Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20252] 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 3 May. 
Part 4 Cultural redress ( 
continued 
)  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Last night I concluded by asking what effect the inclusion of cultural beliefs into legislation has and how they are to be enforced. Will those beliefs by virtue of their inclusion in this bill be what future generations of New Zealanders are required to believe? 
I repeat that the claimants in this bill are entitled to their own beliefs but I think it is clearly wrong for this Government to continue to have those beliefs legislated for by inclusion in this bill given that their inclusion will in no way affect the quality the legitimacy and more important the durability of this settlement. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter further with a number of my colleagues and they were unable to shed any light on it for me particularly in terms of those parts of the narratives that clearly reflect what—one would say—are tribal beliefs and understandings. I reiterate the point that we in New Zealand First in no way deny the beliefs that Ngati Tuwharetoa may have but we certainly have some concern that those beliefs are now by virtue of their inclusion in this bill being foisted on the rest of us in New Zealand. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I just want to clarify for the member and repeat what I think I have said previously that firstly the statutory references—statements of association—are not exclusive and secondly they are a recognition of what those people believe. They are not in any way an encumbrance on the belief of any other New Zealander. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Commercial redress 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the part that makes possible the transfer of various properties from the land bank to in this case Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty as part of the redress and the accumulated settlement arrangement. It is relatively straightforward and I do not think we need to spend a long amount of time on it. But I ask the Minister whether he would explain for the public record a couple of provisions in this part. 
The first is clause 124 “Roadways and rights of way”. It reads: “The permission of a council under section 348 of the Local Government Act 1974 is not required for laying out forming granting or reserving a private road private way or right of way required by clauses 6.3 or 6.4.6 …”. If that clause does in fact exempt Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty from Resource Management Act provisions over land that is clearly not theirs but gives access to particular sites that are part of the settlement then I think that the Minister should explain why that is. The second provision relates to the issue of the Crown forests—or should I say the Crown forestry licences—on redressed licensed land. The issue there is that the trees above ground and any buildings above ground are excluded but—and I presume that the Minister could explain it to us—Ngati Tuwharetoa gets some right to use that land at some point. That of course brings about the question to the Minister of just how long the Crown Forestry Rental Trust will continue in existence. 
I noticed earlier in the day Mr Chairman that you were wearing a very fetching scarf and I am wondering where it has gone now. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I deliberately paused before taking this call because I was hoping that the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui would take a call. I think that my colleague Mr Brownlee has raised some very important issues. Some Ministers who sit in the chair frankly do not know anything about the bills they are in charge of. I do not believe however that that could be the case in this instance. The Hon Mita Ririnui knows in detail the nature of the settlement—he comes from the area even though I appreciate that he is not Ngati Tuwharetoa. Nevertheless he has an understanding of the issues in the area. I think he owes it to Parliament to answer the questions. 
I was also concerned about clause 121 which refers to the Minister of Conservation granting easements. That is a procedure whereby the claimants will get an easement over publicly owned land—land held on behalf of all New Zealanders which presumably therefore all New Zealanders have access to as a matter of course. Nevertheless the claimants will get an access easement. Members can see the dilemma that I am faced with. People have access as of right anyway by virtue of it being Department of Conservation land. But in this particular instance the claimants will get a special easement. I raise that as a question because I am assuming as I noted at the outset that the Minister knows the answer to this question. I believe he owes it to the House to give an answer. As my colleague said this part of the bill is quite conventional and I do not have any other issues with it. But I do ask that question and I think the Minister owes us an answer. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I share the concern of Dr Mapp. I think this issue needs to be fleshed out further and the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui owes it to this Chamber to give a clearer explanation. This is the provision that gives effect to clause 6.3 of the deed of settlement which states that the Minister of Conservation may grant these easements. It could well be that a block of land that has been put in the land bank and passed on to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty may be landlocked. There are blocks of land in that situation and I do not think anybody would have too much argument with a physical access being provided by way of easement over public lands with appropriate conditions as would be expected. However I draw the attention of the Chamber to some of the huge problems that other parties have had when dealing with the Department of Conservation. I would hate to think that the people who are benefiting from the settlement will suffer those problems. 
