Turei Metiria: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10075] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will abstain on this reading of the bill and during the Committee stage tomorrow will put up a number of amendments that outline our concerns. I first want to say: tena koutou katoa he mihi nui ki a Ngati Tama. The Greens want to acknowledge Ngati Tama in their successful negotiation of this settlement within the very restricted confines of the Government’s treaty settlement framework. We also want to acknowledge the comparatively high level of support for the deed of settlement at just over 50 percent support from eligible members. 
We believe that the restoration to the iwi of land particularly of wahi tapu and the ability to enhance and advance Ngati Tama hapu through this settlement are significant gains and we acknowledge Ngati Tama’s efforts to achieve some form of justice and restitution for the grave losses suffered by the mana whenua. However we also recognise that no amount of financial redress will truly compensate for the loss of life the loss of ancestral land and the vicious attempt to entirely undermine the sovereignty of this iwi. The history of Taranaki iwi and their continual struggle to retain their lands and sovereignty is a terrible and brutal history and one that every person in this country should know about. 
It seems that with each new settlement comes a new example of how the treaty settlement policy of this and previous Governments is failing Maori. This settlement raises serious issues about the process by which the Office of Treaty Settlements supports a mandated negotiating group its failure to deal effectively with strong legitimate consistent and persistent objections from Ngati Tama WhanauWhanui and its subsequent acceptance of a very low ratification rate for Te Runanga o Ngati Tama. The whanauwhanui includes a number of highly respected kaumatua and represented over 400 members of the iwi—that is well over one-third of the eligible members of Ngati Tama. Their concern about and challenge to the mandate of the runanga began back in 1996. This group has struggled to have its challenge recognised as legitimate by the Office of Treaty Settlements and its mandating processes. 
While the Office of Treaty Settlements was dealing with this challenge it was also funding the runanga then known as the trust to defend itself against that very challenge. This is a very serious problem for the Office of Treaty Settlements and reflects very poorly on its ability to effectively manage legitimate mandate issues. It suggests that the political timetable for settlements takes precedence over empowering iwi to engage effectively in this process. 
We accept that the Office of Treaty Settlements later tried to include a requirement that the runanga engage in a constructive process with the whanau whanui but this did not and could not resolve the difficulties because the structural inequities in the process remain firmly in place. We hold the office responsible for its failure to manage these issues effectively to review and to reconsider its own processes in a timely and responsive fashion and to ensure that both groups were treated with equal and serious consideration. 
We also recognise that the runanga are responsible for their part in accepting such an appallingly low ratification of themselves as the governance entity and not considering that the future stability of the settlement would be ensured if they entered into a good-faith process to resolve the outstanding concerns. In my view that is a demonstrable failure of leadership at a time when leadership is most crucial. 
During the submission process the select committee heard serious issues about the exclusion of eligible members and obstructive practices to undermine their ability to register and to participate with the runanga. For example the select committee heard that some eligible members were told that they could not register unless they were shareholders in land or could register only if their tipuna was a landowner in a particular block. The select committee was profoundly concerned about these issues. We were later advised that the runanga is to hold elections for the trustees of the runanga the governance entity in January of next year. This is the first time that an election has been held for the runanga or the trust. The select committee recognised this opportunity to resolve some issues and endeavoured through the Office of Treaty Settlements to facilitate the participation of the whanau whanui in registration and the nomination for trustees. However that process has not been particularly successful due to a failure of goodwill on the part of the runanga to take extra steps to be inclusive of the people it purports to represent. 
The settlement has highlighted the severe limitation of the settlement process to ensure that the process is inclusive and protects all the members of the hapu and iwi. We believe that it is a perpetuation of the grievance to require Maori who are excluded by the process to be left without effective restitution. We remain deeply dissatisfied with the fundamental policy behind the current treaty settlement process as well as critical of its effectiveness and durability. The focus of the treaty settlement process on the restoration of land and economic well-being is an important step but will not by itself resolve the fundamental constitutional and structural problems that result in Maori being effectively excluded from decision-making processes that involve them. This settlement process is a prime example of that exclusion and that failure. 
It is imperative that the treaty settlement process is reviewed where previous claimants current and future claimants and all those Maori who are genuinely affected by this process are able to contribute. As with any restorative justice process Maori as the victim in this process must be able to have some control over how the restoration and restitution is brought about. We must remember that the fact that Maori engage in the treaty settlement process does not mean that they endorse it. It is after all the only game in town. 
The Green Party supports the resolution of and the restitution for all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches. We will however continue to raise our concerns over the injustices of the Crown-designed framework and work towards promoting and supporting an ongoing forum for dialogue on current treaty issues. 
Finally the Greens recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi the legitimacy of the Maori test that was signed by the hapu signatories. Te tiriti is an agreement between hapu and the Crown. It is a solemn pact and the treaty settlement process is designed to provide some redress for the historical grievances that arose out of the Crown’s failure to adhere to it. We look to the settlement process for justice and as with all those excluded and disenfranchised we find it wanting.