Māori Purposes Bill

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

In the last few remaining moments before the House suspends for its well-earned tea break, I would just like to make some initial comments about Part 1. This part deals with the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, particularly around the issues to do with delegations to the Deputy Chief Judge, and, if I am correct, around the judge who did not have his warrant but was sitting and hearing cases and was not eligible to do so.

I know that although the debate on this question has not been particularly severe or overexcited, there are real issues here around the principles of justice that are worthwhile highlighting. I know, for example, that the Law Commission is very concerned about some of these provisions that retrospectively validate the decisions of the judge who was sitting without a warrant. He was sitting on a large number of cases. It was not just a few cases and on a few days, at which point somebody realised there was a mistake and it needed to be fixed; he sat on, as far as I am aware, 60-odd cases—

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

My apologies, Madam Chair. I was expecting to hear from the new Māori affairs spokesperson from the second-largest party in this House, but obviously the new leadership has kicked in and there does not seem to be any interest in this bill.

I stand to take a call on this part and I want to pick up on a comment made by the last speaker, when reference was made to rights to justice being interfered with, in relation particularly to some orders made by a former judge of the Māori Land Court—and, can I say, a very eminent member of the judiciary at the time—Judge Norman Smith. I am not quite sure, but I believe it was he himself who brought it to the attention of the authorities that his warrant had expired. That is point No. 1.

Secondly, I question whether the rights to justice of people whose cases were affected by the decision of that judge had been interfered with. In any of those cases, if the applicant was concerned about the final decision made by the court, then he or she certainly still had the opportunity to follow due process. The fact that the judge was honest enough to recognise an oversight, in terms of the renewal of his warrant, is not a case, I believe, to suggest that rights to justice were interfered with.

The other issue I want to refer to in this part is the exercising of special powers being delegated from the Chief Judge to the Deputy Chief Judge. During the second reading I made reference to the point that the need to do that is possibly a result of the fact that the Chief Judge is currently also chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal, and that this extra duty has some impact on his ability to carry out his duties. But I was reminded by my caucus colleagues that because we are human we also get sick from time to time, and if the Chief Judge were to take ill, who would carry out his duties while he was off work? So we support the idea of the Chief Judge being able to delegate his authority to the Deputy Chief Judge.

Although we did express some concern about the notion of validation legislation, I think that in the case I detailed earlier, and based on the advice given to us by officials during the select committee process, we do not think that such validation would have any impact on the orders that were made by the judge at the time.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we support this part of the bill. Kia ora.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I am very pleased to be here to take a call in the Committee stage of the Māori Purposes Bill. I turn immediately to Part 1, which has three or four main points, as I am sure members of the Committee have already spoken about. I want to make a comment on at least two of those.

Clause 4 deals with the appointment of judges—increasing the permanent judge membership of the Māori Land Court from eight to 14. National supports that, but we raise the concern that, first of all, an increase in the judiciary requires a corresponding increase, I would imagine, in resources. We did not receive any confirmation that that would necessarily follow. The other thing is that while, no doubt, someone did some work on the number of judges that might be required, we are told that 14 would not be appointed to the court at once, or an extra six, but that as they were needed others would be appointed.

I stress that although it is all very well anticipating an increase in workload, it seems to me at least that the way the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has been allocating the assets in respect of Māori fisheries is running reasonably smoothly. Of course, there is the other jurisdiction around the foreshore and seabed.

As I say, we recognise that there is probably a good reason for the increase in judges, but we would wish to see some corresponding increase in resources should it prove necessary to increase the number to 14. It is no use having judges sitting there without the necessary support.

I turn to clause 5, which enables the Chief Judge to delegate to the Deputy Chief Judge some or all of his or her functions, powers, and duties conferred by the Act. Again, at the Māori Affairs Committee we had questions about that and asked the officials whether this was something that happens in other jurisdictions. If I recall correctly, although an express provision of this nature does not necessarily apply in other parts of the judiciary, nevertheless there is an understanding that there is statutory power for the next senior judge of any other court to take over if the Chief Judge is away.

