Hereora Dave: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Hereora Dave: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6528] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the third reading of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. As chair of the Maori Affairs Committee that processed the bill I want to revisit the question raised yesterday by the member Chris Finlayson surrounding the matter that Georgina te Heuheu has just raised. It is important to apply some clarity because at the end of the day it is about giving some certainty to the process. To do that I want to recall the commentary in the bill itself. It states: “On 19 July 2004 the proposed settlement package was approved by Cabinet. On 14 December 2004 the Iwi Authority and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. Following ratification the deed of settlement was signed on 31 July 2005.” This is the bit I am leading to: “The governance entity structure was also ratified at this time. On 21 December 2005 the Ngati Mutunga governance entity Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga was established.” 
The issue raised yesterday was surrounding the information or advice that the select committee had received from parliamentary counsel and the Office of Treaty Settlements. There was some reference to the commentary we had adopted; that the commentary was in effect incorrect in relation to the advice that we had received. 
 I thought that again it was important to revisit exactly what the commentary said so that we can have on record confirmation of whether indeed the matter is correct. It reads: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible. The Parliamentary Counsel Office advised us that amending the bill to disestablish or establish private trusts would be very unusual and could have implications for previous settlements. They told us that establishing a new governance entity is a private matter. Settlement legislation addresses matters necessary to achieve the settlement which cannot be achieved with certainty under normal (non-legislative) processes. Although settlement legislation has been used in association with private trusts to the extent that the trusts are made perpetual instead of being subject to the rules that limit the life of a trust the Crown will not use government legislation to establish a legal entity to receive and manage settlement assets.” 
I find that that part of the commentary for me clarifies the advice that we received from the Office of Treaty Settlements and Parliamentary Counsel confirming that it cannot be done through the process of this bill. So I think it is important to add some clarity to that matter particularly for the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who spent a lot of time making sure to get this process right. 
From there I would also like to look at the historical aspects of the bill because I think it is important to give that some acknowledgment—acknowledgment of the wrongs committed by the Crown and acknowledged in the legislation which contributed to the loss of Ngati Mutunga land resources and social structures. The Crown’s breaches of the Treaty have had a devastating effect on the welfare and the social and economic development of Ngati Mutunga. What happened to the people of Ngati Mutunga was at the most serious end of the scale of Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The historical Taranaki-based Treaty claims of Ngati Mutunga relate mainly to the confiscation by the Crown of all Ngati Mutunga’s land following the wars in Taranaki. The effect of this on Ngati Mutunga was severe. When members of the Ngati Mutunga iwi joined the peaceful settlement at Parihaka they were arrested and imprisoned and endured harsh conditions including forced labour. I thought it was important to give some acknowledgment to the historical part of this debate on this bill. 
From there I think also that it is necessary to talk about the negotiation because obviously the negotiation is the area where one finds whether there will be a settlement. Ngati Mutunga began negotiations with the Crown in 1996. The heads of agreement setting out the basis for settling the Ngati Mutunga Taranaki-based historical Treaty of Waitangi claims were signed on 24 September 1999. After signing the heads of agreement they decided to suspend negotiations temporarily while they considered the best way forward for the iwi. In November 2004 Ngati Mutunga re-engaged with the Crown to continue negotiations. A draft deed of settlement that contained the Crown’s proposed settlement offer to Ngati Mutunga was prepared and the approval of the iwi was sought. Forty-eight percent of eligible Ngati Mutunga voters voted on whether to accept this Crown offer and 94 percent agreed to accept it. 
On 31 July 2005 the deed of settlement was signed. The passage of this settlement bill represents the final steps of a long and arduous journey for Ngati Mutunga to have their claims properly heard accepted and addressed. I acknowledge that it has been a difficult journey for Ngati Mutunga to make. 
To that end I would like to move on to some acknowledgments particularly to Ngati Mutunga and the spirit of cooperation that they have shown and exercised through the negotiation process. I recall when Ngati Mutunga were giving evidence to the select committee the position that they put very clearly to us. That position was that they adopted a pragmatic view and the reason for adopting that pragmatic view was to ensure that they were able to arrive at a settlement that they could accept so that there were no barriers put in place and they could as an iwi move on. So I acknowledge the manner and the spirit of cooperation that they adopted and also acknowledge the committee members for their involvement and participation throughout the process. I think it is necessary to say that the advice and help from the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Parliamentary Counsel Office must be acknowledged also. 
In ending I would also like to congratulate Ngati Mutunga not only on their participation and involvement but also on the opportunities that they now face once this legislation is put in place.