Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10082] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 First I want to pick up a point that was raised by the previous speaker—a member of the Labour administration no less—Mr Mita Ririnui. The importance of what he said is that Ngati Tama may come back to the Crown seeking further redress. One of the principles of the treaty settlement process has always been that settlements are full and final yet we now hear a member of the Government saying that perhaps they are not. Perhaps the country will fully relitigate not just settlements where there are specific escalation clauses which apply to Tainui and Ngai Tahu but the totality of all settlements. 
I ask the next speaker for the Government to reflect on that issue. I do that because part of the compact that the Crown through successive Governments has with the people of New Zealand is to address historical grievances in a just and fair way so that people are able to move on. That is apparently no longer the case if one listens to the previous speaker. We could be in an endless cycle of redress further compensation and further negotiation—not just of an ongoing relationship but of all historic grievances. That is a very serious matter and I believe the Government owes it to the people of New Zealand to be honest and upfront. Are those settlements full and final or are they just some form of interim redress so that the country goes on an endless loop of claim counter-claim redress payment and further negotiation that locks it into a spiral of discontent? Because that is what that would do. I draw that issue to the attention of the Government because I think it has set a serious and potentially dangerous precedent. 
Mr Mita Ririnui might say it was just an off-the-cuff comment but I do not believe that. I believe that in his heart he actually believes that that is precisely what will happen. 
Stephen Franks 
: Tariana Turia said the same in the first reading. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There we are. As has been pointed out she said the same thing. We now are in a cycle in which settlements are not full and final in which people are being trapped and not able to move on. That can hardly be good for the unity of the country. 
I was also a bit surprised to hear the Minister effectively ask herself a question during question time so that she could boast about the enormous progress the Government was making. Unfortunately the other questioning that the Minister was subject to revealed precisely the opposite. Far from progressing those things expeditiously the Government is dragging them out. Even the United Future party which is supporting the Government by way of a confidence motion seemed to be conscious of that fact. 
I turn now to this particular settlement. The negotiations started back in 1996 and the heads of agreement were signed by Sir Douglas Graham in 1999. Some 4 years later we are now at the second reading stage with the bill presumably to be passed into law by the end of this week. The settlement process in respect of all historic claims is a long and slow one. The Government itself has admitted that it will take until 2013 at least. Based on its progress that is what it says now but it simply will not be the case. Realistically taking the Government’s progress into account we are probably talking 2020. That is simply too long. Effectively that would be a 35-year process for the settling of historic grievances. I believe this country is capable of doing that sort of thing in a proper way more quickly than that. 
I just want to go back to some of the precedent issues of the settlement process. Tainui was settled for $170 million. They were the first settlement; they set the benchmark; they have an escalation clause in case total future settlements go above $170 million. Three years later Ngai Tahu also received $170 million. The aggregate of the Taranaki iwi is also supposed to be $170 million. This particular settlement which is one of eight iwi settlements is $14.5 million but the aggregate of all the Taranaki settlements should be $170 million. All of that is supposed to be a symmetrical framework. But we all know that that symmetrical framework has been long since abandoned partly because of lack of knowledge and partly because this Government has failed to get a real sense of the dimensions of the process. It is now raising expectations through the speeches of its own members that that is just the first bite of the cherry. I am very concerned about that. 
I would also like to raise another issue that shows the dimensions of the problem. The Maori Affairs Committee is currently investigating an issue around the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and there will be a report on it shortly. I obviously cannot speak too much about that but I can say that according to the public record that trust has so far funded 600 research reports. Not one settlement has come from those 600 research reports. One has to ask oneself who is doing well out of that. Is it the people of the central North Island iwi? The answer is no. Is it the lawyers? Some people would say yes. Is it the historians and indeed that whole industry of people who see an opportunity to partake of that beneficence in doing huge amounts of research? 
I would have to say that the practice of the Government so far is very disquieting as are the statements of Government representatives in the House. Some very serious concerns are being raised. The mandating issues are there and are real but I am much more concerned about the wider implications of the issues. For instance within the settlement there is the prospect that 10 percent of all aquaculture permits in the area will be granted to the iwi. 
National has specifically put a rider on that point saying we note that it is part of it but that it should not be part of a general precedent. I know and members of this House will know full well that a global settlement of aquaculture and other tenders of that nature in the sea space will not settle the matter but create further division. We have only to look at the trauma over what was the Sealord’s settlement which has had over 14 years of litigation. There was a promise yesterday to introduce a bill which has been stalled already because the Government is unable apparently to reach the appropriate levels of resolution. 
So whilst National supports this settlement we raise these very serious issues about firstly the ability of the Government to progress matters in a timely fashion and secondly its commitment to finality. We question the Government’s commitment to this nation—to Maori Pakeha and new immigrant alike—to close this chapter of our history and move on as a united nation; a nation with a unity of purpose whilst respecting diversity. Everything I have heard from the Government today tells me that that important goal is now in jeopardy.