There are legitimate reasons why a deputy should have the powers of the Chief Judge, and those were set out as things like illness or when a Chief Judge is prevented from exercising duties because he or she is not able to be there. If I remember the officials’ advice correctly, one of the reasons it was deemed necessary for these powers to be given to the deputy was the dual role of the Chief Judge, who is also chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal. Of course, New Zealand First has a bill on this very matter, relating to conflict. So the delegation provision seems a reasonable thing to do, but, again, it was not without some reasonably investigative discussion in the committee.

The part that concerns National most is the provision that validates the 83 decisions of former Deputy Chief Judge Norman Smith. He basically acted without a warrant. His warrant had expired, but he continued to make certain decisions, in any event. We added a note into the commentary on the report back. Although some of the committee considered that retrospective validation is justified, the National Party does not agree with the use of retrospective legislation to validate the types of decisions in this particular case.

In other words, what has happened is that the parties who were the subjects of those cases before Norman Smith actually had no idea that he was acting without a warrant at the time. Although that may not, in the long run, make any difference, none the less we do not think that the way this matter has been approached is desirable. The jury is still out for us as to whether we support this provision. He just carried on making decisions. Someone was remiss in not realising that Judge Norman Smith was acting outside his warrant. That is not good; really, it should not be tolerated. We have now come, in the form of this bill, to validate his decisions. As I say, National has real difficulty with that.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa. E te Minita, tēnā koe i tēnei pō. I want to make just a few points.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

Several submissions on the Māori Purposes Bill commented that the workload of the Māori Land Court was already heavy and that delays were being experienced. Although Te Ture Whenua Maori Act allows temporary judges to be appointed, permanent appointments are needed to address ongoing work levels. The intention is not to appoint six extra judges immediately, but to make additional appointments in stages. At present the court is operating with a full complement of eight judges, plus an additional two temporary judges.

In relation to the retrospective legislation, very careful consideration was given to the need to validate Judge Smith’s decisions. It is the best way of providing certainty to the applicants and other parties concerned. The decisions were made by an experienced former Deputy Chief Judge for a short period after the expiry of his temporary warrant. There are no issues about the judge’s expertise or competence. Individuals and their families should not be left open to the stress and expense of other action. It is important to mention that this provision is not groundbreaking. Legislation of this kind is needed from time to time. In regard to the Māori Land Court, in 1991 the Government of the day, National, passed retrospective legislation to validate decisions of Judge McHugh.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

I am not too sure whether this is the appropriate time, but I was hoping that the Minister, the Hon Parekura Horomia, might respond to the notion of extending the warrant of Māori Land Court judges. I stand up and offer him the opportunity again to have a go at that one, bearing in mind that if we are talking about workload—and he just provided some background to that—one would support that notion. Surely extending warrants a little bit wider—if they are required—might help with that situation. Of course, it is always in the hands of the Chief Judge. I stand to encourage the Minister to respond to that notion, if he can.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

In talking to the proposed amendment, I say that it does raise a particular issue for me. If we support this amendment as proposed by the Māori Party, it begs the question whether the exchange will be a two-way one. I am not quite sure whether, in fact, the Māori Party would appreciate a number of non-Māori judges presiding in the Māori Land Court, making decisions that will affect Māori. When I say that, I want to make it clear that I am not critical about the appointment of non-Māori to the Māori Land Court jurisdiction, because I believe that race should not be an issue, and that we do get the best people presiding on matters such as Māori land. I am not sure that this is the intent of this amendment, but on the face of it I cannot see New Zealand First supporting it.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I want to comment on Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendment, although it is actually Minister Parekura Horomia’s job to rebut it as this bill is in his name. I do not believe that the member Te Ururoa Flavell’s proposed amendment is in order. It seems to me to be outside the scope of this bill. I raise the question that if the stated reason for increasing the number of judges from eight to 14 is an increase in their workload,—and we are talking about their workload in the Māori Land Court—then why would anybody in his or her right mind consider that we allow the Māori Land Court judges to also sit in the District Court? That seems to make no sense at all; it is totally illogical. I have already questioned whether there is sufficient workload at this point in time to warrant an increase in the number of judges. There may be in the future; we probably think that there may be. But the fact is that the allocation of fisheries, in regard to that aspect of an increased workload, seems to be going reasonably well anyway.

