Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21783] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from Stephen Franks. While critical of this bill it did not give any indication of what ACT in the event of it having responsibility for settling these matters might do. That is rather disappointing. There can be no doubt that when these settlements are achieved those who are settled are able to get hold of their assets are able themselves to determine what their new structures will be for ownership in the context that is European but also Maori and how they will work those assets for the benefit not only of the settling iwi but also the wider economy of New Zealand. So the National Party does support the settlement process. 
People get upset about the “grievance industry” as they call it—and we do ourselves—but when it comes to the settlement process it is fascinating to note that the fiscal cap the billion dollars set aside in 1990 still remains. While it is the source of much angst for people is it not rather surprising that we had the news yesterday that the Kyoto Protocol is likely to cost us about the same amount of money in a very short period of time. It would seem that people do not get just as anxious over that although I suspect that 4 weeks of National and other parties on the road would quickly manage to sort that out. Our position is that while we have concerns about the mandating process for this settlement and for others it should be supported. 
If I might make a few comments about the mandating process. This bill unlike any other settlement that has gone before it states that this Parliament and those who have signed the deed of settlement agree that it is full and final. The difficulty for National is that too few of the iwi themselves are participating in the votes to establish either the governance entity or accept the settlement process. It is no good for the Office of Treaty Settlements to say that 92 percent of those who participated voted for it when well short of 50 percent of those eligible participated in the vote anyway. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: No 67 percent are eligible. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am prepared to accept what the Minister is yelling across the House—that about two-thirds of the iwi supported this. But I do not think that that is enough. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s enough in this House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He says that it is enough in this House! Well we know how often the House overturns pieces of legislation. It happens day after day. The Minister should not get so hot under the collar because I do not think it is unreasonable given that the Government is denying people an opportunity to ever raise an issue again that those who have the opportunity denied overwhelmingly give a mandate to that. That is not unreasonable. However in Parliament today we are settling this bill. 
In the select committee process the National Party and the New Zealand First Party raised issues about the definition of Nga Rauru Kitahi—in particular about whangai or adoptees into those families. We have been told it is inappropriate to do what the iwi would want because of the Adoption Act 1955. We think that is utter rubbish. We say that people are either part of that iwi by blood line or they are not. One of the things that is most fascinating is another concern raised by us—and I will come back to the adoption issue in a minute—concerning in schedule 12 the use of very very ethereal concepts and then those concepts being placed in law. I quote: “Rauru of the gods sky lands and seas—Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard down through the generations of the Kaahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and therefore so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi.” 
I hope someone on the Labour side will stand up and explain what that means. What I am surprised at is that the Government is prepared to put this into law. Although many of us may have different religious beliefs—varying beliefs about the origin of man—for this iwi the law now states that this is it. I wonder why it has to be in the bill. If the law was not there it would not stop that belief from being freely held. No law could take away from this group its identity. So why in settlement bills do we need references to what are essentially ethereal concepts? I do not think it adds much; I think it actually makes us look rather silly. 
The statement continues: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi makes a direct acclamation by stating its origins from the period of the Absolute Void to Rangi and Papa to Rauru the man and Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi the tribe. This claim draws together the spiritual and temporal manifestations of which Rauru is the central figure it deals specifically with the origins of: the gods man vegetation and taonga.” 
How does that add to the purpose of this bill? How does that claim sit with the requirement that someone can be adopted into that genealogy? I do not think it does. That is an aspect of this bill that I find particularly worrying. It means effectively that if say Ngai Tahu wished to expand their numbers they could simply go out and begin some sort of very heavy adoption programme. It does not even have to be in the legal sense which is interesting just in the Maori sense the whangai arrangements. I do not see how that actually sits with the concept of settling a grievance held by a people—a continuous line of people—post-1840. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s hard to fill in 10 minutes isn’t it? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am just taking a drink of water. I have a slightly croaky voice. We just heard from the outgoing member for Otaki Mr Darren Hughes a man so transparent that if it were not for his varicose veins we could see right through him. 
I conclude my remarks by saying that National will support the bill but we do hope that in future when settlements are brought to this Parliament they do not contain the specifics around ethereal concepts such as found in schedule 12. These should not be part of a settlement arrangement. They add nothing to the bill. They probably make a lot of Labour members feel good but they add nothing to this. 
We wish all of those who are being settled today with this bill all the best for the future. We do hope this passing of legislation allows them to take hold of the assets that are theirs get over the grievance and build a better future not only for themselves but also for the wider country.