Garrett David: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10467] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 My understanding is that as we are debating the Committee stage as one question we can start at the beginning and work through. I have read this bill with great interest including the preamble which in my opinion illustrates a number of things. Firstly it certainly educates those who do not know anything about the history of confiscation in the Waikato area. It also illustrates the dangers of omission and that the Maori people are willing to play a very very long game. 
I refer specifically to the part of the preamble that sets out a series of what I understand to be correct historical facts about the invasion—and that is what it was—of the Waikato in the early 1860s allegedly on the grounds that Tainui were rebels and I will come to that in a moment. 
The preamble sets out a couple of major steps: the Crown military forces crossing the Mangatawhiri River in July 1863; the Crown occupying Ngaruawahia in December 1863; and the confiscation of lands that followed in 1865. The preamble then goes on to say correctly that the Crown assumed control of and exercised jurisdiction of the river thereafter. But a bit further on—after a couple of recitals that do not say very much—it is very interesting to see these recitals: “(11) In the changing legal and political landscape of New Zealand Waikato-Tainui have always maintained the importance of their unique relationship with the River and the need to respect and restore its well-being: (12) Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta who led the Kiingitanga search for justice from the 1970’s …” etc. 
So we have a little jump there from 1865 when there were widespread confiscations not just in Waikato but elsewhere to the 1970s. That little section omits some crucial parts of history. It is a myth that used to be long promulgated that Maori grievances about confiscation were dreamt up in the recent century. That is certainly not so. My understanding from a study of history is that there were indeed complaints right from the beginning and there was an assertion that land—and resources but particularly land—had been wrongfully confiscated in the 1860s. 
In the 1920s—omitted from the preamble here—no doubt at the urging of the Maori leaders of the day an inquiry called the Sim Commission was set up. In 1928 the commission made a report that was quite startling. It stated: first that Waikato-Tainui were not rebels; second that their lands had been wrongfully confiscated from them; and third that there should be full and generous compensation forthwith. That report was issued in 1928. 
For just under 20 years nothing happened and sadly that has been the history of these disputes in this country. But in the mid-1940s—which again has been completely omitted from this potted history—the then matriarch of the Tainui tribe Princess Te Puea when asked to agree to conscription of Maori into the armed forces refused unless the Raupatu confiscation grievance was addressed. 
What happened in the 1940s culminated in the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946. It is very interesting that it mentions the Sim Commission of 20 years before in its recommendations. Its title reads as follows: “AN ACT to effect a Final Settlement of certain Claims relating to the Confiscation of Maori Lands in the Waikato District and to provide for the Control and Administration of the Moneys granted as Compensation.” 
The central provision of the Act is remarkable for its day in its clarity and lack of ambiguity. It states in section 3(1): “In settlement of all claims and demands which have heretofore been made or which might hereafter be made upon His Majesty’s Government in New Zealand in respect of or arising out of the confiscation of lands in the Waikato district (being the areas of land shown … ) there shall be paid to the Tainui Maori Trust Board … the annual sum of five thousand pounds payable on the first day of April in each and every year: Provided that … there shall be paid … without further appropriation … (a) As soon as practicable … the sum of five thousand pounds … and … the annual sum of one thousand pounds”. 
In the early 1990s when the last settlement was made with Tainui some people raised the 1946 Act and it was decried for three reasons. Firstly supposedly these settlements were for derisory amounts. Well I have done some research. In 1946 £5000 was the value of a dairy farm so today it is $2 million or $3 million. Let us be conservative and say that it is $2 million. So they were not derisory sums at all. The second reason was that supposedly it was negotiated with the wrong people. Well I have read the account by Michael King of the final settlement between Princess Te Puea and her lead advisers and Peter Fraser himself the Prime Minister of the day. 
I will paraphrase not quote directly the crucial chapter which says something like this: when Te Puea heard Fraser’s offer of £5000 per year she was so surprised that she urged X to his feet to accept before Fraser could change his mind.” I am confident that that is a very accurate paraphrase. Where did I get that? As I have said it is from Michael King’s  
Te Puea: A Life 
. Who pointed me in that direction? I will tell members: the then lawyer for Tainui. I said that I wanted to get some balance on what was being argued at the time. She told me to go and get that book and read it. She said it is the best account there is. After I did so I thought that she could not have remembered what was in it because it was quite clear that the deal was settled back then. 
The third ground is that that supposedly derisory amount of $3 million a year was eroded by inflation. Certainly it was but everyone was affected by inflation in the years from 1946 to 1990. If one retired in 1970 on a handsome pension of $65 per week by 1975 one would be in major trouble because of 5 years of 18-percent inflation. Inflation affected everyone. It has become a bit of an old cliché. I sold my first house for $18000. It was sold the other day for $360000. I am not entitled to go and get back that money. 
I come back to the bill. There is talk that in the 1990 settlement the river was reserved. Well I read the 1946 Act word for word this morning very carefully. There is absolutely no mention of the river at all. I will not repeat that section but it was a full and final settlement of grievances. The claim in this bill that we are talking about today is that back in the 1990s the river was reserved. It probably was because it is a very long game. That is why this “DRIP”—the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—has been sanguinely declared on this side of the House to be meaningless and of no effect; we do not have to worry about it. They said similar things in the 1980s. 
The illustrious former Prime Minister and premier lawyer of the country Sir Geoffrey Palmer said at the time that section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act was meaningless window dressing. Sir Roger Douglas was in Cabinet at the time. It was meaningless window dressing to keep the Maoris happy and it will not have any effect—that is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said. Yet 25 years later we are still debating and still having court cases about what that means. That led directly to the principles of the Treaty which was dreamed up across the road by the late Sir Robin Cooke and others on the bench. They said: “Well Parliament must have meant something; it cannot have meant nothing. They have not said what the principles are so we will make some up.” That is effectively what they did. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Sit down you blimmin dopey runt. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh yes the member has got very noisy but I say to Mr Horomia that he was very quiet early on. When I was recounting the early bit the stuff that he did not disagree with and did not hurt him he did not say a word. But now he is getting very noisy. 
This bill is a very dangerous bill. National has said that it is a one-off but we heard from the other side of the House immediately—and we heard it just a second ago—that it is a model for the future.