Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18848] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 What I have in my hand here tonight are the deeds of settlement of three particular claims: the Pukaahu claim the Waiohau historical claim and the Rangitaiki 60C historical claim and they will be tabled later on. Those settlements were presented to the Maori Affairs Committee very late in the process. In fact the date of the Waiohau claim is 1 December 2004 the Pakaahu claim is 15 September 2004 and the other one was 15 December 2004. The concern is whether they went through a proper evaluation by the select committee process. At best it would have had to have been an extremely limited one. 
The second question however is rather more significant. Two of the claims look to be essentially hapu claims. They are the Waiohau historical claim and the Rangitaiki 60C claim covering literally up to thousands of owners. However the Pukaahu claim looks like a whanau claim and the reason I say that is this. It refers in the recitals or in the background within the deed to the transfer of land to Roha Petera and Wiremu te Whatapapa. They were individuals who came to own quite small portions of land back in 1893 and 1881. In 1891 some land was surveyed out for a road. In 1914 1 acre was taken for a pumice quarry and subsequently 3 roods or 27.8 perches were returned to the descendants of those owners. In 1918 some 10 acres were taken for hot springs and there are various other recitals of that nature. Because back in the 1890s the land was referred to as having a single owner what we are settling upon now is not a transfer to Ngati Awa in general but appears to be a transfer to or a recognition of a settlement for the specific descendants of those people. I have to ask whether it is appropriate that a settlement of this nature be included in a broad iwi settlement for Ngati Awa because it seems the Government is simply using the convenient device of this legislation being present in the Chamber today to wrap the settlement up just like that. It is just a packaging exercise and nothing further. 
That then raises a further issue. We have a practice in Parliament now that all settlements and certainly iwi settlements have to have their own specific legislation. Each iwi has to have its history recited before the tribunal have it set out in the legislation and gain specific recognition through this Parliament. Often as we know the settlements are accompanied in the third readings in particular by iwi members coming here and there is a celebration that the settlement has taken place. I suspect that is a reasonable process when we are talking about issues of major historical significance. Those issues after all largely arise from the Land Wars: the grievances of Ngati Awa Tainui and so forth. Surely that does not apply to the Pukaahu settlement which is a family claim in essence. Surely we should have a better system in place in this Parliament and with this Government so that family settlements do not require specific legislation. 
I ask the Minister therefore why the Government is packaging into an iwi settlement that is intended to rectify a major historical grievance what is in essence a whanau claim—a family claim that talks literally of the taking of 1 acre for a pumice quarry and of things of that nature. That is not I suggest an appropriate use of parliamentary time. By all means let us settle those grievances but should it require legislation to do so?