I draw the Chamber’s attention to the Pike River coal issue in the South Island. There is a very valuable seam of coal and a company has been trying to negotiate with the Department of Conservation for about 8 years to get access to its coalmine over a very small area of land involving about 2 hectares. One would not believe the tactics that the department uses to obfuscate delay and frustrate. I would hate to think that this great department of State which I believe is out of control under this Government will also be used to frustrate the people who will become the legal landholders following this settlement. That is one side of the issue. 
The other side of the issue is a concern I have not with Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty but with the deed of settlement that was negotiated over the bed of Lake Taupo with Ngati Tuwharetoa. In 1992 Jim Bolger’s Government signed a deed of settlement transferring the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngati Tuwharetoa with some very important conditions. One condition was that full public access for all recreational pursuits and all scientific endeavours would be guaranteed at no cost. That was a condition of the deed of settlement. The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences had a major project studying New Zealand’s volcanology that involved the bed of Lake Taupo. It was very important work. 
In previous years a mini-submarine came out and a marvellous film  
Ring of Fire 
 was made. The  
Jago 
 a research submarine sat in a crate on Auckland wharf for the best part of 9 months at a huge cost because Ngati Tuwharetoa denied access for that scientific work in the bed of Lake Taupo. The Crown-owned institute bowed to the PC. It did not have the gall to stand up for what was a condition of that deed of settlement. I am sorry to say that the Labour Government which was the Government of the time was also not prepared to confront that issue. In other words it was browbeaten and the institute was denied what was agreed under that deed of settlement. 
There are two issues here. Firstly we are saying that Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty will have to run the gauntlet of negotiating with the Department of Conservation—the monster department that is out of control—and there are concerns about that. I also want some sort of assurance that other conditions in any of these deeds of settlement will not block access or replicate the situation that we had with the research submarine  
Jago  
regarding the bed of Lake Taupo. 
I have spoken to those scientists and they are still extremely frustrated that they cannot do this work. They say that it is critical for their research work which is important seismological and volcanological research. They are working on the Kermadec Trench with all its brown smoke as it stretches from the Bay of Plenty virtually up to Tonga. Some marvellous work is being done there and there are a lot of new discoveries but the scientists cannot complete their work by doing important studies on the bed of Lake Taupo even though the deed of settlement signed by the National Government in 1992 assured full public access for all recreational activities and scientific research at no fee. Ngati Tuwharetoa have reneged on that deal and are frustrating those research scientists who are trying to do their work. That is why I raise these concerns. It is all very well to sign these deeds of settlements but we need Governments with the gall to implement them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I thought the previous speaker’s focus on Lake Taupo and scientific research was a little bit out of kilter with the bill before us. 
I stand to support my colleague Dr Mapp’s query. As even the previous speaker Ken Shirley acknowledged it is an important question. We would like an explanation about the easements over Department of Conservation land referred to in clause 121. My colleague made the comment that we would assume if there was public access already granted then that would include Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. So why are we now seeking these special access provisions? The other point that my colleague made was that the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui has particular knowledge of the area under discussion. My experience during the settlement bills is that he has always been willing to rise and answer our queries. I see him looking at his green notepaper so I assume he has some answers for us. 
Of course he will acknowledge that getting some clarity around these easements is critical in Treaty of Waitangi settlements because it is at this point that members of the public start to get a little bit uneasy about whether access or rights to certain sites and areas of land that they have enjoyed may be constricted. I am sure that that is not the case here and I am sure the Minister will reassure us of that. None the less in my experience it is sometimes at this point when commercial redress and statutory acknowledgments are being discussed—as modest as an acknowledgment or an access provision might be—that the hackles tend to rise on members of the public who do not always understand the reason for special provisions. Maybe that is rightly so in some instances. 
If the Minister covers that area then other access provisions that are present in Part 5 will also hopefully be covered by his reassurance to members of the public that none of the access provisions provided for in Part 5 of the bill will in any way affect rights that others have had up until now. In the end these settlements need to be seen in the context of being positive for all New Zealanders. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 As Mr Brownlee said during his speech this is a very straightforward part of the bill and it is not necessary to spend too much time on it. But I will attempt to address the issues that have been highlighted by all the other speakers as well as by myself. Gerry Brownlee referred to clause 124 “Roadways and rights of way”. Part 5 contains provisions that enable the Crown to transfer certain properties to Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau in a way that enables access to be protected. So it guarantees access to those blocks that would otherwise be landlocked. Some members may be fairly familiar with the discussion we had at the Maori Affairs Committee in relation to a particular area of land that was described as KA30. If the provisions in Part 5 were not made we would basically give Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau ownership of land that it could not actually get to. A similar situation has applied in many of the previous settlements as well as this one. 
