te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20212] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 First of all I speak on the matter that my colleague Gerry Brownlee remarked on and the importance of why National voted against New Zealand First’s amendment regarding the principles. 
This bill arises because Ngati Tuwharetoa brought a claim the jurisdiction of which is based on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no other jurisdiction that exists at this point in time upon which a tribe can bring a claim for a breach by the Crown. Of course there are parties in this House—ours included—that intend to change that jurisdiction in the future but for the moment that is the jurisdiction that exists. I sat on the Waitangi Tribunal for 10 years and our brief was exactly that—the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is why it is important under clause 14 that the historic claims are defined because in Part 3 which is the part we are dealing with we come to the settlement of the historic claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Part 3 basically says that on that basis this tribe cannot at any time in the future return to this House for redress on the claims now being settled. As I say we all must bear in mind that the settlement now proceeds on the basis of breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I want to make a comment in regard to what Mark Burton said about the improvement in the buy-in rates of the tribes as we move along the process first of all for the ratification of the governance entities and for a particular tribe to approve of the deed of settlement itself. Although I agree that 95 percent of a 55 percent voter record is a vast improvement on particularly the first two settlements—Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu—the Minister should bear in mind that in both of those settlements in my view there was not the level of cross-claiming or overlapping interests that we now find in the Bay of Plenty area. Of course the Minister has recently taken over and I think is now moving into the Bay of Plenty into the central North Island. I wish him all the best as he tries to come to grips with all the overlapping interests in that area in which of course my own tribe is involved. So yes this is a better validation of a deed of settlement but in my view it has to be. The level of cross-claim and overlapping interest is far greater in respect of the centre of the North Island than we have experienced before. Maybe that statement is open to other views because we have not actually moved to the northern area in any great way at this point. The fact that in particular the Kaingaroa Forest which is the subject of a number of competing tribal claims is in the middle just highlights that we must always strive to improve the validation by tribes of their deeds of settlement. Otherwise of course there is the potential for any tribe to come back in the future regardless of clause 15 which states that no one can come back on those same issues. Only maximum buy-in in my view will guarantee that they do not come back in the future. 
One other issue we should all be aware of that I want to refer to just briefly is clause 18 “Removal of resumptive memorials”. That is indeed a benefit of having a claim settled and of having similar legislation pass through this House. As we all know for at least the last 10 years there have been caveats on a whole lot of titles in this process.