Garrett David: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Garrett David: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10839] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the only party to oppose this bill. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Shame on you. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: It is a shame I say to Mr Horomia that he is not giving me the courtesy I gave him which was to allow him to speak without interruption although I was sorely tempted. But I thought I would show respect by not interrupting the member. It is very sad that Mr Horomia should take that attitude at the outset. 
There will be those who will be offended by my speech—most notably I suspect my colleagues to my left. I would simply like to say that that is not intentional; I am not rising to give intentional offence. The ACT Party genuinely believes the contents of what I am about to say. As I have said I hope that some members at least will have the courtesy to listen as we have listened with respect to them. 
I wish to start by quoting as best I can William Hobson New Zealand’s first Governor who when signing the Treaty of Waitangi greeted each Maori co-signer with the words: “He iwi tahi tatou”—we are one people. The Treaty promised that we would all be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race. It did not say that Maori and Pakeha as two separate entities were equal partners. That is an invention of the 1990s. Article 3 expressly gave Maori all the rights and privileges of British subjects. Although that seems a little funny today it was seen as something that had great value in 1840. 
There were indeed many breaches on the Crown’s side and those are rightfully being redressed. But today we believe that in this House the Crown is committing another major breach by putting the Waikato River under co-governance. Co-governance of our resources was not envisaged by those who signed on to create a new nation in 1840. It represents the abandonment of the cornerstone of democracy: one person one vote. It makes a lie out of article 3 of the Treaty. The Kingitanga Accord contained in schedule 1 of this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlements Bill explains the impact of co-governance. The accord states that decisions must be made by consensus. That would not be a problem if half of the people who will be making up the Waikato River Authority were not undemocratically chosen by and representative of such a narrow base. 
Waikato-Tainui and other tribes are effectively being granted veto power over anything that may have an effect or impact upon the river. The accord specifically states that they have control over the “development amendment and implementation of strategies policy legislation and regulations … and the processes for granting transfer variation and renewal of consents licenses permits and other authorisations for all activities that potentially impact on the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River”. That is a lot of power and trust being placed in the hands of such a few people many of whom will be unknown to most New Zealanders. 
I ask exactly whom these people represent. The 2008 Waikato River deed of settlement on which this bill is based seems to have been written with very few Maori in mind. The deed states that the Waikato River represents the mana and mauri of Waikato-Tainui. The river is a metaphysical being with its own mauri. The concept of mauri—life-force—will in our view have little significance to most Maori who according to census figures are mostly Christian. But that phrase is essentially the life-force of this bill. It is that belief in a life-force that has given life to many of the clauses in the bill. The Crown is giving half of the control of the Waikato River and its surrounding land to five iwi led by Waikato-Tainui because of a religious belief—or a world view as Ms Street referred to in earlier debates— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised at the analysis that this bill is based on religious belief alone. That member has gone way outside what the bill is about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: With respect to the member I say that that is not a point of order. It is a point of view but it is not a point of order. Order concerns the House. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Nice try I say to Mr Horomia but it has— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me I say to the member but I have not sat down yet. I will just say to the member that it is out of order to refer to a point of order once it has been dealt with. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: People can believe in whatever they like. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of religious expression but what makes this bill we are debating so dangerous is that it promotes one group’s belief or life view—ontology I believe is the technical term—over all others. 
This bill and the 2008 deed of settlement can be traced back to the 1995 deed between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown which specifically excluded the river from the so-called full and final settlement. Section 24 reserved a future claim to the river for reasons unknown to me but perhaps for a time when iwi leaders could secure for themselves a more attractive package. We can leave aside for a moment the fact that the 1946 settlement which I referred to in an earlier speech on this bill was said to be a full and final settlement of all raupatu claims but was set aside by the next “full and final settlement” in 1995. We will leave that aside. The disturbing factor about both the 1995 settlement and this one is that they are based on deeds of settlement that in neither this bill nor the 1995 Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act form part of the legislation itself. 
Perhaps that is deliberate because when we find and read those deeds it is clear from their terms that they are not in fact the final word on the subject matter at all. Both may be amended by agreement between the Government and Waikato-Tainui. That fact and the history since the 1940s at least tends to suggest that the grievances will never be fully and finally settled. The more honest Maori radicals such as Mr Harawira and Professor Margaret Mutu admit that this is the case. They say that no generation of Maori can bind those who follow. 