Maybe our anticipating the need for this increase may come to nothing in the end. But, as I say, the stated reason for this increase in the number of judges is the increase in their workload. In my view it is absolutely a nonsense that a suggestion should be made that they also sit in the District Court.

I comment on the point that Pita Paraone made, as well, which is whether that would then mean that someone would seek a corresponding crossover. I do not even have to raise the issue of whether we are talking about Māori judges or Pākehā judges; the reality is that the jurisdiction is different. National would not support this amendment, on the grounds that it is totally illogical with regard to the purpose stated in the bill.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

Part 2 of the Māori Purposes Bill deals with amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The majority of submissions received that opposed the bill were in respect of this part. It deals with a closing date for submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal of historical claims. The date set is 1 September 2008.

National supports this part, and we certainly support the setting of a closing-off date for the lodging of historical claims. In fact, if I recall correctly, we were the first party to suggest this provision back in 2002, and it was part of our Treaty of Waitangi policy. The National Party, having raised the issue early on—and now other parties see the sense in it—takes credit for the provision. But that is no surprise anyway, given that the settlement process was largely kicked off by our party in the 1990s.

Given that there were objections to this part, I think it is very important that we state why we support it. Firstly, we should be very, very clear that we are talking about only the lodging of claims—the submission of historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Historical claims are defined as encompassing claims relating to events occurring before 21 September 1992. That date has been properly chosen, in my view, because that was the date on which the Government of the day—again, the National Government—under Sir Douglas Graham, settled upon the principles to guide the settlement of Treaty claims. The intention of this provision is to provide certainty to not only the tribunal but also claimants around, first of all, what constitutes a historical Treaty claim. I understand that the Māori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell said yesterday in his report-back speech something to the effect that this is the first time that date had arisen. Indeed, it is not. Back then, in 1992, historical claims were deemed to be those occurring before 21 September 1992.

The main reason for introducing a closing-off date is the issue around certainty—certainty for the tribunal, certainty for Governments, whoever the Government is, and certainty for the claimants. My experience as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal was that the major tribal claim would be lodged well in advance—most were lodged in the 1980s. But in the way that the tribunal approaches and hears claims, and, I hope, in the way that the Office of Treaty Settlements guides the Government in settling the claims, there is always a possibility for claims—usually minor in nature, though not insignificant to the parties involved—to arise in the course of hearings. I suggest that most historical claims are now known.

I guess if the claims are not known, then that puts a difficulty in the way of those planning for some end in sight to this process as to how they should plan for that time. If those claims are not known, then it is extremely unlikely, in my view—after sitting on the tribunal as a member, some 10 years ago—that they would not become known anyway as part of the bigger claim. These minor claims would not necessarily constitute a claim by themselves, but most historic matters would be revealed during the hearing of a claim. National supports this part, and we think it is proper.

Amendments are being proposed by both the Green Party and the Māori Party for other dates. I have looked at those amendments, and National will not support them. None of them actually make sense in terms of the way the settlement process has proceeded. But I guess if one has never been in Government, then sometimes one has a bit of difficulty in seeing the sense in some of these issues. No doubt my colleagues to the back of the Chamber will have something to say about that comment. When one is in Government one actually has to govern—that is the point—to the best of one’s ability, in the best interests of all New Zealanders.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

I really need to take issue with some of the things that the National spokesperson has mentioned, though I would like to welcome her back to the fold in terms of Māori affairs portfolios and issues. It is great to have a Māori from National back again in the role of Māori affairs spokesperson.

I take issue with the question of certainty that was raised by the last speaker. Her view that this Treaty settlement deadline gives certainty to the Waitangi Tribunal, to claimants, and to the Government is, of course, complete rubbish. The tribunal did not come to the Government and ask for a Treaty settlement deadline in order to make its process easier. The tribunal has no interest in a deadline. As far as I can tell from all the submissions we received, there was no indication from the tribunal at all that a deadline would be of any use to it.

