened was wrong and it is a form of arrogance on our part—and a lack of real historical knowledge—when we start to act as if we are somehow more moral than our forefathers who were engaged in this matter. I have grave doubts about what is a new PC custom which is that we somehow have the right in the House to make moral judgments about those who have gone before and to rewrite settlements. The only argument one can put in favour of that process is that if it enables Maori to feel that grievances have been healed then perhaps the apology is justified. 
We are all aware that there was considerable civil disobedience in that area of the country. One example is that in World War II many notices for conscription in that area were ignored because Maori thought and said that until those matters were settled they should not have to take any notice. Members may not know this but the Fraser Labour Government which enforced conscription notices very vigorously did not do so in that area. Part of the reason it did not was that the Fraser Labour Government realised there were considerable problems and as I said after World War II that Government came to the House with a settlement. 
But one wonders how many settlements will be required. I wonder whether in 20 or 30 years’ time—maybe 40—MPs will get up and make speeches saying that it is outrageous that this matter has never been acknowledged that it should be dealt with properly and that the settlement given today is derisory. No doubt in 30 years’ time the amount of money that we are putting forward today—which we think is a lot—will probably not be enough to buy a house or whatever after the results of inflation. 
So I say to the House that I regret the bill and I say shame on the Crown negotiators for not insisting that there is a correct and accurate record. It is a matter of shame that those civil servants who wrote the legislation clearly thought they could malign the reputation of people like the Hon Rex Mason and could completely ignore the fact that there have been previous attempts at making a settlement. I am ashamed that a Labour Government is not prepared to have any pride in its own record in attempting to make a settlement previously. 
We may say now that the settlements were not enough but to write them out of history is a new form of Stalinism—rewriting history is the sort of thing the Russians used to do. This account is no more accurate than the accounts that people rail against. That concerns me because if one is not prepared to face up and write the history correctly then one has to wonder whether the settlement will last. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Interpretation 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Before turning to Part 2 I note that I was very interested in the speech by the Hon Richard Prebble. Unlike the comments that were made by his colleague Stephen Franks what he said gives pause for a lot of thought. However as a member of the Government that introduced the format for the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 he ought to recognise that the earlier attempts to settle this claim were not measured against the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles—and I am not saying that that was right or wrong. The jurisdiction for this process is the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles whereas in the earlier attempts that was not the case. Part 2 deals with interpretation and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is to do with definitions. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes definitions—I am coming to that absolutely. I turn to clause 13 “Meaning of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi”. National MPs have made a number of comments on this particular issue. It is certainly right that there should be some clarity around those who are entitled to benefit from a settlement. This part raises the issue of adopted children and it includes the issue of whangai as well. I am sure my colleague Gerry Brownlee will take a call on this part because we have raised this issue on a number of occasions. Basically the entitlement in terms of these settlements and in terms of the tikanga of most tribes if not all is based on blood and inheritance—blood lines whakapapa lines. That is clearly set out in subclause (1) of clause 13. 
The issue of the position of adopted children and whangai—particularly where whangai who have been brought into a family have no blood connection to the family concerned—was raised in the Maori Affairs Committee. The Adoption Act overrides any argument claimants may as to who may benefit and so we are told does the Human Rights Act. But clause 13 states: “In this Act Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi … means the iwi or collective group composed of …”—and it sets out various categories all of which depend upon the issue of descent. It names the hapu which come under the umbrella description of “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi” and it also includes any whanau hapu or group of individuals who come within those hapu categories. Hapu of course are made up of individuals who have clear descent lines from the original tupuna which in this case means Nga Rauru Kitahi tupuna. This clause includes a recognition of persons who have exercised customary rights by virtue of their descent lines and so on. 
So it is an issue for tribes that no matter what is said in this legislation the reality is that those who have no direct whakapapa links to Nga Rauru Kitahi are by virtue of adoption and being whangai included anyway. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge as I did in my second reading speech yesterday that the issues the member has just raised are significant. As she indicated this is not the first time they have come up in relation to a settlement bill. 
They were discussed at some length I believe at the Maori Affairs Committee the time and place in the end for us to address issues relating to the conflict if you like between children with whakapapa to a particular iwi—in this case Nga Rauru—and the provisions of the Adoption Act and indeed the Human Rights Act. It is perhaps then when we are reviewing things like the Adoption Act which we are reviewing currently that there is an opportunity to look at it in its wider context. There will no doubt be diverse views around the House at that time about the issues raised. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call with regard to clause 13. I am probably just as guilty as anyone for not having picked up this issue during the select committee deliberations but on looking at the meaning of Nga Rauru Kitahi I see that according to clause 13(1)(a)(i) it means “individuals descended from 1 or more Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna; and (ii) every individual referred to in paragraph (a)(i); and (iii) every individual who is a member of a hapuu referred to in paragraph (b);”. Paragraph (b) then goes on to list all those hapu that quite clearly the negotiators on behalf of the claimant group have agreed should be included. 
I personally have no difficulty with that but I do have some difficulty with subclause (2) which states: “In this section and section 14 Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna means a person who exercised customary rights—(a) by virtue of being descended from—(i) Rauru;”. That is fine; in the make-up of iwi groups I understand that there is the iwi and then descended from that are the hapu. My real concern though is with subparagraph (ii) of clause 13(2)(a): “a recognised ancestor of any of the hapuu referred to in subsection (1)(b);”. So I pose the question of whether there is an ancestor of a particular hapu listed in clause 13(1)(b) who is not a descendant of the tupuna known as Rauru. If there is such a tupuna then I have to ask how has that tupuna become part of this settlement. 
As we know hapu descend from a clearly defined tupuna but in terms of subclause (2)(a)(ii) there is the suggestion that there may be a recognised or eponymous head of a particular hapu who may not have descended from the tupuna known as Rauru. So the provision does pose some questions as to the possible entitlement of a hapu whose eponymous head does not descend from the tupuna described as Rauru. Perhaps the Minister might take some advice from his officials and explain how that situation has been able to get to this stage. Otherwise I think it is a compliment to the iwi of Nga Rauru Kitahi that they are able to outline a number of their hapu whom they wish to have included in this settlement. 
I note for instance that there are a couple of Ngati Hine hapu and I suppose that if I had the time I would be able to make some connection with the Ngati Hine in the north. But I am sure that with Ngati Hine Waiatarua and Ngati Hine Waiata there is probably some connection between those two hapu—so there should be if in fact they both descend from the tupuna known as Rauru. However if there is a hapu included in that list whose eponymous head does not descend from Rauru then one needs to ask how come that hapu is included in this settlement. Other than that I do not think we have any truck with the definitions that have been outlined but we would ask the Minister to take a call to address that issue. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think the honourable member made a good point and I would like to hear from the Minister. But I was stunned to hear that New Zealand First does not have any problems with the definitions apart from that because I am very interested in clause14(1)(a) which deals with the meaning of the historical claims—it “means every claim” and it states: “(i) is or is founded on a right arising—(A) from the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;”. Now I was under the mistaken impression that the New Zealand First Party was not going to vote for any more legislation that contained that phrase—“the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—for a very good reason because what does it mean? 
Every member knows that because of the passing this bill some meaning will have to be given to that phrase so I ask the honourable Minister in the chair to tell the Committee exactly what is meant by the statement: “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. I ask the Minister what they are and I ask him to please set them out clearly. Obviously he must know what they are—otherwise he would not be asking this Committee to vote for the provision. Surely we cannot be being asked to vote for something the Minister does not know the meaning of. If he does not know what it means perhaps his officials could tell him but the ACT party did not vote against the first part partly because I thought that if we were going to make an apology then it should be unanimous. But I advise the Minister that I cannot see how any real parliamentarian can possibly vote for this part unless we all know what it means. 