Mr Mapp was concerned about clause 121 “Minister of Conservation may grant easements”. Easements over Department of Conservation land ensure guaranteed access by Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau as I mentioned earlier on because they will be the owners of the forest in that particular area in the future as part of the settlement. There are already many similar easements in place throughout Crown forest land in the central North Island that are in favour of the current licence holders so that they can maintain access to those areas. 
Mr Shirley was concerned about Lake Taupo. We are actually talking about Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and the lake bed of Lake Taupo has nothing to do with that particular iwi although there is an association there. In the first reading of this bill the Hon Georgina te Heuheu pointed that matter out to Mr Shirley and this is probably an opportunity to do that again. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Schedule 4 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 5 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 5 agreed to. 
Schedule 6 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 7 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 7 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 8 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 8 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 8 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 8 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 9 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 9 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 9 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 As the Committee well knows the reason for the referral of settlement bills to a select committee is largely for the committee to scrutinise whether a bill is basically in order with the deed of settlement—to make sure that the deed of settlement is being implemented. With that being the case however it does mean that the opportunity to amend settlement legislation is very limited indeed and mostly it is limited to technical issues only. 
In this case particularly with regard to the title and name of this bill I just make reference to the fact that the bill as introduced identified Ngati Tuwharetoa only. The Maori Affairs Committee in looking at the bill and also being very mindful of the fact that there are Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty and Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Lake Taupo area itself came to the view that it would propose as the most appropriate title that the bill be called the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill instead of the “Ngati Tuwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill”. But to do that the Crown had to seek the agreement of the claimants although it was certainly a committee view that we should avoid any doubt as to which part of Ngati Tuwharetoa the settlement referred to. Obviously if we include “Bay of Plenty” in the title then it is very clear that this settlement is not applicable to those of Ngati Tuwharetoa—indeed my own people—who live by the shores of Lake Taupo. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: They’ve got a monster claim as well. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: This is not a monster claim and nobody would refer to any claim as being a monster claim. But in any event under clause 10(2) of the deed of settlement the deed is able to be amended if the amendment is in writing and signed by or on behalf of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown. The bill as introduced actually matched the deed as it was originally called. 
Happily the claimants agreed to the change. I want to pay particular tribute to Bev Adlam who has driven the claim along with all the others—family I suppose I could call them in the end—and in particular I just want to pay tribute to the work that has been done by her. This bill is now more aptly and appropriately named Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill so there is no doubt as to which part of the Tuwharetoa tribe we are talking about. Hopefully the Minister Mita Ririnui will use his good administrations to make sure that the bill comes on to the Order Paper reasonably quickly for its third reading because he and I both know—as do others—that Bev Adlam has been very very committed and dedicated to driving this settlement through but it has taken its toll. So it would be a good thing for it to be passed into law. Of course I suppose the Minister hopes that he will get the bill through before the election. But I hope that he will get it through in any event because it would be great to see this settlement passed into law and completed as a tribute to Bev Adlam and the great work that she has done in this matter. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I think it was appropriate that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu spoke first in this final part of the Committee debate. She is of Ngati Tuwharetoa so she has precedence in a matter like this and we acknowledge that. 
The National Party does support settlements as a general principle and we do so for quite a deliberate reason which is that we want this country to move beyond being trapped in grievance mode. To some extent settlements have had an ironic effect. They have helped race relations and helped Maori move forward but at the same time I think they could almost be said to have harmed race relations. There is a great deal more friction these days I suspect than there has been in the past. Therefore the way to deal with that issue is to ensure that the process is done reasonably quickly. That is why National has committed to completing all settlements by 2010. Even Labour apparently now sees the wisdom of accelerating settlements and it had to be driven to that point by National. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Who had the idea first? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I wanted to make reference specifically to the ACT party and I had this set down as one of the points that I wanted to make but Mr Shirley has asked who had the idea first. Well I say to ACT party members that they cannot have a policy that states that they will settle everything quickly—and I acknowledge that they have said that—and not actually vote for anything. It is just such a bizarre irony. One assumes from the way ACT party members conduct themselves that unless the settlement meets their needs in every precise particular they cannot agree to it. Well the real world is not like that. One has to have a degree of compromise and seek something of a consensus. 