Actually, the deadline raises real questions, given that it is set so soon. There is an argument that it is only in relation to historical claims, and that people can lodge broad generic claims with the tribunal, which they can then fill in later with the research and the historical work they will need in order to make the claim viable in the future—that they can do that after they have lodged the claim, and that that will be all right. The tribunal will suffer from a ridiculous false economy, by having large numbers of incomplete and not particularly well-researched claims lodged with it in a big, huge rush. It will then, once the deadline comes about, have to sort through those claims and wait for the claimants to be properly prepared to progress their claims.

So in a few years’ time, after the settlement date of 2008, there will be real bureaucratic problems in dealing with the management of the claims that are not ready to proceed because they should never have been put there in the first place, as they were not ready to proceed. This deadline will not be advantageous to the tribunal at all. It will not assist the tribunal in its planning, because it will not be able to progress claims properly in a well-researched and well-prepared manner. It is a totally false economy for the tribunal, and it will do it no good. The tribunal certainly did not ask for a deadline, so there is no justification for saying it will be better for the tribunal than the present situation.

And the deadline is certainly not a better proposition for claimants, either—absolutely not. The majority of submissions that the Māori Affairs Committee received on the bill were about that particular point. Of those submissions, by far the majority were completely opposed to the settlement deadline. It has been said before, and I am sure it will be said repeatedly tonight, that there has been no consultation with claimants or potential claimants about the deadline. There is no evidence at all before the select committee, in front of the Government, or anywhere else that shows that a deadline will be beneficial to claimants—nothing; no evidence; no submissions; nothing. The fact is that a deadline is not beneficial to claimants. This is a political sop put in place by Labour because National was running its race hate rhetoric, which I talked about last night. It has nothing to do with making sure that claimants have a better opportunity to progress their historical claims through a tribunal process that is designed to redress those and provide justice.

This measure does not provide certainty to claimants; the situation becomes even more uncertain for them. Claimants will now have to find ways to manipulate the process, by making claims fit within at least some kind of historical claim definition before 2008. They will have to look for things very quickly to put in their claim, which they can then back up with research later. They will have to hope that their claim is comprehensive enough, with no research, no resources, and no assistance to prepare it, and hope that later on after the deadline is over they will be able to find the information to back up their claim. So this deadline will put claimants under considerably more stress.

I note also the issue around most claims being known, which was mentioned by the National spokesperson. That is not true, either. The fact is that most of the claims that have come before the tribunal are those that were relatively obvious—that is fine—but they are not the ones that smaller hapū, in particular, will already know about and would then have been able to put forward in due course. Lots and lots of smaller hapū in this country do not have resources to submit claims. Often those hapū do not have particularly old, old people either, who have historical knowledge. We have to remember, as was mentioned earlier today, that the death rate for Māori is extremely high, so we do not have lots of older people who have the necessary historical knowledge. There are whole families whose oldest member might be 60 years old. They will not have the information they need to set out the facts about the history of their land loss in the kind of detail that is needed by the tribunal. Instead, a lot more other professional work would have to be done to enable them to prepare their claims. They are the ones who will miss out.

The tribunal process was set up to provide a system of redress and justice for exactly those people—for those who do not have access to the courts and who do not have huge amounts of money. It was designed to be an easily accessible process for Māori. But if we put in a deadline like the 2008 deadline that we have here, it will prevent the people who have the least access to justice from ever getting any, so it will completely ruin the process. The whole point of the tribunal will then be lost.

It is true that the tribunal process and settlement negotiations take a reasonable amount of time. We have had close to 170 years’ worth of wrongs committed against Māori, and of the theft of land through legislation and other means—all of the things that everybody in this Parliament knows about. We cannot expect all of those claims, all of those wrongs, and all of those issues to come to light in just a few years. It has been only 10 years or so since we began to deal with the Treaty claims and negotiations process in an effective and a clearer way. The process cannot be run quickly, and we cannot expect that it would. We should spend a lot more time on allowing the tribunal process to continue to develop and evolve, to provide the best possible framework for providing justice to the victims of these crimes, for whom it was designed.

