te Heuheu Georgina: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18926] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I guess we can be grateful to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for that explanation. I just hope his not having done something about that issue during the negotiations will not result in problems further down the line. But I certainly appreciate the situation that a deed having been negotiated legislators can get themselves into a bit of a pickle trying to do something about it on the floor of the House. I guess that is why the purpose of this bill is so important and is clearly set out. Clause 3 states that the bill gives effect to a deed of settlement that has been negotiated by the Crown and certain representatives of the Te Arawa affiliates. Clause 4 states that the Act binds the Crown. That is a small provision but very important. 
Part 1 also sets out the acknowledgments and the apology. Those too are extremely important. I have always thought it is important that a claimant iwi that is settling can see in legislation the things that are part of the settlement—the things that the Crown acknowledges date back to when breaches first occurred. Someone mentioned in an earlier speech that these breaches had occurred a long time ago. Yes they did but let us not forget that some breaches occurred recently as well—in the 1960s and the 1970s. In this case some quite significant breaches occurred in respect of Maori Land Court title rearrangement and so on. 
Then we come to the apology which is hugely important. I am sure all members of the House understand by now after the many apologies given by the Crown in this place how important an apology is to the claimant group—the iwi or hapu in question. One can never underestimate the power of the Crown apologising to iwi. It is the Crown’s chance on behalf of New Zealanders to say sorry and also to restore to itself some of the honour that it lost when it breached the Treaty—in this case in relation to the affiliates of Te Arawa. 
Then we come to clause 11 which is what my colleague was talking about earlier—the designation of the affiliates and the affiliate ancestors. Given that we had submissions from Ngati Wahiao in respect of their designation alongside Tuhourangi as Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and also from Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa about their designation I wonder whether the Minister might explain why clause 11(1)(a)(vii) reads quite simply and directly “Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao” and clause 11(1)(a)(viii) states “Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa”. I wonder why that difference is there. Does it mean something? Perhaps Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa—[ 
Interruption 
] I see that Te Ururoa Flavell is giving me some advice on it but I think I will get the Minister to enlighten me. The difference seems odd given that those two designations sit one above the other in the text of the bill. The issue for the iwi involved seems to be the same yet in the bill they are not described in quite the same way. It is amazing how that little hyphen has really excited my brain as to why that might be. 
Lastly I go to clause 12 which excludes all claims connected with the claims that are being settled here. I guess that in a sense although the iwi concerned often find that to be a very hard provision to accept on the other hand I guess the Crown has to give some certainty to the public at large about what is being settled here.