Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10091] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Thankfully there will be a reshuffle on that side of the House. I say that because that Minister and his predecessor have not given all their heart and all their will to a job that deserves a hundred percent. I do not believe that if when one is given a job and when one takes that job one does not give a hundred and fifty percent of one’s heart and will then there is no legacy. Quite frankly that Minister and his predecessor leave no legacy whatsoever. 
Is the settlement of Te Roroa durable? No it is not. Is it fair? No it is not. There are two questions in any settlement. It does not matter where the settlement is—whether it is in Te Roroa whether it is in Taranaki or whether it is in Ngai Tahu. Is it durable and is it fair? Those are the two questions that I ask myself more often than not. And more often than not the answers to those two questions are “Yes”. Yes it is durable. Yes it is fair. Unfortunately this settlement is neither durable nor fair. 
There has been talk tonight about whether the settlement was signed and agreed upon under a certain amount of duress. After 13 years or so the settlement was absolutely signed under duress. 
I do not mean that the Minister or people from the Office of Treaty Settlements sat there with a big hammer and knocked the participants around. But 13 years of a process is enough for anybody to one day say: “OK I agree; let’s get on with it. Hopefully we will get something out of it.” That is what I mean by duress. 
I turn to the issue of cultural redress the return of koiwi. I heard my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui speaking about that. Yes I did repatriate some taonga and I am still as proud as punch for that even though I think I got a bad rap for it when it happened. But that is water under the bridge. I want to say that it would be very very easy for any Government—not only Labour but any Government—to get a meeting with the museum and work something out about repatriation. Because that is essentially what happened when I went overseas; I sat down with a couple of museums and talked about repatriation. It is easy when one puts one heart and soul into it. 
As my learned colleague Chris Finlayson said the submissions on this bill were interesting. The ones from Te Roroa were heartfelt and one could see the pain and the struggle of years gone by. These submissions were not from people who in the last 3 or 4 months had written a submission and produced 25 copies to the select committee. They were from a group of people who had worked tirelessly for more than 13 years. One could see the weathered look of those people who had survived the process of negotiation. Their submissions were ones that I think we will all remember. 
There were the submissions from the independents and yes there was the submission by Stephen King—not the author of horror novels although when he walked into the select committee I thought he was out of a horror movie. I had always heard of this bloke; I had seen him on the TV. I too share the sentiments of the Hon Mita Ririnui that when Stephen King cut the tree only a baby tree I felt so sorry for the tree. 
Then there were the ugly submissions—the ugly submissioners. In all my time in the House—to some it is not long; to some it may be far too long—I had never ever seen submissions like I saw in the Te Roroa settlement process. These ugly submissions were full of language that even I—from South Auckland from Otara—baulked at when I read them. Not a lot worries me; not a lot phases me. Those submissions from Allan Titford and the One New Zealand Foundation did. I am glad to say there was a unanimous decision in the select committee to make sure that we would not hear those submissions because of the language. So I say kia ora to my colleagues on the select committee. 
I know that my colleague Chris Finlayson does not like the term “cross-claims” but I suppose it is what I have been brought up with. There are issues about cross-claims in this settlement—as there certainly are in Ngati Whatua and Te Arawa—which tell me that the processes this Government has are not particularly right. If the processes were right then there would be no problems things would move smoothly and we would all be in favour of a durable and fair settlement. Because some things have not been done properly we say no; we say that we cannot support a settlement where a number of things have not been signed off properly. I respect my colleagues from New Zealand First and Labour for wanting to get this bill through but I also reserve the right to say that National will not stand by and see people treated in such a manner that they do not get a hell of a lot out of this deal. Nine million dollars—OK that is a couple of Saturday wins in Lotto. That may be good; that may be bad. But what really riles me is the fact that after all that has been said and done the cash that Te Roroa gets to purchase other lands—such as maybe some of Kaharau some of Te Taraire—is only $74000. I think that when we put it in those terms—and this is a settlement to say sorry to apologise for the past—we see that it does not go anywhere near it. I do not want to be a member of a party that wants to unpick settlements along the way and we will not. We will not unpick settlements that have been done in good faith. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: What are you doing? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What are we doing? The member asks what we are doing. Well he does not know—“Old Spanky” does not know. He has most probably never even once in his whole career in Parliament sat down with a bunch of Maori and actually discussed the issue of settlements. Never have I seen that man on the marae talking about settlements—never ever—having his 5c worth because that is all it is worth 5c. And they got rid of the 5c coin a long time ago. 
But let me get back to the whole issue. From that side of the House tonight I have heard a speech from a Minister who was as pious as I have ever heard a Minister talking in this House. I have never heard such a condescending and pious speech in all my days. Yes the quantum is not enough to purchase—[ 
Interruption 
] Look I tell that member not to mind about us. National was in power without me for a while and then it was in power for 3 more years and we did a whole lot. We did a whole lot in terms of Treaty settlements so that member should not bother going there. Labour will lose in an argument or discussion about what National has done in terms of Treaty settlements. I mentioned before a legacy. Well the legacy for National in terms of Treaty settlements is Sir Douglas Graham. The party he belonged to was National. The party he belongs to is National. 
Lastly I want to say that I am dumbfounded at the ability of a select committee not to be able to make changes in a settlement process and I think that that is something this House must address in the very near future. 
 It does not say to the Crown that it must do this; all it says is that the select committee proposes or wishes the Government to take a course of action. It does not hold a power of veto and it certainly does not say to the Minister that he must listen to the select committee. So I urge the House shortly to have a discussion and come up with a better way of dealing with Treaty settlements when they appear before a select committee. Kia Ora.