National has pointed out during this debate our concerns about the style of the preamble. I think there is far too much reference to people as they were back in time without enough acknowledgment of the way that people are developing and advancing. So I would like to see more balance on that aspect in the future. The second thing is that we made reference to our concerns about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty. Finally we referred to our concerns about the inclusion of myth and legend in the law of the land. I acknowledge that virtually everyone has a belief of some description or another. Even if a person is an atheist that is still a belief. We however do not expect beliefs to be included in the law. I would invite the Government to think very seriously about that issue. I was heartened in some respects to note that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations did acknowledge that concern which I think is now quite widely felt in this Parliament. 
I want to conclude on this point. We believe that settlements must fit within the criteria of building equality—equality within the law. A settlement that infringes that principle in a serious way would not receive our support and we have signalled our very deep concerns indeed about the settlements around the lakes in the Rotorua area. Essentially that does seem to take rights away from the wider community and we think settlements of that nature will prove to be harmful rather than helpful. So it is not likely that that kind of settlement would meet with our agreement. But as a general principle we do support settlements. We do vote for them. They may not be perfect in every particular but they do have a pretty broad consensus as I think the votes in this Committee have demonstrated today. It is perhaps a pity that ACT members do not also support the settlements—at least occasionally—as a testament of good faith to back up their own views about the need to conclude settlements. 
We will have the opportunity in the third reading to speak more broadly on this. I think this debate has been valuable. We are bound to signal our concerns about these settlements and the way we would deal with them in the future. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First and—as people tend to forget—on behalf of the only non-politically aligned party in this Chamber to support the speaker from the National Party who led off in the debate on these clauses and to speak particularly to the title clause. 
I originally had the intention of putting forward an amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper suggesting that the title should be all in te reo Maori. However I was taken aback by the decision yesterday by the Minister in the chair at the moment the Hon Mita Ririnui to decline the opportunity to support an amendment to recital (32) reflecting the amendment put forward by the Government in its Supplementary Order Paper to the English recital. I had hoped that in keeping with balance and the desire on the part of the Crown to ensure an enduring settlement with any claimants the Government would have the good faith to support the amendment that I wanted to make. But obviously that was declined so I will not put forward an amendment suggesting that the title be changed to include the Maori wording for “Bay of Plenty”. So I am obliged to support the title. 
I think it is important that the titles of these sorts of settlements reflect and identify the claimant groups that the settlements are all about. In this case we are talking about Ngati Tuwharetoa. As we all know Ngati Tuwharetoa is one of the major tribes of New Zealand. Under its present leadership and previous leaderships it has become well known not only in New Zealand but also on the international scene. The bill is appropriately named although I would have liked to see the full Maori wording for “Bay of Plenty” in the title. Given that the Minister in the chair represents that area—and I note that his electorate does have a Maori title—I would have thought he would be quite supportive of the extension of the Maori language. Unfortunately he is not so we in this Chamber are obliged to stick with what we have. 
In conclusion I think that the bill is appropriately named. It identifies which part of Ngati Tuwharetoa this settlement is all about—the group that is resident in the Bay of Plenty. We will support these clauses. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party has opposed this bill. We recognise that it will be passed. The ACT party recognises that there are legitimate grievances that need to be resolved and we certainly favour the Crown expediting the settlement of those grievances. That has been the ACT position. We heard from the National Party spokesperson that National had initiated the idea of bringing the treaty grievance industry to finality. I think that that is an expansion of the truth. 
I remind the Committee that it was Derek Quigley the co-founder of the ACT party and an ACT MP in that period who brought a bill to the House for a full fair and final settlement of the treaty grievance industry. He outlined a provision whereby firstly all claims would have to be lodged by a set date. Secondly the Waitangi Tribunal would have been resourced adequately so that it could do the work and sort out the wheat from the chaff. [ 
Interruption 
] I will come to that member. Thirdly the tribunal would have been wound up. 
What followed was an outrage. The National Party in Government had the opportunity to pass that bill. In Government it voted the bill down. Doug Graham and others actually called the ACT party racist for promoting that concept. Helen Clark in turn said it was impossible. Here we are in 2005 and the National Party to its credit has seen the error of its ways. It has adopted the ACT policy exactly word for word with the same date mechanisms. That was its policy in 2002 and it has been consistent with it. Good on the National Party but I ask it not to claim that it was the initiator of the idea. Of course Labour which said the idea was impossible and an outrage now in 2005 says: “Oh yes we have to set dates and time limits on the treaty grievance industry.” That is absolutely wonderful but Labour should not forget that ACT was the pioneer of that idea. It was a sound rational sensible policy when we announced it in 1997 and it still is today. 