Twenty years ago Sir Geoffrey Palmer said that the reference to Treaty principles that he inserted into the State-Owned Enterprises Act would be meaningless; that has proved to be very very wrong. So when the Government flew Pita Sharples and Maori Television to New York to sign the aspirational Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we are inclined to believe Hone Harawira when he says that we will see the declaration applied to our children— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Anei au e whakarongo nei ki nga korero o te mema. Kei te patai au ki a au ano he aha te take o enei korero ki tenei pire? Ko nga korero e korerohia nei e kei tawahi ke e iri ana. No reira ko taku ki a koe whakahokia te tangata nei ki te pire ki te ngako o te pire e korerohia ake nei. Kua tae mai nga manuhiri kei te hiahia ratau ki te whakarongo ki te putake o tenei pire. Kia ora tatau. 
[ 
I have been listening to the member’s speech and I wonder what does it have to do with this bill? 
The speech he is making pertain 
s 
 to matters overseas. Therefore Mr Assistant Speaker bring him back to the bill to the nub of it. The visitors are here; they want to hear what this bill is about 
. 
 Greetings to us 
.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has gone outside the strict realm of the bill but he is drawing on that material to make his point. I sense from the member that he is in an uncomfortable position because he is articulating a position that is a minority view. This is a House of robust debate. It is also a House of free speech. I think the member should be entitled to exercise his right of free speech. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Kare aku raruraru kia korerohia nga take o te wa ki roto i te Whare Paremata nei. Koinei te wahi tika hei korero i nga take. Engari ko tenei take e hangai tonu ana ki tenei pire. I waihotia mai ai wetahi i tuhia e etahi hei painga mo nga tamariki mo nga mokopuna o apopo. Ko enei korero he korero mo nga take i tua atu o tenei pire. Koinei ke te putake o taku nawe. No reira ko taku noa ake ko te ki atu he pai tonu te korero engari whakahokia mai te mema ki te putake o tenei pire koa koa. 
[ 
I have no problems if we talk about current issues in the House. This is the proper place for matters to be debated. But this matter relates directly to this bill. Some were bequeathed and recorded so that future generations would benefit from it. These statements are about things that go beyond this bill. This then is the real crux of my complaint. What I am simply saying is that there is nothing wrong with talk but please bring the member back to what this bill is about 
.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I respond to the member again by saying that this is my ruling on the matter and I do not want to have another point of order on it. I have ruled on it. The member is making a point of criticism about the bill. He is making a point of criticism about the clause. He is then articulating the arguments to support that and it is perfectly within his right to do so. If the member does not continue on at length about that it is acceptable; it is acceptable in passing. At this point the member has not gone beyond that. I have ruled on the matter. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A tu ana au ki te whakatika i te korero he a te pokokohua nei i te mea e mohio ana au kua rere atu te Minita i raro i te maru o te Kawanatanga ki te Aporo Nui engari ko te pou whakaata na ratau ano ratau i utungia. 
[ 
I rise to correct the false statements made by this boiled head because I know that the Minister flew as part of the Government to New York but the television crew paid their own way 
.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member for the information. That is not strictly a point of order; there is nothing to rule on. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: For the last couple of decades the Treaty settlement process of which this bill forms part has been characterised by Governments on both sides making thoughtless token gestures only to see them take on unexpected legal significance. It is no wonder that many people are feeling angry. Now we have completely abandoned full and final settlements and entered an era where nothing will ever be settled where grievances will be created against ordinary people by both Crown and Maori and where those who are aggrieved will have nowhere to turn. 
Many New Zealanders regardless of their race have an affinity for the Waikato River. Most of us value it greatly for what it provides. We do not have to be Maori to feel a connection or to be angry when the river becomes dangerously polluted—or so we have thought. But this bill says that our connection does not matter. One hundred and seventy years on from the Treaty signing we are further away than ever from being one people. This bill in fact is saying the exact opposite: forget Hobson’s “We are one people.” This House is today making a conscious choice as to which of those two people are more important. 
Many people will not believe me when I say that we in the ACT Party fervently wish Maori to have the same health statistics education statistics welfare statistics and yes crime statistics as the rest of us. The problem with this legislation and similar bills is that it encourages Maori to look backwards to dwell on grievance rather than to look forward. Aside from the other objections we are no means certain that this bill will help the people it is meant to help—Maori people. We believe that we are heading further down a very dangerous road and the ACT Party is unashamed to oppose this bill. Thank you very much.