Instead we have a Government—it has been successive Governments, actually; it does not matter whether it is a National or a Labour Government—that is trying to find ways to close down the process, because it is costly and because it makes it obvious that the Government continues to undermine Māori progression and development over time. It is true that what happened is a horrible memory. When the settlements come before Parliament, we can see that they show real horrors from our history. They are not pleasant, but this country and this Parliament have to take responsibility for what happened. We have to be mature enough to cope with those histories and deal with the fact that those awful things happened. We should not be frightened of doing that.

We should allow the process to occur. Otherwise, we will end up doing the same old thing that we always do in Parliament, in Government, and in our country: trying to hide from the facts, and making the situation worse. That is what we are doing here. This deadline is part of the process of denying justice in a system that is set up to provide it, out of expediency because it is cheaper and easier for the Government to do so. I completely agree with the National spokesperson that the deadline provides certainty for the Government—absolutely it does. But the tribunal system is not set up for the benefit of the Government; it is set up for the benefit of the victims of wrongs—the victims of crime. They should be the priority in any process.

I have three amendments to this part in my name. One of them changes the closing date for the deadline to 2050, which is a little over 200 years from the time when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. That is fair enough. It gives us another 50-odd years to deal with the claims that are coming through. It gives us another generation’s worth of time to work through the complexity of the Treaty process. Some claims are taking over 10 to 15 years to prepare, and some settlements are taking close to that time, as well. The people to whom justice is directed need to have time to work through that. That is one of the changes I would like to see made to the bill.

The second amendment is to omit the date of 1992, at which claims become historical, and replace it with 1 January 1841. That gives the Government a year after the signing of the Treaty. It can have a year in which we will accept that the Treaty was intended to be honoured. After that, all of the things the Government did and refused to do, all of the mistakes it has made, would become contemporary claims. Then the deadline is irrelevant. That is the point. The things that the Government has done, or that its representatives have done in the past, need to be held to account. We can be mature enough and grown-up enough to take responsibility for them. That is our role as parliamentarians and citizens of this country, which should be a bicultural country where two nations try to work together to deal with the issues. That change in the date will help to set the matter back and give us a clearer idea. This country is only 160-odd years old. It is actually a very young country in its current form. To say that all of the claims for what occurred prior to 1992 are historical and will become irrelevant to the tribunal process after 2008 is crazy. It is a crazy idea, so I have an amendment to change the date at which claims become historical to 1841. It is another way of showing that these are contemporary claims, that they are contemporary issues, and that they are real and live for people.

Earlier I was talking about many communities not having elders who have the memory or the confidence to talk about the things that happened to them, their families, and their grandparents in the past. Those things are live issues for the communities that live now. They are not historical for them, because they suffer the effects of the very same crimes that were committed against them. So to them the issues are not historical but are contemporary; they are right now and people suffer them all day, every day. We see that reflected in their daily lives. Therefore it is wrong to suggest that the things that were done to them—the crimes committed against them—are historical crimes.

Finally, I have an amendment to the bill that will delete the Treaty deadline process altogether, because it was never a good idea. I can hear the National spokesperson taking credit for it. She should not take credit for it; this deadline is an act of overt racism, and no one should proudly take credit for that kind of act in this Parliament in 2006. We should be a much more grown-up environment than that. We know how to deal with these claims justly. There are other models of it happening all around the world, where crimes have been committed against indigenous people and people are being held to account for them. Governments and processes have been held to account. We are a leader, in large part, in those kinds of models. We should be proud that our models work. We should fix the bits that need to be fixed, but we should never be proud of instituting blockages and processes that then interfere entirely with the process and with access to justice.

This is not a proud moment for us at all. I urge all members of this House to seriously reconsider their position on this bill and to vote in favour of my amendment or, if not my amendment, then the Māori Party’s amendment to delete the Treaty settlement deadline. The deadline is not a fair thing to do. It is not good policy. It was never a good idea. It is a racist thing to do, and it must be stopped.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Listening to the last speaker, I despair. If things are as bad as that, then I can understand why people want special privileges for a certain sector of our country. To describe New Zealand First and me as overt racists because we support Part 2 of the Māori Purposes Bill is, I think, scraping the bottom of the barrel. I am quite clear in my mind, and I say this on behalf of our party, that this country needs to go forward and look in anticipation to what the future holds for us. The provisions of Part 2 are a big step towards achieving that very goal.