I will come to the context of why the ACT party opposes this legislation. It is not because we are against settlement—far from it. It is because of the very fact Mr Mapp talked about. New Zealand First has railed against the principles of the treaty. Winston Peters has campaigned consistently about this nonsense of the principles of the treaty. I have to say to New Zealand First that this bill has the principles of the treaty in it yet Winston Peters and his merry band are prepared to vote for it. In other words they have to walk the talk. They cannot just say something at the election; when the rubber hits the road here in Parliament they have to walk the talk. I say to New Zealand First that that is absolutely duplicitous. 
Equally the National Party says that it is concerned about the style of the preamble. So is the ACT party. The preamble is all about metaphysical ill-defined concepts as Dr Mapp pointed out. That is why we are opposing it. That is why the ACT party says that this is not good enough. We are laying a bad foundation for the future when we perpetrate in legislation woolly-woofter conceptual feel-good mumbo jumbo that everyone may think is great but that no one knows the meaning of. I recognise the role of spirituality but it is not the business of the State and it is not the business of legislation. We are legislating for spirituality in this bill and in other treaty settlements. That is why the ACT party consistently opposes them—not because we are against a fair and final settlement. God knows all in this country—including those within Maoridom—are looking forward to the day when we can make these settlements and move forward as a nation. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the title debate but I notice that the debate has been ranging across the bill more widely in quite an interesting way. 
I want to make it very clear to the New Zealand First member who stood up and introduced his party as being the only non-aligned political party in the country that no one believes that at all. New Zealand First is of course the Maori party proper. Everyone knows that. 
I am staggered by that speaker’s concern about the title of this bill. His suggestion that “Bay of Plenty” should have been in te reo is not a bad idea. He should perhaps have put forward an amendment to have that happen if he were serious. But if he were super-serious then of course he would be from the “Tahi o Aotearoa” party rather than from New Zealand First and I do not see New Zealand First racing out to the public to start publicising itself as that. Mr Winston Peters leader of the “Tahi o Aotearoa” party—I cannot see that going down too well. The moment we saw that title come across the screen Winston Peters would be confined to the very low levels in the poll that I think the election will ultimately deliver anyway. 
The ACT party speaker suggested that National is somehow doing a bit of a copycat on the proposals put forward by Mr Derek Quigley. He might remember that National backed Mr Quigley back in those days and in fact was quick to embrace the concept and that it was National that said back in the 1990s that we wanted to settle this whole grievance as quickly as possible. We put a 10-year time line on it. We did not quite get there basically because since 1993 we have had coalitions in this country which have not proved particularly prosperous as far as getting this sort of legislation through quickly goes. 
However if ACT thinks it has some sort of right to provide good ideas for the rest of the world to pick up on I would like to know where those ideas are at the moment. Where are these good ideas? Where are these earth-shattering new views of how to do things? There is a party that for the last 6 years has lamented the fact that it has not had the numbers to do anything. 
As to the concern from ACT about the reference in the bill to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi I think it would be a strange settlement bill that was put together on the basis of accepting Treaty of Waitangi issues as laid out by the tribunal that does not mention the principles. As I made clear to New Zealand First—my apologies “Tahi o Aotearoa”—last night there is a need to refer in some cases to the principles because those principles are littered throughout so much of our legislation and I mean that in its most literal sense. So what simply is being said in this bill is that it deals with all those issues. It tells Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty that they cannot go around trolling through bits of legislation to find new interpretations of principles that let them come back to the Crown and say “Let’s have another go.”—which they accept. So from that point of view we are happy with it. 
The bill of course is called the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and we are at the moment discussing the title. It would seem to me that to refer to this bill in any other way at all would be quite ridiculous so we will support the title. 
I will just make a final comment on the concerns about metaphysical references mentioned by Mr Shirley from the ACT party. From the start of my involvement with the Maori Affairs Committee I have raised issues around this stuff. However I accept in this case that the references do have a geographic nature. In that regard I think defining the part of New Zealand that is special to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in terms that they has always understood in their tribal history is not unreasonable because when it comes to this settlement bill it is about a giant step in the history of the iwi. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.