I want to make it quite clear—and I have been a member of the Maori Affairs Committee—that I have no idea what that phrase means. Well I have some vague ideas but I think it is an elastic concept. In my time in the House it has completely changed so I would like to have from the Minister a very clear succinct statement which would be very helpful for people coming along later so that we all know what the House of Representatives has voted for tonight. So could the Minister please take a call and tell the Committee what is meant by “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and perhaps New Zealand First Party members could also explain to me why they are voting for this part when I understood that one of the things they are campaigning on around the country is that they are opposed to this sort of loose phrase being included in legislation. 
I have to say that I disagree with Mr Peters about a wide range of things but I think the statements he has made in criticising the introduction of this sort of loose terminology into the statute book are correct. We have criticised the courts for some of the bizarre decisions they make on those issues but when we introduce a phrase of this sort we are inviting judges to take our jobs to start being members of Parliament and to write the law. If we are going to pass that clause as it is written we are inviting trouble in the future and no MP can complain if the principles of the treaty turn out to be something that will come as a great shock to all members of Parliament. 
 It would be very helpful—it would certainly help the ACT party to decide whether we should vote for this section or against it—if the Minister would simply rise and since he is asking us to vote for the principles of the treaty set out for the Committee what those principles are. I am sure that a well-prepared Minister would not have come here not expecting this question. I am sure he was expecting it and I would like to think that he has prepared a succinct statement. That would be very helpful. I can see that some of the Maori members of Parliament are also looking forward to hearing from the Minister of the Crown an authoritative clear statement—[ 
Interruption 
] The member has me even more worried. He says that I am at fault. If I am at fault it is high time this was put a stop to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I accept your call to speak Mr Chairman with great reluctance because I thought that the question put to the Minister by Mr Prebble was extremely reasonable. I am absolutely staggered that the Minister actually sank further into his chair when the bell rang to avoid any impression that he might have been about to stand and address this particular question before the Committee. I find it much as Mr Prebble does a bit alarming that this settlement appears to be founded on matters arising not only from the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but also from common law including aboriginal title or customary law. I am not sure exactly what the confines of that might be. 
It concerns me a little that the Minister is so very reluctant to deal with this aspect of the bill. We know he is a relatively new Minister in this role but one would think that he might have asked officials: “Why are we doing this?”. I am sure that Ministers in all sorts of other areas ask their officials that question although I am not convinced that the Minister of Finance asked his officials that question prior to reading the Budget. It may be that the Government simply does not ask officials what is going on but asks them what they want it to do. If that is the answer that is fine but the Minister should let the Committee know. I would think though that he would have asked: “Why are we doing this?” and got the history. 
I am a bit staggered actually to learn a lot of the history tonight. I feel somewhat guilty that during the select committee process I did not find out the many aspects of this matter of which Mr Prebble spoke in the Committee tonight. It is easy when a particular story is put in front of one just to accept that everything is absolutely kosher. I suppose one learns that perhaps one cannot always believe the civil servants. I have to say that the latest missive from the Public Service Association causes me a great deal of concern about the quality of the advice that goes to any Government. I cannot believe how hell-bent that organisation seems to be on undoing the very people it is supposed to represent. 
I come back to the issue that has properly been raised by Mr Prebble and I ask the Minister whether he intends to make an explanation. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I am continuing to listen to the member with interest. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is the Committee of the whole House. This is the part of the process when members get to ask a Minister a question. I have asked the Minister a question and he has said he is still listening. Does the Minister want me to say it a little louder? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: No certainly not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So he has clearly heard the question but knows it is impossible for him to answer. If it is not perhaps he would indicate—where has he gone? I cannot believe it. He has now sunk so low in the chair for fear that we might imagine he is rising to answer the question that we cannot even see him. I cannot believe that. If he is going to answer the question he should. I do not mean to make light of this because it is not funny. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Stop misleading the listeners. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister must indicate whether he will take the call and give the Committee what should be a very simple answer. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: In the fullness of time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In the fullness of time the Minister will take a call. Well I have to say that the time for discussing this particular bill seems to be growing longer by the minute because if the Minister leaves us without answers he will leave us in the position of having continually to ask the same question. So I will sit down now. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I guess it is a bit disappointing. I was waiting with bated breath as well to hear the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations recite what the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in the bill before us means. National members certainly asked that at the Maori Affairs Committee and although we were given a response of sorts I do not think anybody was necessarily satisfied. 
I am not endeavouring to get the Minister out of the hole he seems to have dug himself into by not taking the call to give a reasonable response to what I think are reasonable questions but I do have a thought on the matter. Again it has nothing to do with the question the Hon Richard Prebble asked New Zealand First as to why it would support the legislation given that confirmation came yesterday that under the treaty policy of the Rt Hon Winston Peters New Zealand First would delete the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from all legislation. 
I note that Richard Prebble was going to get to his feet. He may or may not recall that the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” actually first appeared in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act which was brought into law by a Labour Government of which the Hon Richard Prebble was a member. Much as some of us may have difficulty now with the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” I would have thought that a legitimate response might be that it actually forms the jurisdiction for these claims and therefore for these settlements. That is the jurisdiction laid down in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 as the Hon Richard Prebble knows or should remember. Until there is a change to that for those of us who wish to see some resolution of these historic injustices it is in my view the only jurisdiction we have. 
Perhaps the Rt Hon Winston Peters recognises that as well although looking at some of his statements it seems to me that he has missed the point that this phrase first appeared in the 1975 Act. He keeps referring to I think the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 which is patently wrong. It would be really great if those who think they know the origin of this phrase could get it right. I could still prove to be wrong about it but I do not think I am. That is where the phrase originated. 
Standing here as a member of the National Party which supports the settlement of historic injustices I have difficulty understanding how we as a party can support a settlement if we do not also recognise the jurisdiction under which these claims are filed. The source of that jurisdiction is the 1975 Act. 
 That still does not get the Minister off the hook though. Having sat on the tribunal for some years I have a view as to what “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” might be. The Minister has the legacy of the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer who set some principles when he was in Government and maybe the Minister could even confirm whether they are the principles now being referred to when we are asked to pass this bill into law. In any event it would be good—for the sake of those who are listening if not for ourselves—if the Minister would give his understanding of the basis on which we are now being asked to support this legislation to settle the historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I thought that it would be only proper for me to respond to the questions put by the ACT member. I would like to refer the ACT member to the first and the third readings of the last claims settlement bill that came before this House—that is the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I recall the looks on the faces of the officials when I stood to offer the support of New Zealand First’s vote for that bill. In that first reading debate the ACT member may like to read particularly the comments made by my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly where he explained the reason for New Zealand First taking its stance in spite of the inclusion of those words à la the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. During the second reading of that same bill the ACT member in the House at the time questioned the stance taken by New Zealand First. So my colleague Dail Jones submitted an amendment that requested the deletion of those very words from the bill and—surprise surprise—the only two parties that objected to that amendment were ACT and National. So I think it is a bit rich for those members to then question the stance we are taking and in particular the policies that we are expounding with regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise again the issue of the Minister explaining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and how they came to be in this bill. I hope that he does take a call shortly. I notice that there are other members in the Committee who would like to make that explanation on behalf of the Government but appear to be out of favour with their whip at present. They are just having a discussion and some people may hear that discussion going on in the background. I hope it is successful and that they are able to take a call. 
I make it clear that from the National Party’s point of view it does not really make a lot of difference what the Government might think this phrase means because we are very clear about what it means. We are clear about the reason why we are supporting this particular settlement bill. As we have said before with the  
Hansard 
 record being an important reference these days and part of the historical record—and Mr Prebble showed us tonight just how important that record actually is—I think it is worth making the statement for the record as to why we support this particular bill. 
Interestingly earlier this evening Mr Franks from the ACT party put most articulately a view of article 2 of the treaty that fits very very well with the National Party’s view of how the treaty should be considered when it comes to matters of settlement. It is simply a matter of saying that people had a right at a particular time that was not respected by the Government of the day and we now go into a process of redress because in hindsight we still respect the right. It really is I think about as simple as that. It is not about partnership or non-Maori having some obligation to Maori; it is about all New Zealanders from 6 February 1840 being able to expect that their interests in property and other treasures—if we want to use that term—would be respected by the Government. 
