McCully Murray: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5274] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I do want to take the opportunity to reflect on some matters on the occasion of the third reading of this bill but I will start by commending those who have been responsible for bringing this complex process to the conclusion it reaches today. I do want to commend in particular my esteemed colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for the wise words of counsel she offered to members of the House in her address in relation to this bill. I do not pretend to bring to this matter anything like the understanding that others have of the complex history behind the bill. Nor do I claim to have a detailed understanding of the complexities of the legislation itself. But I do believe that there are some issues that relate to it that members of the House and those who are interested in these matters will wish to reflect upon on this occasion. 
Since this is a third reading debate and we should do these things I want to refer to the preamble to the bill. To those who have read it in detail I apologise but I do want to refer to some parts of it that I think we should reflect on today. The preamble notes that it was in the first half of the decade of the 1990s that the Waitangi Tribunal commenced the investigation of 21 claims concerning Taranaki Maori including the Ngati Ruanui claim. The preamble goes on to remind us that on 11 June 1996 we saw an interim report from the Waitangi Tribunal. It then notes that in April 1998 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngati Ruanui working party. Then on 31 August 1998 we saw the terms of negotiation containing the scope objectives and general procedures of the negotiations recognised. On 7 September 1999 over 3 years ago we saw the heads of agreement in relation to this settlement. The final step of course apart from the legislation itself was on 12 May 2001 when we saw the deed of settlement signed by the parties. 
Those who have read that sequence of dates and have reflected upon them will I believe ask themselves as I have asked myself this question: does it have to take as long as that? Is there a better and faster way? I do not raise that question today in any sense of partisan criticism. It is a matter of history and chronology that much of this process took place under a Government of which I was a part. I raise the question today because I think that this is a day when we should reflect on these matters. I do so not to deflect in any way from the sense of achievement that some will feel at the final passage of this bill but because today is a day when we should properly reflect in a balanced way upon those sorts of questions. 
Since 1990 the Waitangi Tribunal various armies of officials and various Ministers have been working on this claim to bring it to the conclusion that it reaches today 1 May 13 years later. I say that that is just too long. We have to find a better and a more effective way. I have referred to that issue in the House before but I do so again today because I have as a member of the Maori Affairs Committee taken the occasion to ask officials testing questions on these matters when they have appeared before us at various times. 
In particular I remember an occasion when I joined with the Hon Dover Samuels and other Government members in asking the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements in particular and from the Ministry of Justice this question: if we gave them some more money—if we went back as a select committee to Parliament with a unanimous recommendation that they should get some more money to try to get this process moved ahead more quickly—what would they do with it? There was much shuffling and uncomfortable movement on the officials’ bench. So Mr Samuels and I think Mr Tamihere myself and others pursued the matter further and being dissatisfied with the verbal comments we received asked for some papers to be written. It was only after some weeks and many reminders that we got the papers we had sought. I am bound to say that none of us were any wiser or any better informed as a consequence of them. 
That process demonstrated to me—and this has been reinforced to me on subsequent occasions—that there is not within the officialdom that services this important area in this country either an understanding of how we might do a better faster job or a commitment to doing a better faster job. I believe that there are members on all sides of this House—certainly I believe there are members on the Labour side—who share the sense of frustration I feel that we cannot do better than that. Today is a day when we should say to those officials and to others who contribute to the process that while there might be a sense of achievement in reaching this particular milestone there are many many other milestones to be reached and they are taking too long. 
I asked those same officials how long it would be before the historic claims on the table were dealt with if we proceed at the current rate of progress. The answer was a daunting one—20 to 25 years. I say to those officials to the Minister and to my parliamentary colleagues that that is just too long and we have to find a better more effective way. 
I know that there may be some people who will regard this as heretical but I believe that the way forward is for us to try to move some of the officials out of the process and to see a more direct embracing of the negotiation process by appointed negotiators working for Ministers. The Ministers themselves should take a greater sense of involvement and ownership because I cannot see any way forward that does not include a greater role in terms of political leadership and a more direct form of negotiation. 
Finally I am one—and the Minister of Maori Affairs I am sure will be delighted to confirm this—who has been a staunch critic of so-called capacity building programmes that lack benchmarks and any sense of evaluation. I am sorry to say that in most cases those programmes lack any sense of a tangible result that can be demonstrated to benefit those who are supposed to benefit from them. But I accept that those of us who are critics of those programmes that breed dependency and destroy opportunity have an equal obligation to come to the party and support those—I know there are many in Maoridom with this view—who strongly believe in Maori economic development and who have a great sense of pride and a great desire for independence. I have a slightly more positive view than Mr Franks about the opportunities that will result as the assets that are part of this settlement package pass across to Ngati Ruanui. 
I close by saying that I will continue to hound the Minister of Maori Affairs—in fact I am only just getting started—in relation to those programmes that are sheer handouts and that do not build the capacity he would assert they are there to build. I will continue to hound that Minister but I also say I hope that the settlement contained here today will signal an opportunity for success for those who are builders in Maoridom and for those who strive for independence in Maori economic development. I wish them well in that regard.