Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18854] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments at this point in the debate as we discuss the title and the commencement of this bill. These days title debates—particularly when coupled with debate on the commencement of the bill as this is—allow us to make comments in a much more general way than might have been the case in the old days when there was a strict title debate. Everyone knows that this is the new convention put in place by the outgoing Speaker the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt. 
The first point I will make is that these bills should not create grievance. In settling a grievance nothing much is achieved if there are grounds for further grievance. I was disappointed that the Minister did not take a call to deal with the issue spoken of earlier by Mr Pita Paraone. Mr Paraone told the Committee that the bill in part will prescribe not only who is Maori but who is a person of Ngati Awa descent for claims purposes where there has been a legal adoption in the family. 
We had quite a discussion at the select committee about the issue of whangai and how those people fit in. The response from the Office of Treaty Settlements was somewhat inadequate in suggesting that this had to be in the legislation because of New Zealand’s human rights legislation and adoption laws. I would have thought that if we are settling a grievance that arises essentially from quite a long time ago the way in which this legislation is applied would perhaps lead to further grievance by Ngati Awa in the future. I am persuaded of this by considering that if one of my grandparents had been in this situation then the consequence—because of the size of our family—would be that in just two generations well over 130 people who had no blood connection to Ngati Awa would be able to say that they were Ngati Awa and claim any benefit that may arise because of that. I just do not see how that is fair. 
I think the response to us from the Office of Treaty Settlements also highlights the fact that the office seems to want to ride roughshod over the whole political process that is associated with these bills. 
The fact is that if we are to have enduring settlements there should be a high level of buy-in to them from both sides of the House. The Crown’s expression is done in this House. It should give the Office of Treaty Settlements no comfort that tonight so many parties are not supporting the passage of this bill. It may not be the first time that there has been a big break in Parliament around a treaty settlement bill but I think this is the most significant block so far to walk away from the concept of Parliament more or less unanimously choosing to support settlement bills. Perhaps the behaviour of the Office of Treaty Settlements hints at the way in which the public service has allowed itself to become increasingly politicised in recent years. 
I do not think the amount that is being settled upon Ngati Awa here is a big issue. We should see it in light of the fact that the entire settlement is worth about one-eighth of what the current Government has squandered annually for the last few years on Te Wananga o Aotearoa which has been in the news so much of late. But it is important—because it is a settlement because it is supposed to be full and final and because it is this House legislating away rights that some New Zealanders have—that a large number of members of Parliament accept that and that they can be confident that those who are recipients of the settlement are equally happy.