Parata Hekia: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Parata Hekia: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5048] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena no koe e te Heamana. I wanted to take a second call on this part because my first contribution was generally about the purpose of the bill. But before I get started I will clarify a point made by my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui. In fact I was never a bureaucrat—although he might have been—except for operational expediency. The rest of the time I was a public servant. 
Anyway I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 8 and 9 in Part 1 which define who is in and who is out in terms of this settlement. I will talk about an issue of particular importance to me and I think to all of us. This Treaty settlement bill specifically reflects—and Treaty settlement bills in general reflect—an attempt to restore a productive and positive relationship based on the Treaty of Waitangi. As a result of that it brings into play the concepts both of kawanatanga exercised by the Crown and tino rangatiratanga exercised by iwi. In terms of kawanatanga I think that the Crown’s responsibility in the context of Treaty settlements is to ensure that there is a policy framework that there are resources available and that there is political and professional commitment to the resolution of Treaty settlements. Specifically within the Treaty settlement framework it is about accepting breaches acknowledging error and genuinely offering an apology. It is about providing redress committing to an ongoing relationship and continually evolving policy to ensure that the Crown’s contribution to Treaty settlements does not stop at the signing of the Act. It moves on and that is really the start of the Treaty relationship. In my view those are the kinds of elements that constitute kawanatanga in practice. 
The other side of the relationship is the contribution of tino rangatiratanga as executed by iwi. In my view that includes being able to secure the mandate from the people—the collectivity of hapu that together constitute the iwi—and not only securing that mandate but being able to maintain it through the many ups and downs and the volatility of negotiating a Treaty settlement and more important on managing the relationship at the conclusion of the particular Treaty settlement. There is a responsibility to be able to negotiate well bearing in mind all the points that have been made by my colleague the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee the Hon Tau Henare and our colleagues opposite. Treaty settlements are about the future. They are about those generations that are coming through now and will continue to come through. Negotiators of Treaty settlements bear a very significant responsibility when they are engaged in the process because they have to make judgment calls all the time while also ensuring that they maintain relationships within and between their own collectives of hapu as well as between themselves and the Crown. They need to be able to ensure that their people continue to feel included in this process. They need to be mutually respectful and they need to be able to recognise that one has to be resilient because some things will be accepted and other things will not. 
I will talk in terms of the points that the select committee made that inform the amendments that it made to the bill and in particular in respect of clauses 8 and 9. We find if we turn our attention to the well-written select committee report that the issues of the Pipitea Marae the Ngati Tama opt-out clause the Ngati Toa Rangatira request for statement of non-challenge and Waiwhetu have a common underlying theme in my view. It is about the difficulty of practising everyday rangatiratanga of being able to exercise discipline within and between iwi without their resorting to the external adjudicatory powers of the Crown without their throwing those difficulties outside and saying they cannot resolve the problem among themselves without someone feeling like a loser so they would rather the Crown made the decision. That may sound really harsh but what I am saying is that part of the practical exercise of rangatiratanga means dealing with the difficult things as well as the good things. 
One of the difficult disciplines that iwi face is that yes they will not always get agreement within their own collectivity—just as the Crown does not. So the Crown is no more always right than are iwi. My view is that we cannot constantly talk about tino rangatiratanga and think about it in terms of flags slogans or T-shirts without understanding that it is about living a good-quality life every day and accepting that there are disciplines associated with that as well as of course rewards and benefits. My concern arising out of this in going forward—and I am sad about this—is that for instance there has been a need for a Ngati Tama opt-out clause. I am sad that the iwi were not able to find ways of resolving those differences among themselves. This is not exclusive to Ngati Tama or to Taranaki whanui. Every iwi faces these issues and my view is that every iwi has to go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the cohesion of their collectivity without requiring the Crown to intervene and adjudicate. I consider that to be no less a failure of rangatiratanga than when the Crown is unable to honourably exercise its governance. That too would be a failure of kawanatanga. 
All of us are interested in a complementary relationship that is based on the Treaty of Waitangi and is about the dynamism and the resilience of kawanatanga and rangatiratanga operating such that Treaty settlements merely become a milestone or a signpost in an ongoing forward-looking relationship that serves not only iwi but all people of New Zealand who are part of the bicultural platform of this great nation. Kia ora.