Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15180] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I acknowledge the people of Ngati Awa. I appreciate that it has taken a long time to get to this day. I also note that the heads of agreement was first signed on 21 December 1998 so for the previous member to make some sort of outlandish claim that it takes Labour to do the tough ones—well if only that were true is all I can say. All that Labour has done is the ones that National started. Labour has yet to do any significant or substantial settlement that it itself initiated. This Government simply does not have the wit or will to do the tough settlements. That is why it keeps saying it will take until 2020 at the earliest to complete the process. 
Let us go back into our history—the history of the settlements specifically. It started early in the 1990s. That is now nearly 15 years ago. It started with the settlements with Tainui and Ngai Tahu. The Minister knows full well that they were not easy. National was asking them particularly Tainui to make a huge leap of faith to settle with the Crown. They were the first and that was tough. Everyone knows and acknowledges that fact. Frankly I would like to think that the current Government knows the reality of it. I would like to see a good deal less political rhetoric from that side and some acknowledgement that this whole process has a high level of bipartisanship about it. 
The reality is that this settlement fits with the historic precedents set in the last 15 years. That is why National supports this settlement. It actually fits within the very specific commitments that Dr Brash made in the Orewa speech. We do recognise our history and we will settle the historic grievances. We go much further of course than the current Government; we want to put some energy and real commitment into it and to settle the grievances within a 5-year period. The Government keeps saying that is unrealistic. But to have them take the period from 1990 to 2010 is to have them take a whole 20 years and 20 years is effectively one generation. We say that for this generation of politicians going back to the 1990s—and Mr Ryall was elected in fact in 1990—through to 2010 it is our historic task to complete them. It is for the benefit not just of the claimants—and it is hugely for their benefit to get the settlements—but also of the nation at large. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh what nonsense. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister might interject “what nonsense” but in reality if he thought about it he would understand in fact the importance of bringing people forward through the process so that they move out of the grievance mode into the settlement mode—a concept referred to by this Government from time to time. Surely one generation is enough time to do that. 
I say also to the ACT party that it cannot keep coming to this Parliament settlement after settlement and saying it wants to settle all these historic grievances in a 10-year-period—and it even has a bill which has been drawn in the members’ ballot to settle within that time frame and National will support that bill. The only thing about that and I say this deliberately to the ACT members is that it actually requires them to vote for a settlement—at least once for heaven’s sake. Because unless they do that they will not get progress. It is true that not every detail of every settlement will meet the requirements or needs of particular parties. We understand that on this side of the House. I know for a fact that Labour had significant misgivings over the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements. From time to time parties actually have to rise above that sort of thing and vote for the big picture. I do not direct that at the Labour Government; I direct that statement specifically at ACT. From time to time one has to look at the big picture and ask whether a settlement meets the general perspective of the principles—and I want to talk about the principles. 
National is terribly clear that we support the idea that this nation is founded on the principle that we are all equal before the law that we all have equal rights of participation in our Government. Provided that the settlements broadly meet that test then they should be supported. The schedules that the member for ACT referred to are essentially recitations. They are not this Parliament endorsing people’s beliefs; they are simply recitations about connections. That surely is understandable. I want to put on record that we do support the settlements. There may come a time and I say this to the Government specifically and clearly when it puts a settlement before this House that does not meet the test of equality before the law and that does not meet the test of equal participation in Government. When that issue occurs—should it occur—we will clearly signal that and vote against it. 
But this bill is not one of those. We do support this bill going to the select committee because we understand that it is part of an important historic process that this country is going through.