Flavell Te Ururoa: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6388] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tatou. E te Raukura e te Maunga Titohea nau mai hara mai ki te Whare nei. 
[ 
Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and greetings to us. Welcome to you the Raukura and Mount Titohea welcome to this House. 
] 
The timing of select committee hearings is often simply a matter of scheduling. But this was not the case with Ngati Mutunga. Wednesday 6 September 2006 was a marker in Ngati Mutunga history. It was the first time that Ngati Mutunga had ever dealt directly with an arm of Parliament. It was also on that exact day 141 years earlier that the Crown had wrongfully confiscated all of Ngati Mutunga’s land. And what was the nature of the argument put by Ngati Mutunga on this day of all days? The argument is captured in the following words: “Ultimately Ngati Mutunga’s concerns fell on deaf ears and we were put in the position of having to cede to the Crown’s view”. 
So what does it do to a people who for 141 years have suffered the consequences of confiscation and military assault to be greeted by a Government that says: “Here it is; take it or dip out.”? As one of the iwi of Taranaki whanui Ngati Mutunga lives every day with the aftermath of land deprivation and disempowerment. Having married into the Taranaki people and lived there for around 6 years—a very short period of time when one considers what has happened in Taranaki regarding confiscation—I heard regularly how the people feel about muru me te raupatu—confiscation. You see they sing about it they haka about it—confiscation is etched as part of their history. Mr Mahara Okeroa knows their songs; he is from there—from Waitara from Parihaka which are symbols of the legacy of land confiscation. Every day on the drive from Urenui to Ngamotu in New Plymouth members of Ngati Mutunga face the impact of perpetual leases and the promises of the reserves made in the confiscations of the 1860s that are still not given effect. 
The Taranaki situation is unique. In the 1996 Taranaki report the Waitangi Tribunal concluded: “It is a further consequence of this extraordinary record of expropriation and deprivation that there is not one hectare of Taranaki land that is now held entirely on Maori terms and by Maori rules. All that could have been done was done to destroy the land base for Maori autonomy and representation. In the governance of the Taranaki province since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed land has been reserved for the bush and the birds but not one acre could be guaranteed as a haven for Maori.” Not one acre. Imagine the consequences of living with that reality—promises reneged on justice denied—and of every day living with the legacy of extensive land loss and debilitating land reform. Finally on the day when Ngati Mutunga had the generosity to meet with the Crown once more the Crown failed to respect their authority. 
The Maori Party strongly endorses the notion that tikanga should take preference in such matters as definition of who is whom and that it must be for iwi to define themselves. Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga asked the Crown to define it in a manner consistent with Ngati Mutungatanga but no the Crown insisted that the Adoption Act the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act should usurp and override Ngati Mutunga tikanga. Historical hapu that are no longer included within the iwi community were placed in the settlement by the Crown. I mean what is up with that? This House should by now be well aware of the conflict and internal divisions attached to the process of Treaty settlements yet here is the Crown willingly marching in like troops storming Parihaka to set up scenarios that could threaten the internal unity of the iwi. Why do it? 
Once the Crown redefined the iwi it proceeded with the ultimate offence by pulling a figure out of the air—$14.9 million—and expecting Ngati Mutunga to be grateful. No explanation was given as to the methodology for calculating the quantum. There was no transparency—zilch. Speaker after speaker—from the Government at least—mentioned the incredible gesture of Ngati Mutunga in taking the pittance as being in the best interests of the country while talking up a rugby stadium and a financial surplus of $11.5 billion. But the country does not seem to be able to afford this settlement. Katahi te mahi hoha ko tera. 
The revelation to the Maori Affairs Committee from the Office of Treaty Settlements that the Crown enters Treaty settlements with a predetermined quantum in mind while not earth-shattering news was more definitive proof that the fiscal cap lives and that good-faith bargaining is only ever one way. The thief consistently expects to be received in good faith. The committee concluded as do we that there could be no confidence that the offer of settlement was a fair assessment of the severity of the breach. 
In particular Ngati Mutunga remain aggrieved that the reduction of the 150000 acres to the 75000 presented by the Sim Commission was not reflected in the quantum. This is a massive difference yet as always the Crown authority prevails. Although the minimisation of Ngati Mutunga’s traditional boundaries was acknowledged in writing the injustice remains for Ngati Mutunga. I suppose Ngati Mutunga went into the negotiations with eyes open. They knew that the commercial redress reflects less than 1 percent of the value of the land confiscated. 
The pain of the alienation has not been lessened by this settlement of that I am sure. The Department of Conversation estate remains in Crown hands. All lands within Ngati Mutunga’s traditional rohe have been lost. I suspect that the inevitable contrast with other settlements that Ngati Mutunga perceive as having included significant commercial assets such as Crown forest licensed land leaves Ngati Mutunga with more questions. To top it off Ngati Mutunga incurred substantial costs in even getting to the point of settlement. It is no wonder that they describe the process as outrageous when we consider that these are the uri of tupuna who suffered the worst excesses of war and raupatu and are now forced to struggle to find resources to make ends meet. 
Yet despite all of this and despite the sense of resentment and injustice heaped upon injustice Ngati Mutunga was required to agree that the settlement was fair under the circumstances. What could possibly be fair about Ngati Mutunga being denied their right to develop their potential? What is fair about the fact that although redress has not been negotiated for their tupuna maunga a fiscal element has already been calculated as a part of the settlement quantum? What is fair about the quantum being based on a figure that most understand as having been plucked out of the air or by someone saying: “Oh one percent sounds good.”? 
I know Ngati Mutunga to be a proud people despite the long-lasting effects of land confiscation. They and the other tribes of Taranaki are a source of personal inspiration in terms of their tenacity in hanging in there with their claims. Many tell us about the toll that the process takes on people but their descendants yet to be born will know of their determination and united resolve to do what they could in the best interests of the people. We pay tribute to the efforts in reconnecting the ahi ka with Ngati Mutunga uri spread throughout nga hau e wha. We of the Maori Party will support any amendment that relates to the liquidation and wind-up of the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority incorporated society and the transfer of its assets and functions to Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga private trust if this is what is wanted. 
We note the disappointment expressed by the select committee that the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority had to incur costs of up to $20000 to transfer the assets and functions to the post-governance entity Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga. We of the Maori Party will not relent from exposing the arrogant approach taken by the Crown in its dealing with Ngati Mutunga.  
Hansard 
 will record for example our shock at the Crown not initially disclosing these sorts of costs to them. 
I must say that we understand that Ngati Mutunga must be practical and make the best of the disastrous situation. The pitiful quantum allocated to the settlement and the directive to establish the runanga in the place of the iwi authority as a requirement of the settlement are in themselves sufficient to explain to this House the expectation that the liquidation of the iwi authority will be effected as a part of this settlement process. We agree that there is already well-established precedent for the use of legislation to effect the liquidation of an existing iwi representative entity and its replacement with a new entity. 
I attended a number of the Taranaki tribunal hearings. The 1996 Waitangi report stated: “If war is the absence of peace the war has never ended in Taranaki because that essential prerequisite for peace among peoples that each should be able to live with dignity on their own lands is still absent …”. This bill does nothing to advance the peacemaking process. One would assume that giving an apology might mean that the Crown would not breach again yet the Crown continues to do so. Ngati Mutunga survive but an enduring conflict remains. Such is the nature of Treaty settlements.