Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6380] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill but I want to make a number of comments before we start. 
Might I first acknowledge the long struggle that the people of Ngati Mutunga have had since the events of Parihaka the century before last. It seems strange to me to describe the time of that event as being in the century before last because it happened only some 75 years before I was born. Sometimes I think we forget just how short our history in this country is. There is no doubt that many young New Zealanders now look upon the historic event of Parihaka with quite a degree of pride in the way in which the passive resistance was carried out and with some shame at the way in which those people who were protesting their own rights were so forcibly ejected from their lands. It is relevant in discussing this bill’s ratification that we remember those events because the oral history of Ngati Mutunga has conveyed the circumstances of those events to young people in the iwi today just as strongly as any of the whakapapa prior to that time has been conveyed to them. 
I bring that up because the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said that today’s claim has been ratified by 95 percent of those eligible to do so. That is not right. The reality is that some 1300 people were able to vote for or against this claim and only just over 600 chose to do so. It is true that of those 600-odd 94 percent said yes but we can argue that that does not necessarily constitute a majority of the iwi. This causes me concern because a grievance quite rightly has been held by the iwi over these last 140-odd years—130-odd years I should say; I do not want to make myself sound too old—and there is no doubt that from today the story will continue to be carried on in the generations ahead of us. It would be unfortunate if in a future time some of those young people were able to say: “Well my ancestors didn’t vote for that so how can I be included in this full and final settlement?”. I want to make it clear and put it on the record that the National view is that this is problematic but we accept that given the opportunity put before the people it is reasonable to assume that those who did not choose to vote were in fact choosing for the settlement. In other words their non-vote was an acceptance of the arrangement. 
We should also remember in that context that any treaty settlement is only as good as what can be offered at the time and never really reflects the great losses that some of these iwi suffered. In the case of Ngati Mutunga at least 75000 undisputed acres were confiscated from them because they were considered to be in rebellion when as I said before the history of Parihaka would show that that was hardly a reasonable conclusion. 
The bill acknowledges a number of cultural sites for Ngati Mutunga. It requires that the Geographic Board consult with Ngati Mutunga over names in that particular area it sets aside some particular parts of the rohe for their exclusive use at various times and it gives the opportunity for the iwi to pick up subsequent properties at an agreed valuation should they become surplus to Crown requirements. That is in addition to the $14 million of cash in compensation. National members say to Ngati Mutunga that this settlement is a significant step forward. Its acceptance by the tribe is generous given the circumstances it was put through and that at least has to be acknowledged. 
The issue of governance from this point on which was raised by the Associate Minister is an interesting one. We have received from Ngati Mutunga a proposal that their transition from an iwi authority to a private trust be put into this legislation in order to facilitate it. We will consider that document over the coming weeks before we go into the Committee stage but I make the point that under the current structure that Ngati Mutunga has there is no legislative impediment to their moving to the new structure. There are some legal requirements and those requirements will have a cost but as the Minister said much of that cost has been met by the extra grant that the Crown made to the iwi in the settlement process. 
I also ask why any organisation in this country that has been brought together to collectively advance the betterment of the people for whose benefit it exists would want to be bound by statute. Why does Ngati Mutunga want to have the Parliament of New Zealand decide what its iwi structure and organisation should be? Surely that is a choice for the 2000-odd members of this iwi. I ask the leaders of Ngati Mutunga who have advanced this Supplementary Order Paper idea to give us an answer to that over the next few days. I do not think there is any advantage in their accepting from the Crown after so many years a cash settlement—with all the other bits that go with it—that will allow the iwi to be more self-determining and more able to do things for the people who have a claim upon that iwi then binding themselves immediately into an organisational structure determined by this House. 
As members we regularly have before us private bills from other organisations throughout the country whose governance organisation is statutorily confirmed. As time moves on that arrangement often does not fit so those organisations come here to ask us to give them new legislation free them from those shackles and let them go on their way. By and large that is what happens. So I think the leaders of Ngati Mutunga need to think very very carefully about whether they really want that proposal to be advanced because there is much greater opportunity if the organisation which in this case is Ngati Mutunga is freed from the clutches—or the claws if you like; the direct leash—of this House and that is also much more relevant to self-determination. 
National looks forward to the Committee stage of this bill. There are a number of points that I am sure both sides of the House will wish to make as we progress towards a conclusion. This reading marks a further step on the way for Ngati Mutunga in a process that started in 1996 and is now after 10 years looking as if it may soon reach some conclusion. I am pleased to state again that National will support this settlement bill—albeit with our reservations about the mandating process.