Rather than take the Committee’s time and repeat everything that Mr Franks said I simply refer the Committee to the speech made by him earlier this evening because I think it made most clear the position the National members take in considering why we support a bill what we mean and what we understand the bill to mean when the Government states that it is taking this action with regard to rights arising from the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I just wanted to listen to get the scope of what members were actually asking but I think I could refer them back to 1987 when the lands case in the Court of Appeal elaborated the principles of the treaty at that time as required by section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 as the member previously referred to. In that judgment the President of the Court of Appeal Sir Robin Cooke wrote of the principles of partnership active protection and redress. In 1989 the fourth Labour Government drawing on the principles that had been developed to date including past judgments from the courts published a set of five principles. That is why I am mystified that members refer to their lack of knowledge of these principles as though they had never been spoken of and had never been recorded in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well you keep changing them. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well on 30 April 2002 the then Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson advised Parliament that these principles are what the Government considers to be relevant. I refer the member to  
Hansard 
 Volume 600 at pages 15813 to 15814 where the Attorney-General stated: “Those principles were published by the fourth Labour Government in 1989 to assist the Government when making decisions about matters related to the treaty. In summary they are as follows. First there is the principle of government: the Government has the right to govern and to make laws. Second there is the principle of self-management: iwi have the right to organise as iwi and under the law to control their resources as their own. Third there is the principle of equality: all New Zealanders are equal before the law. Fourth there is the principle of reasonable cooperation: both the Government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern. Fifth there is the principle of redress: the Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.” I think that clearly articulates the position. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think that the Minister has shown us the opposite—how difficult the situation is—but first let me take up the challenge made earlier. The first statutory use of the words “principles of the Treaty” was in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975—I was not actually an MP then; I know that people think I have been here since the ark but I actually came here in November of 1975—but that phrase was only in the preamble. 
The preamble of that Act stated it would: “… provide for the observance and confirmation of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by establishing a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and to determine whether certain matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty”. That was the first statement which was assented to on 10 October 1975. The Labour Government then suffered its biggest defeat in its history about a month later. 
 The second reference is in the State-Owned Enterprises Act—I think in section 9. There was some statutory comment but the comment by the Chief Justice was obiter; it was not part of the judgment. There has never been a judgment by our courts that has made the statements that the Chief Justice made in passing. The comment was not agreed to by the other judges and interestingly enough it is not agreed to by the Government. Chief Justice Cooke said that the treaty was a partnership whereas if we listened to what the Minister said we heard him give us five principles but they did not include “partnership” in them. So we have an interesting situation whereby the Minister has said we are following what judges say but he has also said: “Here are five principles.” 
I ask the Committee then where those five principles actually appear in the treaty. They do not. I tell the Minister that obviously there are principles in the treaty—[ 
Interruption 
] I would prefer it if the members did not conduct a conversation in the Chamber. They may not be interested in this matter but some of us are. 
There are three clauses in the treaty. In my view the principle in clause 1 is that it establishes sovereignty by the Crown. It is not that there are two states two Parliaments. It actually establishes sovereignty of the Crown. Sovereignty is ceded to Queen Victoria. 
The ACT party really likes clause 2 because it guarantees to Maori iwi and hapu their property rights and that is I believe the principle that this bill is actually trying to redress. The third clause granted Maori all the rights of British citizenship which one has to remember in 1840 were very considerable rights. They mean the right of equality before the law. 
Those are three simple principles. If the Minister were to say that those principles are what he supports—that he supports sovereignty property rights and equality before the law—then the ACT party would not have any difficulty in going along with that. 
But that is not what he has given us there. That statement made by Ministers has no legal authority at all bears little relationship to the Treaty of Waitangi and is the sort of waffly statement one would expect from a Labour Government. Where on earth does the treaty state “feasibility of cooperation” or something? Where does “self-management” appear in the treaty? Those statements are not there. 
Those matters there might be very worthy matters—it would be nice if the Labour Government did believe in self-management; I did not know that it did as I have never seen any sign of it; I thought it made a busy-body State—but they show the problem in successive Governments putting up the phrase “principles of the treaty” without being prepared to state in legislation what they actually are. 
I have to say to the New Zealand First Party that I have seen Mr Peters’ attempt but frankly I do not like it. I think— 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the part that deals with the settlement of the historic claims. Interestingly one of the opening statements suggests that this settlement is effected under the deed of settlement. Basically it is saying that no other enactment in Parliament can get in the road of this settlement. 
However I refer the Committee to the contributions made earlier by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Mr Pita Paraone. They talked about the issue of whangai—adoption—and in particular the issue of adoption outside the strict blood lines of Nga Rauru Kitahi. This issue came up before the select committee and we did have discussions with the Minister. The Minister said tonight that perhaps it was something that would be dealt with at another time and that we needed to think of another way of doing this. 
It seems rather strange to me that there can be a settlement of a grievance held by a group of people who have a very clear blood connection to another group of people who were wronged some time in the past and that that settlement can then be shared by someone who is adopted into the family. I would like the Minister to explain why the Government feels that this will not be a problem in the future. It is all very well to say in this part of the bill that this is where it all becomes full and final if in fact the gate has been left open and there is a feeling inside the settling group that something was imposed upon them. After all that is why we are here in the first place. 
I also want to enter in the  
Hansard 
 record the other side of that story which is that quite clearly Nga Rauru Kitahi have accepted this part of the settlement. They have said: “OK fair enough. The Government of the day insists on this. We want our settlement and so this is what we are prepared to run with.” If that is the case then the Minister will surely be able to assure the House of that particular fact. There is no point in creating new grievance inside a settlement bill. 
Earlier this evening the Hon Richard Prebble said that some years out from now the actual cash amount being settled would seem quite small. What is most important here is the process that has gone on. Unlike other settlements there has supposedly been a much better process here to reach this point. We are supposed to be certain that Nga Rauru Kitahi are happy comfortable and completely accepting of the full and final nature of the settlement. 
 So it is not unreasonable for the Committee to point to this concern and it would be reasonable of the Minister to reassure us about it. Because it does seem odd that Part 2 which refers to the meaning of Nga Rauru Kitahi and what it is to be part of that group and Part 3 which refers to the settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters and makes it clear that no other Act could get in the road of this settlement could cause quite a degree of angst among the claimant group. 
I know about this from sitting at the select committee table and hearing Maori members with similar connections to their own iwi groups express quite vocally their concerns about the issue. It is not in any way nitpicking; it is very very important. The Minister owes the Committee an explanation at this point because it is undeniable that once this bill is passed some rights will be lost. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party and as members know we are not members of the Maori Affairs Committee. I listened with a great deal of interest to the points made by Mr Brownlee but I have to say that at the end of it I was not a great deal wiser. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We haven’t had the questions answered yet. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I know but I am asking the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui because it appears to me there is a question about adoption and what I am not sure about is whether the consensus is that people who have been adopted are included in the claimant group. 
Pita Paraone 
: They are. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I hear someone saying they are. Well I am not sure they are and I repeat I was not on the committee but we have here and have already passed it a definition of who is in and one has to be a descendant. So people who are adopted are not included. That would be my view. Then we might say they are included because there is the Adoption Act but clause 15(3) in Part 3 states: “Despite any other enactment or rule of law” which would make it seem to me that maybe the Adoption Act is one of those laws covered by that clause. I would like to know from the Minister—and it is not just important to me in voting but is fairly important to people who have been adopted and other members—what the Government’s view is. Are adoptees included? 
