Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18391] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this settlement bill going to the Maori Affairs Committee for its final consideration by Parliament. We will though be questioning some aspects of the bill itself. The first of those is the issue of the marine-farming opportunities that are provided for in the bill. Last year just before Christmas the Government raced through Parliament aquaculture legislation that reserved 20 percent of all future quota for Maori. That quota has been put in place and is being administered by Te Ohu Kai Moana. That 20 percent quota administered by Te Ohu Kai Moana will in part provide funding eventually—if they are lucky—for Nga Rauru Kitahi as it will for many other iwi around the country. But in addition to that entitlement the Government has decided to give this group another 20 percent of marine-farming opportunities presumably within their rohe. 
We simply ask why it was necessary to pass the aquaculture legislation last year at all if the intention was to give these sorts of specific preferences to various Maori claimant groups as treaty issues are settled. Nga Rauru Kitahi will effectively have control of 40 percent of the marine-farming activities in their tribal area. Whether that is a good thing is something New Zealanders will make up their minds about at the polls later this year. 
The other thing we are a little concerned about is the proposal to hand over in the settlement a number of properties one of which is described as a beach site. We will want to find out through the select committee process how that ties in with the foreshore and seabed legislation that was also rushed through Parliament on the eve of Christmas last year. It appears to us that the Labour Party has said to New Zealanders that it has preserved the seabed and foreshore in Crown ownership on the one hand and on the other it is progressively negotiating with iwi groups around the country to hand over the very customary title that they might have sought through the courts in the first place. 
I see the Minister of Maori Affairs nodding his head and agreeing with me. I ask the Minister what the point was of passing the foreshore and seabed legislation in the first place. Just like the aquaculture legislation it is being quietly pushed to one side as the Government goes about doing deals to hand the ownership of the foreshore and seabed of various parts of this country over to iwi groups. We know that a number of other settlements with large tracts of coastline involved are being negotiated at present. So we will have some questions about that. 
Then there is the issue of mandating. This is something that causes me a great deal of concern. I noted that the Minister said that 92 percent of those eligible to vote within the iwi had supported the progress towards the settlement. I wonder how many participated in the vote to ratify the settlement. Because what has been concerning us a lot lately is that many of these settlements that are said to be full and final have in some cases had as little as a 27 percent participation rate from the iwi concerned. I do not know what it is in the case of Nga Rauru Kitahi but we will find out because it is no good saying the settlement is full and final if anything up to 70 percent of the iwi has not voted in favour of such a settlement. It leaves open the opportunity to say that Parliament forced the settlement on the iwi when future generations consider how well the settlement has treated them. 
The historical issues around this part of the country—the Land Wars and the activities around Parihaka—are well known to most New Zealanders. I do not think it was a particularly proud part of our history and it is appropriate that we do settle matters amicably and reasonably so that the grievance that is held by many of the descendants of the people of those times can be put to one side. New Zealand has overwhelmingly told politicians that in opinion polls on frequent occasions so we do not want to stop the treaty settlement process. Rather we have a party policy to say that we should get all the grievances on the table very very quickly. We have said 2 years. We have said we should resource the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements so that the settlements can be put through to a final conclusion within 5 years. It is a very ambitious goal but one I think the country needs to pick up on. 
It is interesting to note that the Minister told us today that this is the first settlement that was fully negotiated under the Labour Government. The Labour Government has been around now for 5½ years and it shows just how much the treaty settlement process has slowed under its governance. The previous National Government which started this managed in just 6 years to conclude two of the biggest settlements. They were the Ngai Tahu settlement and the settlement for the people of the Waikato—the Tainui settlement. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Two of the easiest. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Although the member might say that they were the easy settlements I do not think settlements of that size were particularly easy. They were very big. This is a $30 million settlement; they were—10 years ago—$170 million settlements. I think it is fair to say that Maori have not been served well by the Labour Government and have not prospered as a result of having Maori MPs in Labour’s caucus. I am sure the voters will make a decision about that later this year. 
The other thing we will ask some questions about is a new term that appears to have come into this bill—ukaipo. Although in the past there has been a pretty easy and well-known description of particular rights to occupy at particular times it appears to us that there is a new term coming into this bill. We want to know whether it is an invention of the Office of Treaty Settlements or a term customarily used by Maori in that part of the country. There is no doubt that this term confers upon this group a particular opportunity that no other sector of the community will have. I am sure that during the process of the select committee we will find out what ukaipo or temporary occupation actually means. I suspect that it is not something that was a customary activity of Maori in this area but is rather a modern invention of the Office of Treaty Settlements. I think we need to be very careful about inventing new terms for activities that will be undertaken when we are settling historic grievances. 
The National Party will support the first reading today. We have a number of questions to have answered in the select committee. We make a commitment to the people who are most affected here Nga Rauru Kitahi that if everything is found to be satisfactory we will be found— 
Jill Pettis 
: Pronounce it better than that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. An important issue was raised by the boisterous and often unruly Labour senior whip. I was not able to answer it. I would like to. Could we have that question asked more formally? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows it was just an interjection. The member’s time has expired.