Smith Murray: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15050] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I extend a welcome and greetings to the people of Ngati Awa and congratulate them on their achievement in this bill and the bill that will accompany it. In particular I thank them for their graciousness in accepting a settlement from the Crown that inadequately compensates them for their losses. How can the Crown compensate for the mana of those who have already passed on? How can the Crown compensate in any adequate fashion for the loss of land that Ngati Awa suffered? United Future is delighted to support this bill and delighted that what is the third-biggest settlement I understand after those of NgaiTahu and Tainui has now come to fruition. This bill represents further substantial progress in our resolving of all historical treaty claims. 
The historical treaty grievance process is weighted against Maori. Indeed some could say it is unfair and unjust. But in the settlements that have been enacted Maori have accepted with graciousness the reality that it is impossible for the Crown to fully compensate for the losses they have suffered. I pay tribute to Maori in general for their approach in doing that their willingness to reach a resolution in terms of grievances and their willingness to accept an apology and compensation that is substantially less than they deserve. 
Normally it is the wrongdoers who come to the person who has been wronged to ask what they need to do to put things right. They ask what they can do in terms of full recompense for the losses suffered and what they can do to provide additional compensation for the hurt feelings and lost mana suffered through the wrongs they have done. 
 The Crown does not act like that. The Crown puts very tight restrictions in terms of what it is prepared to offer and offers a “take it or leave it” basis. The Crown admits it has done wrong but in terms of compensation and redress it dictates the terms upon which it will put it right. Those terms fall into a number of particular categories including who the Crown will negotiate with and in particular its requirements that the group it negotiates with will be iwi or large natural groupings when very often the wrongs that have been done have been wrongs against hapu whanau in some cases and individuals. 
The Crown first dictates and says that it will not necessarily compensate those people who have actually been wronged. Instead it wants to deal with large natural groupings. That is the first restriction. 
The second is with regard to the maximum sum the Crown will be prepared to pay. It says that although it recognises the substantial degree of losses and the substantial compensation that would be required to put that right it will pay only a small percentage of that. The Crown sets a finite limit and says that is the bounds within which it will negotiate and if that is not accepted then it will not be able to negotiate. 
Third the Crown dictates which confiscated property is to be returned. In some cases the Crown has alienated the property and put it in private hands and it is difficult to give it back to the iwi and hapu it was confiscated from. Nevertheless the Crown then dictates the terms and says: “Well this is the property on offer. If you want compensation this is all we have available for you to take and you must accept that.” 
The fourth area which this bill particularly addresses is the governance entity. In the past the Crown has tended to say it will dictate the form of governance entity to manage the settlement proceeds. It says: “These are the models which are Western-constructed models in the British tradition that you are to use and that is what is required of you.” I am delighted that this bill is one of the few examples where the Crown has been prepared to allow Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to dictate the sort of governance entity that they want in order to manage their own assets. The Government has allowed this bill as a one-off in order to reflect what Ngati Awa are wanting to achieve. 
Certainly there are some bottom lines I think for the sake of Maori generally for the sake of Ngati Awa and their descendants and for the sake of the country as a whole that need to be met. This includes provisions for democratically elected representatives to manage the funds so that the people do indeed have a say as to how that should be done and the need for some accountability with regard to the settlement proceeds so that they cannot be frittered away or taken away without the people’s knowledge and consent. 
That accountability is necessary and in the area of accountability this bill is particularly distinctive in so far as the current situation with Te Runanga o Ngati Awa and the situation with some of the other settlements is concerned. In the past those entities were required to be Maori trust boards under the Maori Trust Boards Act of 1955 and were thereby accountable to the Minister of Maori Affairs and by that to the Crown. So the accountability of the iwi was an accountability to the State. I think that is wrong and I am very pleased to see that in this bill accountability is to the people of Ngati Awa instead. 
In our Western society and in our inherited British systems there are structures such as companies trusts and incorporated societies that are accountable to their own members—not to the Crown—with regard to the assets owned by those members. It is not the Crown’s money once the compensation has been paid and it is very appropriate that the Crown does not then hold the strings and say: “Well you be accountable to the Crown and if you are not managing it correctly then the Crown will step in and make decisions.” 
Once the Crown has paid the compensation and returned the assets to Ngati Awa it is entirely appropriate that Ngati Awa should then be in control of those assets. If the people of Ngati Awa are not happy with the way things are happening then they are the ones to whom the accountability is directed and can take control take up the issue and make changes themselves. I am aware that the runanga has been reconstituted rather than a new body being formed and I think it is good that that continuity has been able to be built into the legislation so that it will avoid problems that would otherwise have arisen in a legal sense by deconstructing one form of entity namely a Maori trust board and the construction of a new entity as proposed in this bill. 
Clearly these issues have been carefully thought through by Ngati Awa. The huge level of support in terms of the governance entity is a reflection of that and I am delighted there has been such a high level of registration of people and also that there was no opposition to the bill’s provisions from those who had registered. It bodes very well for Ngati Awa that it has been given control over its own destiny as far as these assets are concerned. 
United Future has been pleased to support the Government’s intention to shorten the time for the select committee to deal with this issue so that the bill comes back to the House sooner than it would otherwise. Given the huge level of consent for the bill and the lack of opposition to it it should mean that the select committee is well able to consider the bill and report it back in speedy time so that it can be passed reasonably promptly and certainly before the end of the year. 
As I have said United Future is very supportive of what is happening here. We congratulate Ngati Awa on its achievements and we wish it well in terms of its management of these new assets.