I can think of other situations—the Matrimonial Property Act; a wonderful piece of legislation that I have run up against a couple of times!—that can result in property settlements. Is that an enactment that has been ignored in terms of the words “despite any other enactment”? Is that one ignored? It may not be well known that as a result of the matrimonial property legislation and descent and the like some people who own Maori land in this country do not have a drop of Maori blood in them. That is a fact; there are such people. Does this bill when we say people have to be descended mean we are overriding that legislation? If we are that seems to me to be contrary to various principles that the House has adopted in the Adoption Act and that we have adopted in the matrimonial property legislation. 
No doubt the Minister will get some advice from his officials but I think that it is important at the Committee stage especially as Mr Brownlee says the matter was discussed extensively at the select committee that the rest of the members who were not on the committee can share that knowledge. I would like to know whether adoptees are in or out and then I would like to know what the principle was in deciding that. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable question and I hope the Minister will answer it because it is not only important to me but obviously important to people who have been adopted and important to their families and all of the claimants. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I feel bound to stand up and take a call simply because it looks like the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui is not going to respond to the question that the Hon Richard Prebble quite rightly put. On the face of it this bill does not include adopted children or whangai whereas during the select committee process the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements were pretty adamant that they are included. So there is a real issue raised here. 
It may be that my colleague Gerry Brownlee and I have raised the issue incorrectly. Maybe the Hon Richard Prebble’s view is right because it seems that adopted children are not included in the provisions in the bill. The issue arose in the Maori Affairs Committee because for the iwi Nga Rauru Kitahi claimants I understand this was a key negotiation issue. They requested that presumably their settlement bill override the Adoption Act. I am not sure whether that is correct; maybe the Office of Treaty Settlement officials can give some advice to the Minister on it. 
So at the iwi’s request it became a live issue. They seemed to agree with the point that Gerry Brownlee and I have raised. It seems absolutely illogical to us that on the one hand the bill sets out those who benefit on the basis of blood lines and descent but that on the other hand it also provides that someone who has no blood connection or whakapapa that links to Nga Rauru Kitahi either through any one of the hapu or through the eponymous ancestor can still participate. 
So this is a live issue I say to the Minister. We thought we had some clarity on it in the select committee but on the basis of the matters raised by the Hon Richard Prebble I myself am confused. I think it is very important that someone clarify the situation of adopted children because the issue will arise again. If adopted children are not specifically included in the settlement Act some tribes will exclude them in the future anyway despite the Adoption Act. Given the words “despite any other enactment” the tribe would be quite within its rights to do so. The issue will come up again. It seemed clear in the select committee but it is not clear now. 
I ask the Minister to take a call and give us some clarity on the matter otherwise we will be back in the House dealing with future settlement bills—although we may not be because it is an issue we will get some clarity on when we are in Government in a few weeks’ time. The issue of who is to benefit is complex and serious. As my colleague Gerry Brownlee says it may become the subject of further claims down the line so it is very important that we get some clarification now as to whether adoptees are included. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call in response to one concern that I am aware of in relation to this part of the bill and that is the rights or recognition of whangai or legally adopted children. There was considerable discussion amongst the members of the Maori Affairs Committee about the inclusion of legally adopted children. To some degree the representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi were also concerned but after a discussion at the select committee we were able to point out to the representatives that the inclusion of whangai or legally adopted children in this bill was in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955 in accordance with previous settlement Acts and in accordance with the rights of adopted children under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. So there is a long stream of consistency in reference to whangai or legally adopted children. 
The other thing we discussed with the representatives was the actual nature of their concern. Their concern surrounded the adoption of non-Maori children by and large but if we concentrate the issue on non-Maori children then basically we also catch Maori children in the net because in many cases a lot of the adopted children are Maori and non-Maori. We asked the representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi what the process would be in the case of Maori children who have been adopted into certain families to determine whether they had the whakapapa. We asked whether they would be required to submit their whakapapa to the trustees to receive benefits or whether there was some other way of determining whether they were of blood line. To be quite honest they were not able to answer that question because there is no way of making that declaration. Many families adopt children and by and large they keep that information to themselves. They do not wish to have to account for their decision to adopt children. So it became a much more difficult issue to resolve in terms of their position and it was understandable that the decision was made in relation to consistency with the Adoption Act. I understand from the representatives and from the discussions I have had with them since the select committee process in Wanganui that they have accepted that situation. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was all very interesting but it is news to me. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: You weren’t there. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I sat on the Maori Affairs Committee and I was there for the various processes related to the signing off of this bill and that explanation has never been offered before. So I am a little intrigued to learn that Nga Rauru Kitahi has itself accepted this situation. Notwithstanding that I notice that clause 17 lists specific enactments that are not to affect the land in question: the Treaty of Waitangi Act the State-Owned Enterprises Act the Education Act 1989 the Crown Forest Assets Act and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act. 
I do not see the Property (Relationships) Act listed in that clause and Mr Prebble quite rightly brought that Act into the argument. So I ask the Minister a simple question. If someone receives property as a result of this settlement and it is a decision of the governing entity to put some names on the title of that property which is not uncommon and if one of the people who are named marries someone or enters into a common law arrangement with someone and that breaks down after 2 years what will happen? The Government’s decree is that assets are split down the middle but if the only asset is that person’s name on the particular title what will happen? Will a court have the authority to add another name to that title to reflect the share that the other party would then under our law in this country be entitled to? 
Just to go back to the issue of legal adoption I would have thought that under the whangai system there was no problem because most of those arrangements would be made within the particular iwi structure—in fact probably within the hapu structure or even within the whanau. But in the case of someone who was legally adopted I find that a little bit hard to swallow. Let us say that the person I spoke of before who has his or her name on a title somewhere enters into a common law arrangement with someone who has three or four children—or two or one; however many it is—and decides to legally adopt them and then after the prescribed period of 2 years it all turns to custard as people say. What is the status of those children then? Are they then suddenly caught in the loop? They may have absolutely no idea of what Nga Rauru Kitahi is all about. They may never have lived in the tribal district and they may not ever intend to live in that district. Is the Minister honestly telling us that the governing entity of that particular iwi group will say that there is no problem and that because those children’s names are on its roll they are beneficiaries of whatever is produced as a result of the settlement assets being worked in a good economic fashion and that it wishes them good luck? 
Part of the problem we have in all these settlements is the claim that is repeatedly made by iwi that their lands were dispersed and taken away from them. I worry quite a bit that with the acceptance of the 1955 Family Protection Act as it is applied here with the overlay of the Property (Relationships) Act that we have now and with the great change in circumstances in New Zealand families these days we will see quite a diminution of any particular ownership interest in lands and other assets. If the Minister wants to put it on the record that I am wrong by saying that there is no problem with regard to this issue then I invite him to do so. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Gerry Brownlee is not wrong; he is just confused. The issue with regard to whangai is very important to Maori. When Ben Couch initially tabled the first Maori Land Bill—which was a rewrite—in the House in 1978 a long process followed ending in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Maori people with great anxiety a huge amount of consultation and a great degree of angst thought very carefully about the process of whangai. Until 1955 whangai as a concept— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the honourable member but I do so because I actually want to hear him and I find that very difficult when Ministers come over here and speak in the aisle. I literally cannot hear Mr Tamihere because Mr Barker is holding his conversation so loudly. I wonder whether he would mind holding his conversation in the corridor so that I can hear the contribution being made by the honourable member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution and I ask members to take that into consideration. Generally conversations are not to be held in the Chamber unless it is absolutely necessary. I suggest that members take them outside if that is not the case. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Until 1955 customary arrangements for both marriage and adoption were determined as a matter of fact before the Maori Land Court. So until 1955 through the Maori Land Court adoption was allowed in terms of Maori cultural determinations by way of the concept of whangai—to feed and to look after the child. At that time the applicable whakapapa was that of the parents who had embraced the child and that child then took a beneficial interest in Maori freehold land interests. After 1955 Maori land law was amended to the extent that an adoption order was required. So a couple of dates have to be understood to get the status correct here. Between 1955 and 1993 unless one had an adoption order through the Department of Social Welfare clearly determining the parentage a child could not participate other than by way of will in Maori freehold land interests. That is the first point of clarification. 
The second point is that after 1993 Maori up and down the country determined that they would accept whangai within the hapu-whanau groupings that looked after a child who was taken in. That again is a matter of fact to be determined in the Maori Land Court. So the right of a whangai is now available without adoption order on Maori freehold title land only. If the land is general land then the law of the Administration Act applies in the event of an intestate estate. If there is a will then the law of the will applies. With regard to the application of the Matrimonial Property Act and the Property (Relationships) Act it is clear that those two Acts have not applied to Maori freehold land interests. 
 That brings me to the third point because—[ 
Interruption 
] National’s spokesperson on Maori affairs should read the bill or ask his colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who is sitting on the back bench to fill him in on the reason. The House voted on these pieces of legislation. The member sat in the House on one of them. The reality is that there is an exclusion section with regard to both. Clarity is very important. The bill presently before us is not prescriptive with regard to Rauru Kitahi’s view of whangai. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is the member now telling us that the House has passed in recent times two very contentious pieces of legislation that will protect Maori assets but nobody else’s? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. It is a debatable issue and the member has the opportunity to take a call. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member was around when those pieces of legislation were being discussed in the House and the fact that he was not awake is not my problem. The reality is that in respect of the application of the law under the present settlement legislation in the event that the land assets are deemed to be Maori freehold land or a status declaration to that extent is sought in the Maori Land Court matrimonial property law will not be applicable. However the right of a whangai will be applicable under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. 
Undoubtedly the policy determined by Rauru Kitahi’s governance entity will be the right one so we should not be prescriptive in legislation such as this. The way in which the law presently operates in relation to this issue works well. However in the event that a group wants to be quite definitive about the way in which it treats adoption whangai and the like so be it—let them put it in an agreement to be concluded between the Minister on behalf of the Crown and the claimant group. But I would have thought that the matter was as clear as crystal. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 That was a worthwhile contribution probably from John Tamihere but I do not know that it gets us over the hump we appear to be facing purely from looking at the information before us—first of all at the settlement bill itself and secondly at the advice that the Maori Affairs Committee received which I have now been able to get my hands on. I am not certain that John Tamihere’s explanations clever as they sounded actually helped my colleague and me. 
We are looking at the bill as was obviously the Hon Richard Prebble and on the face of it the bill defines Nga Rauru Kitahi in terms of the underlying premise of who can benefit from the settlement as whakapapa—blood lines. There is no doubt about that. Clause 13 appears to set that out very clearly. As I mentioned earlier the rights of adopted children was an issue that according to the advice given to the select committee was raised by the claimants themselves in their submission. It was a key negotiation issue. They requested of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 2 years ago that the Adoption Act be overridden. That Minister declined that request. Some months later they again wrote to the Minister on the issue. The matter was discussed and on 1 July 2003 the Minister wrote to Nga Rauru Kitahi explaining that while she was sympathetic to their concerns she still considered it inappropriate to use settlement legislation to override the Adoption Act. On three separate occasions apparently the seriousness of this matter to the tribe was reiterated. 
The Office of Treaty Settlements requested the view of the Crown Law Office. Much as I would like the Hon Richard Prebble to help give some clarity here because of his long experience in the law I shall refer briefly to that advice. Part of the advice is that clause 13 defines Nga Rauru Kitahi and sets out that that means: “… the iwi or collective group composed of—(i) individuals descended from 1 or more Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna;”. The Crown Law Office makes the comment that in short the beneficiaries of the settlement are required to descend from Nga Rauru Kitahi tupuna. The advice further states that under the Adoption Act legally adopted children are to be treated as equivalent to birth children. Section 16(2)(a) of the Adoption Act provides that upon an adoption order being made the effect will be that adopted children are deemed to become the child of the adoptive parent and the adoptive parent shall be deemed to become the parent of the child as if that child had been born to the parent in wedlock—which is slotting that child in as if he or she were a blood relative of the parent. The adopted child shall be deemed to cease to be the child of his or her existing parent and be deemed to be the child of the new parent. In effect the advice from the Crown Law Office was that legally adopted children would under the bill as it stands fall within the word “descended”. 
So a very legitimate concern about the inclusion of adopted children having been raised on several occasions by the claimants by the settling tribe and it having been considered by the Minister the Office of Treaty Settlements and now the Crown Law Office whose opinion basically is that adopted children fall within the definition of “descendants” it seems to me to be clear that they are included. The Adoption Act is not overridden as the Hon Richard Prebble indicated. There is also an issue of the Human Rights Act. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am obliged to the last two members. I am not a member of the Maori Affairs Committee but in reading the bill it does appear that the statements with regard to adoption are correct. The legal argument that both put up seems to me to be quite clear and correct too. That is what we have said the adoption should be—that the children should apply. However I think Mr Tamihere might be mistaken in his view that just because there are exemptions with regard to matrimonial property and Maori land that necessarily means that all property created under this bill is exempt. It appears to me to be that Mr Tamihere—and I might be misinterpreting what he told the Committee—appears to be under the impression that property rights created under this bill are not affected. Well I am not sure that that is so because more property rights are created than just Maori land. In fact quite considerable property rights are created here and it would seem to me that the Property (Relationships) Act may well apply. 
So I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui whether the officials have turned their minds to that because again as Mr Brownlee pointed out to the Committee we have to be very careful when we are passing bills of this sort that we do not in fact for the best possible reasons end up creating a further grievance and argument that is raised later. I would be interested to know whether these sorts of rights and property have been contested. No doubt they have been contested in some matrimonial property cases and for the sake of the claimants it would be useful if the Minister would let the Committee know whether they have been—even though there is as Mr Tamihere said within the Property (Relationships) Act and in the property settlement legislation some provisions in relation to Maori land. We are not dealing here just with Maori land are we? 
 In fact we are dealing with quite considerable assets including cash. So is that in or is that out? If one is a beneficiary and a shareholder in the cash—and it is $200 million or so—and parts from one’s spouse can he or she put in a claim against the person for his or her say one thirty-thousandth of that share? If they cannot under what principle can they not because there does not appear to me to be any provision here saying they cannot. If the matrimonial court is capable of making such a settlement what will the effect of that be upon the claimants and again given the rate of marriage break-up in New Zealand and the fact that this settlement is supposed to last forever what will its effect be in say 100 years’ time? People might think that that is a ridiculous statement but people will look at this in 100 years’ time and say that 100 years ago it should have been obvious with the rate of matrimonial settlements and the like that this settlement would be completely diluted by the result of some other statute. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: By the result of marriage break-ups. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes over 100 years. This is supposed to be a settlement forever is it not? Well if it is is that an aspect that has been taken into account? If it has I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks its impact would be and if it has not the House ought to record that this was a matter that the Government did not turn its attention to and no doubt in 30 or 40 years’ time it will be the basis of yet another claim. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Cultural redress 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the part that is arguably the part we should pay the greatest attention to. It deals with various authorities and protocols that are to exist between Crown agencies and Nga Rauru Kitahi from this point. 
It also lists a number of redress properties that are to pass to this group as part of the settlement. I note that one of them is the Waiinu Beach site. The site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 and the fee simple estate in the Waiinu Beach site is vested in the governance entity for Nga Rauru Kitahi claim settlement. Given that the word “beach” is specifically used here and given that throughout the time we were looking at the seabed and foreshore legislation we were told that the beach is according to the dictionary the part of the coastline that gets wet sometimes due to tidal activities I would like to know whether the Government is in fact proposing to give away the fee simple title to part of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. National members notice and would recognise that there is nothing at all in the Foreshore and Seabed Act that prevents the Government from doing exactly that. We are aware that the Government is engaged in significant negotiations around other parts of the country with a proposal to see this sort of arrangement entered into. I understand that the particular site is not particularly large but that is somewhat irrelevant if in fact it is a piece of coastline that has a fee simple title attached to it and if that title is transferred as part of a treaty settlement. 
This part of the bill also deals with the statutory acknowledgments for the purposes of achieving the redress. There is a clause clause 43 that requires the Environment Court to have regard to statutory acknowledgments. Clause 43(1) states: “From the effective date the Environment Court must have regard to a statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in determining under section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 whether the governance entity is a person having an interest in the proceedings greater than the public generally in respect of an application for a resource consent for activities within adjacent to or impacting directly on the statutory area.” It would be interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what that means. Clause 43(2) specifically does not limit the obligations of the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act. That is possibly—and this was discussed at the select committee as well—quite contradictory and I think it is necessary for the Minister to place on the  
Hansard 
 record exactly what the Government thinks it means so that the rest of us can be enlightened as to the particular benefit that accrues to the settling party as a result of that part. 
So there are two questions for the Minister. What is the Waiinu Beach site all about? Does it mean that the Government is transferring a fee simple interest in part of the coastline of this country to this group? And secondly does clause 43 confer extra duties on the Environment Court in terms of the particular rohe of this iwi when it comes to hearing matters that are part of resource applications? 
Further to that what is the situation when an application is made that does not find its way to the Environment Court? That is I think the nub of the issue that National members have been raising for some time—that many of these statutory acknowledgments etc. give the various Maori groupings quite a say in the nature of resource consents or in fact the nature of how any district might eventually develop regardless of the size of the grouping’s particular interest in that area. So we want to know two things: what are the limits on the court and what if an application does not get to a court? What are the obligations then on the local authorities that have the responsibility to issue consents—and it is a responsibility on them to issue consents—when applications are made? 
I notice also that quite a considerable duty is put upon the relevant consent authorities to distribute to Nga Rauru Kitahi resource consent applications. I find that just a little bit strange. Does it mean that if someone makes a proposal for some development inside this rohe area that person not only has to get a consent from the local authority—and it does not specify which local authority; it could be the regional authority or the district authority—but also has to gain consent from the iwi themselves? This clause clause 46 is quite a strongly worded clause. I see from subclause (3)(a) that the governance entity is allowed to “waive its rights to be notified under this section;” but the provision also allows it to “(b) state the scope of that waiver and the period it applies for.” In other words it might determine that particular applications under a particular value do not have to go to it for the period of the next 3 years or until it is reviewed or whatever. But it would seem that there is an opportunity for it to determine when it will have quite a large say on any particular project. 
 Also clause 46(5) states: “This section does not affect the obligation of a consent authority to—(a) notify an application in accordance with sections 93 and 94C of the Resource Management Act 1991: (b) form an opinion as to whether the governance entity is a person that is likely to be adversely affected under those sections.” Of course those administering the Resource Management Act must consider the adverse effects on the grouping because that is in the law at the moment but that tends to make me think that the previous four subclauses in clause 46 create an additional opportunity for the governance entity—an opportunity that other New Zealanders simply do not have. So we ask the Minister to make that explanation as well. That is three things. 
There is also the curious clause 50 “Termination of deed of recognition”. What does that mean? That is a simple question that we would like the Minister to answer. If some recognition relating to some particular deed is part of a settlement why would that recognition terminate? Then there is the issue of clause 51 “Statutory acknowledgements in relation to rivers”. That clause does not seem to be at all clear. I notice that the clause states that artificial watercourses are not part of that particular acknowledgment. I want the Minister to tell us what work has been done to work out what is artificial and what is not. Literally hundreds of small rivers creeks and streams around this country have been moved because it was convenient to move them. It is interesting to see when we fly over this country how many rivers or little streams loop around themselves and quite clearly have been diverted either for irrigation purposes some years ago or for the purpose of gaining a better section of land that is unbroken by that watercourse. It would seem that although a watercourse may be somewhat artificial in direction it is not at all artificial in so much as water flows along it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clauses 85 and 86. I think this is a very serious matter. If the Government of the day were to pass legislation stating that Jesus Christ was the son of God we would have a riot. Members would say that we could not pass religious texts—much as any of us believe them—into the law of the land. Yet the Minister must acknowledge that that is exactly what this Government is proposing to do. For anyone who is a Christian to vote for this section of the bill is a heresy. Schedule 12 states in what will be a law of the land: “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 …”. Then there are further matters in what can only be described as a religious text. In our politically correct way I will not make a derogatory remark about those religious beliefs. All I am saying is that this is supposed to be a secular State. The Government of New Zealand does not endorse any religion yet in this bill it does. 
It just shows how politically correct we have become. If a provision in this bill stated for example that Mohammed was the prophet and if we were going to pass that into law there would be a riot. Yet here we are passing a belief that I suspect that very few Maori actually believe. But it is politically correct to put the provision in. 
As Mr Copeland pointed out to me—and Mr Murray Smith of United Future has an amendment to remove the provision—this will be the law of the land. How is a judge supposed to be able to make a ruling on it? Judges are trained in the law not in theology. What is the point of putting a provision like that in the law? It is bad lawmaking and it is contrary to the secular nature of the New Zealand State. It is an outrage that the Government has put the provision in. If the Government wants to know why it will be defeated this year I say that it is because of this sort of politically correct nonsense. It is a great shame that our media are so politically correct that they will not report the fact that the New Zealand Parliament is passing religious views and stating them in the law. That is all we are being asked to do. 
I do not claim to be a particularly good Anglican but I know enough to know that it is heresy to vote for a provision like that. No Catholic ought to vote for it and no Anglican should. Indeed no person who believes in a secular State and who believes that we should not force religious views on others should vote for that provision. What on earth was the Government doing? I will tell members what it was doing. It cares very little about people’s beliefs. Our civil servants would have said that perhaps we could save $10 million of taxpayers’ money if we were prepared to pass a piece of mumbo-jumbo—which is what the civil servants would think of it—that included that provision and that that would make everyone feel happy. 
Well this person is not happy. This is the sort of statement I do not accept. Even as a Christian if one were to start putting Christian text on to the statute book I would oppose it. It is not the Government’s job to start saying what is right or wrong in religion. That is a matter for individuals to form their own opinion on. There is no role for that sort of thing on the statute book. It is wrong. It is wrong in law it is wrong constitutionally and I suspect that every MP thinks it is theologically wrong. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Richard Prebble is wrong. He is completely and utterly wrong in everything he just said. Schedule 12 sets out a statement of Nga Rauru Kitahi values in relation to a toopuni site. It describes what Nga Rauru Kitahi believes is its position in relation to that particular toopuni. It is quite right that settlement legislation to implement a deed of settlement which is about the relationships and the reasons why the settlement is made contains a statement from the iwi concerned as to its beliefs about those issues. That is not to say that the Government agrees with the iwi’s statement or that suddenly we all have to believe it. Mr Prebble is absolutely false and wrong in his statements about schedule 12. It simply enables the iwi for which this bill was specifically designed to have its say. 
Much of the legislation we produce in these settlement bills is directed and determined by the Office of Treaty Settlements via Government policy. Very little of it except for specific names and details about places is determined by iwi themselves. Often the history set out in the preamble of a bill is a description written by Government officials and later agreed to by iwi. So very little content in this bill was actually written by the iwi and the iwi alone. The purpose of this bill is to provide some form of restitution for the wrongs committed against the iwi in the past. Those wrongs relate to more than just land and resources. They also relate to misinterpretation of and disinformation about the iwi’s own history. The failure that we have had in this society over time is not to enable Maori to have the chance to say what their history is themselves instead of it being re-interpreted through the English language or through the perspectives of colonial history and the Pakeha system that we have in place now. That is all that schedule 12 does. It enables Maori to say for themselves what their own history is instead of having it continually recycled through a Pakeha perspective. 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with including this measure in legislation. In fact it shows an incredible maturity on the part of the Government at least—I am saying something nice about Government members for a change—to enable those statements to be made without being fettered or without being filtered through a Pakeha lens. There has been a long history of structural racism in this country which continues today. This is a small step towards recognising that the indigenous people of this country—the mana whenua—have the right to hold and to state their beliefs and to present their history in the way that they see fit without having it be re-interpreted by Pakeha all the time. 
I am very pleased that the bill at least provides some opportunity for Nga Rauru Kitahi to speak for itself and to have its own history put in the bill. That is not mumbo-jumbo. Richard Prebble calls it mumbo-jumbo which is a most derogatory and pejorative description of the history of those people as they have determined it themselves. He cannot accept that their history is legitimate and that the way that they describe it and the purpose for which they describe it are legitimate. That history is absolutely legitimate and I believe that it must be accepted by the House. It is absolutely essential that Nga Rauru Kitahi be given the opportunity to state its history in its own legislation for the purpose of providing it with restitution. The arguments against schedule 12 go to the heart of what structural racism in this nation really is. There is a failure to see structural racism when it occurs and a failure to understand that it is the re-interpretation of the history the reality and the tikanga of the indigenous peoples in this country. It is their right to have their history described in legislation. At least that is one of the few times when it belongs solely and entirely to them. 
The Greens are very happy that schedule 12 is here in the bill. We will definitely continue to support those kinds of statements being made in this form of legislation. It is such a small step yet there is a continual denigration of it. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call in this part of the debate. Firstly I want to make a comment about clause 46. I must say—and it is not very often that I agree with him—that I have to support the concern of the National member particularly in terms of subclause (1). Only some New Zealanders will not have the opportunity in terms of the non-notifiable applications. In this clause the claimant group will receive notification of all applications whereas the only notification of applications that the general public will not receive are those that are deemed to be non-notifiable. With regard to clause 46(3) I cannot see why they would want to waive their rights under this clause and I would be very interested to know under just what circumstances they would want to do so. 
I want to make a specific comment with regard to clauses 85 and 86. I reluctantly agree with the comments made by the ACT member because he said that the House is not denying the right of the claimant group to its beliefs. But we say that the House has no right to legislate for those beliefs. Secondly their exclusion would not affect the settlement in terms of the quality or the amount. However one may be suspicious that the negotiators on behalf of the Crown may have included this so as to minimise the amount of settlement. I suggest that that is probably a factor. 
The comments made by the Green member have contributed to a thought that I have always had in terms of my concern for the inclusion of this part. By including this and having the comments that are being made by this Committee—I must say that it has not been too derisive to this point—the fact is that if we continue to go in the direction that the Green member has started to take the debate then I will feel some embarrassment for the claimant group. I want to re-emphasise the point that the claimant group is entitled to its beliefs. It is not the responsibility of this Parliament to pass into legislation what the claimant group might believe. I suggest that before too long—and I am probably showing my age—we will believe that there really was a Janet and John. As a young person growing up and going to school I believed in Janet and John. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And Harry Potter? 
PITA PARAONE 
: No not Harry Potter. I am a bit older than that but my grandchildren think that Harry Potter actually exists. That is the point I am making—if we start legislating for that sort of thing future generations will start saying that they have to believe it. 
We are talking about getting an enduring settlement. Excluding this part will not make any difference to the endurance of the settlement. I wanted to stand to make the point that the claimants Nga Rauru Kitahi will still have their settlement even if this reference is not included. I signal that New Zealand First will be supporting the amendment that has been proposed by United Future. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I too would like to take a brief call concerning Murray Smith’s amendment to omit from schedule 12 the statement of the religious belief of the iwi. In doing so I would like to endorse entirely the comments made by the member Pita Paraone. I say to Metiria that she has completely—[ 
Interruption 
]—Metiria Turei has completely missed the point. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Copeland has completely failed not only to use my proper name but to pronounce it in a way that is recognisable except in the most extreme way. I ask you to tell him that if he is going to refer to me he should use my full name properly. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I was busy correcting that error when the member interrupted me. I have corrected the error. The member has completely missed the point that has been made by Pita Paraone. I would defend very very strongly any New Zealander’s right to freedom of religion. New Zealanders are free to believe anything they want to believe to pursue that to manifest that to practise that and by the way to leave it if they wish to at any point in time. Those freedoms are enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that we are setting a precedent in this bill for the inclusion of statements of religious belief in law. 
I will tell members why that is very dangerous. It is very dangerous because inevitably there will be people in this iwi who do not personally believe what is in that statement. The majority of the iwi may do. It may be their history. I do not dispute any of those facts at all. But individuals may want to make a quite different decision personally about their spiritual beliefs. If they do I can just imagine one of the elders saying: “But hang on what we believe is right.” When he is asked how he knows that he will say: “Because the Government of New Zealand has said it is right.” 
That is what we are actually doing with this provision; that is the precedent we are setting. I do not believe that that sort of statement has a place in a piece of law—because we are actually making law here. There is nothing wrong with incorporating it as an appendage to the actual settlement if the iwi want to do that or to put it as part of the papers with the settlement but in the view of United Future including myself it should not be included within the bill for that reason. It is a very unfortunate precedent. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I must say that I agree with the comments made by Pita Paraone—a member from New Zealand First—and by the Hon Richard Prebble. National along with New Zealand First submitted a minority view that related totally to this part under discussion. The Green member is incorrect or impugns the rest of us with a view that is not correct in that she appears to make it look as if we do not respect the beliefs of Nga Rauru Kitahi. That is utterly untrue. We do respect them. They are entitled to their beliefs. They are entitled to their cultural spiritual and mythological beliefs. They are certainly entitled to those; we just do not think that Parliament should be legislating for those beliefs. 
The other thing is that those beliefs can be very well recognised in the deed of settlement and usually such beliefs are set out in the deed. The fact is all of us in this Parliament except the ACT party voted for the Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau legislation and the committee was able to effect a change by requesting the claimants to consider taking out of their settlement bill a schedule that in its way resembled the very one now before us. Their having agreed to that and that schedule having been taken out of the bill—largely because the matter sits in the deed of settlement anyway—their settlement is not at all compromised. In fact it has gone into law. It is now in law. 
That can be done with this situation as well. Indeed in the select committee process I put it to the claimants for all the reasons that have been stated here tonight and for the reason especially that it is as if they are asking the Government of the day to give legitimacy to their beliefs. Well either one believes one’s beliefs or one does not. If one does believe them having them stated in a piece of law does not necessarily make them any more true than what one thinks they are anyway. 
This is a real issue. National in Government will give it serious thought. I know that it has been done in previous settlements but that does not necessarily make it the most desirable thing we have ever done in this Parliament particularly when it is clear that no parliamentarian in this place wishes to show any disrespect to any claimants’ or tribes’ beliefs. But a legitimate concern has been raised that this Parliament ought not be legislating for the kind of statement we see in schedule 12 to be passed in law. 
Sadly although I put to the claimants the issue of changing it or taking it out they did not agree. That is their right I guess but I think it was also the responsibility of the Minister in charge to try to encourage them to have it removed from the bill. That would have had no effect at all on the settlement which with our support will eventually be passed into law. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I note that the Minister has not yet taken a call to answer the questions that were put to him earlier not only by me but also by Mr Pita Paraone. I also want to make some comments about the two clauses that refer to schedule 12. We raised these issues at the Maori Affairs Committee—they are the subject of a minority report attached to this bill—and we raised them again during the second reading debate. So there would be some expectation that the Government by now might have a clear explanation of why this particular schedule exists. 
I have looked at other settlement legislation and I can tell the Committee that none is as clear and explicit as this bill. It makes the extraordinary claim that those who are of Nga Rauru descent and presumably all of those who might be adopted by those of Nga Rauru descent are of both divine and human parentage and therefore I would say by my understanding are making a claim to be demigods. The question for the Minister is: if this is to be in the law should a judge in a court ignore it? 
Metiria Turei 
: No. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well the member for the Green Party says that no the judge could not. I would ask the member to explain what a judge is to do if someone goes along to a court somewhere and says: “My mother is that bit of land and the law says so.” 
Metiria Turei 
: It’s no different and the member knows that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No no the member is not right. It is actually not for the member to debate; it is for the Minister. So if someone says: “I don’t want that bridge going there or that road going over there or that sports ground or that housing subdivision going over there because that land is my mother.” the law says that that is to be respected and that that is fact. It is that sort of utter nonsense that New Zealanders are thoroughly sick of. I cannot stop anyone believing anything they want to believe. I have no right to. And no one can stop me believing what I want. No one can take away someone’s identity and no one can give it to them. So Mr Paraone is quite right. That should not add or detract from the settlement as far as the claimants are concerned but I think it detracts from the settlement as far as we are concerned because it makes us look foolish. I cannot understand why the Government is so keen to pass it. I have to say that if I stood up before an audience anywhere in this country and read out that particular schedule and told people that the Government had just passed it into law they would not believe me. Well actually they would. If I said it was a Labour Government that did it then yes they would believe me. 
That simple question is something that I asked before and that the Minister should answer. I asked whether a judge should ignore this piece of law because like any other piece of law it will have a consequence somewhere. I think it is absolutely amazing that we should be saying to a group that as part of their treaty settlement the courts will afford them the status of demigods. The courts will say that the law of New Zealand recognises the relationship between that individual and the physical geographic assets of the part of New Zealand described in this bill. That is extraordinary! [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Cosgrove over there might think that there is no problem with it but I ask him to read schedule 12. He probably has not and I have to tell him that on the street corners of the Waimakariri electorate this particular clause would cause outrage. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call to respond to a number of issues raised by in particular Mr Brownlee. I thank the Green member for her contribution on the issues relating to clause 85 with regard to Nga Rauru Kitahi values. At the same time I want to respond to the United Future member Gordon Copeland who also expressed some views about that clause. At no time have Nga Rauru Kitahi said that this is the basis of their religious beliefs. This is a statement about Nga Rauru Kitahi values in terms of their culture and spirituality in relation to their land. The Government acknowledges that they have made this statement and that is the only reason why the statement is included in this legislation. If it was a reference to their religious beliefs and given that many of the Nga Rauru Kitahi beneficiaries are of the same religious denomination as I am I would indeed have some problems with it. But that is not the case. 
In relation to the concerns expressed by Gerry Brownlee about clause 43(1) on the Environment Court the legislation places no extra duties on the Environment Court. The statutory acknowledgment provides for Nga Rauru Kitahi to have input into existing Resource Management Act processes in relation to applications to consent authorities Environment Court applications and Historic Places Trust applications. It does not give special weighting to Nga Rauru Kitahi views in relation to the Resource Management Act processes.  
Mr Brownlee referred also to the area of Waiinu Beach included as part of the cultural redress. That area of beach is located about 1 kilometre inland and at no time does it get wet unless it rains. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s it called a beach for? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It is on Beach Road. It is not unusual to give an inland area a name that gives the impression that it is situated on the coast. I can tell the member— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s a real estate rort. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It may well be but it is 1 kilometre inland; it does not adjoin the coast. 
I believe that the member had a problem with clause 50 too in relation to the termination of the deed of recognition under cultural redress. That clause basically acknowledges that at some time in the future the deed of recognition may terminate if the land is no longer managed by the Crown. In other words the Crown may decide to sell it off in the future.  
I have covered many of the issues that have been raised during the debate on Part 4. Most of the debate surrounds the cultural and spiritual values of Nga Rauru Kitahi. I am of the view that the Committee has no reason to be concerned about that although I do acknowledge the concerns of particular groups in relation to religion. I tell Mr Brownlee that I have no idea how a judge would rule on a matter relating to clauses 85 and 86 and I do not know of any court decision in which a judge has made a determination about who is God and who is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He’s never had to. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Absolutely and there is no reason why a court would have to in the future. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s in the law now. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: That is my point. It would not have to do so in the future. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The Minister is mistaken. Let me explain how he is mistaken. Clause 91—to take one example—concerning the New Zealand Conservation Authority and relevant conservation boards states that they must observe this provision. And what do they have to observe? They have to observe schedule 12. So when they are making orders with regard to land they have to see whether it fits in with this “gods sky lands and seas”—that is what it says. The Minister said that at no point would a judge have to rule on that matter. Well actually a judge could easily have to rule on it because if a conservation board decided to make an order with regard to a piece of land that is described in this bill and if a member of the iwi believed that the order was not in line with his or her religious beliefs the judge would then have to look at this provision and would somehow or other have to decide whether a practical conservation order like putting in a fence is in line with this sort of statement: “the celestial realm the cosmic emanations of the divine beginning the world and its creation and the evolution of the earth and its people”. 
I have been on the Maori Affairs Committee and I remember when one of the High Court judges appeared to give evidence as High Court judges did. It was Justice Baragwanath someone who is very sympathetic to things Maori. He asked how on earth he was expected as a judge to be able to give a judgment on those sorts of phrases. He was referring to a case he had heard down in Dunedin where apparently an early Maori god—I suppose we would say—had pissed into the ocean. He said that an iwi group came to court and said that as a result of that the dredging being proposed by the harbour board was a religious insult. The judge asked the committee as the Government had put into statute the fact that he was to take note of Maori religious values how he was supposed to make that judgment. He said he was trained in the law not theology. That is what the High Court judge said. 
As I have just pointed out to the Minister in the chair Mark Burton I can see a provision and I can see easily how this Parliament is asking a judge to make a judgment of that sort—which the Green MP could not make. She would not know how to make it yet she is telling us that we should include it in the bill even though the Green Party tramples on other people’s religious beliefs. If this provision was a Christian provision the Green Party would be the first party to jump up and down and oppose it absolutely. The godless Labour Government would be absolutely opposed to any Christian views being put into this bill. It has been quite happy to trample over Christian views in the last 6 years yet it introduces this provision. 
I challenge any Government member to give us a theological discussion on this provision for 5 minutes and then tell us how High Court judges are supposed to interpret it. They cannot do it. They know that it is PC nonsense. At the minimum they put it in just to reach a settlement instead of making a statement of principle for New Zealand that this Parliament does not impose religious beliefs on anyone and that it does respect other people’s religious beliefs—even though I suspect that there are very few members of this iwi who actually believe this. That is what I suspect. There might be some but I suspect that most do not because I notice that many of them belong to various Christian churches and this is not in line with those beliefs. So I ask the Minister why we are putting something into the law when we have heard from the judges themselves that they will interpret it if they are required to but they do not know how on earth they are supposed to do it. As a lawyer I say that the judges cannot do it. I have seen the Deputy Prime Minister attacking the courts and saying that the courts are creating law but no they are not. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is the third time I have called and it is the third time you have given the call to Opposition members. I thought that there was some arrangement in terms of alternate calls for the two sides of the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that—I was not aware that it was your third call. Your other call was after an earlier Labour call. I noticed that and Mr Prebble was sort of part-way through what he wanted to say. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I will try to allow that member to take a call so I will not take the full 5 minutes. I just remind the Committee that senior Government members—in fact the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General—have risen in this Chamber and been extremely critical of Her Majesty’s judges. How can we criticise the judges when we are passing a provision like this which no member of Parliament including the Green MP can interpret? I pointed out one example but there could be others of a conservation board being told by law that when it is making conservation decisions on drainage and the like it must take notice of schedule 12. I have read it. I was raised in the Church and have no idea what some of these provisions mean. How is one supposed to practically apply that if one is a layperson on a conservation board? I cannot see how he or she can do it and I cannot see how a judge can do it. Why are the Government and the Greens passing bad law? How on earth is that settling a grievance when no member of this Chamber can tell me how to apply in practical terms a clause like the one the conservation board is required to apply to a piece of land? I am not making it a question of religious beliefs; I am just saying that with regard to the law it is mumbo-jumbo and we should not be passing bad law. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.