I am very fortunate that one of my parents is still alive. He is 90 years old and he knows the history of his people. Yet every day he exhorts his children and those of his brothers and sisters to look forward and not go back to the ills of the past. I suggest to the Committee that Part 2 goes a long way towards addressing the very wish that people like my father have for this country and the path they would like it to go down.

The previous speaker said that if we adhered to the suggestion of enforcing a closure date of 2008, that would be justice denied because a lot of people would not have the opportunity to provide the history on which they would base their claims. Perhaps the reason why my father is still alive is that he wants to look forward. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is this. After listening to the speeches of members of some parties in this House, I would suggest that Māori already have a good knowledge of the so-called ills they have had to endure. To me, 2008 is a real compromise; my party suggested that the closing-off date should be 2010.

Part of the reason for the concern that came through from many submitters was, I believe, that they misunderstood the intent of Part 2. They thought that all their applications needed to be in order before lodging their claims. I repeat that this part of the bill concerns only the lodgment of claims. People still have the opportunity to do the necessary research required to complete their full claims. I would be very concerned if 2008 was the date on which all claims were to be settled, because then there would be the argument that claims were being dealt with just to meet the expediency of the bureaucracy. It is not the first time I have made that comment in this House.

Part 2 is specifically designed to give some certainty to Māori—quite rightly, as expressed by the previous speaker—certainty to the Crown, but, more important, certainty to this country. There is no way I want to leave a legacy for my grandchildren that means they will have to continue this battle, when we could have addressed the issue and provided a much easier path for them to face. Any notion of moving the closing-off date, in terms of historical claims, back to 1 January 1841 is just a covert way of circumventing this part of the bill. In fact, I suggest that it is a rather cynical approach. Instead of Green members just saying they oppose Part 2, they have submitted amendments in order to avoid having to admit that.

I will not make an issue of who is responsible for there being a closing-off date, but suffice it to say that setting a date is in the best interests of this country. If we are to go ahead like we want to, then this is the sort of legislation we need to put into action. It is no good saying that this was not something the Office of Treaty Settlements asked for—of course it is not going to ask for it. That office is the servant of this Government, irrespective of which party is part of the Government, and it does what is required of it in terms of the policy that the Government sets for it.

If we want to criticise the Office of Treaty Settlements, then we have to criticise the policy. I say that as one who came from a long term of service as a public servant, and I know full well that although public servants may not like certain policies, they are required to carry them out. If they do not do so, then they have to leave. After working for 39 years in the public service, I say there must be something good about it. Sometimes I feel for the officials who come before select committees, but that does not deter from the intent and the quality of this part of the bill. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that it is our pleasure to support the intent of Part 2.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) Link to this

Te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere. Ā, i tēnei pō e tū atu ana ki te tautoko i te pire whakawhiriwhiri take Māori. Hoi anō, tēnei e tū atu anō nōki ki te tautoko i taku whanaunga a Pita, te mokopuna o Kāwiti ē tū nei, ki te whakamārama ki a tātou ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tēnei wāhanga o te Tiriti.

[Firstly, greetings to you Madam Chair. I rise tonight to support the Māori Purposes Bill and my relation Pita, grandchild of Kāwiti, who stood to explain to us aspects of it that relate to this part of the Treaty.]

I am taking a short call to stand and support my whanaunga there, Pita Paraone, in his submissions supporting this bill. You know, it is very interesting that when I hear the comments of some of the previous speakers, and those from the Kākāriki, the Greens, I am inspired to recognise that we are getting closer to the days of festival, the days of merry Christmas, happy New Year, and Santa Claus. I have listened to a lot of speeches in this House, and I know that sometimes people get transformed as they get closer to Christmas, because the figments of imagination and fantasy bloom in all of us as we peruse a number of bills that come before this House. But I suggest that if the Green Party supports a 2050 close-off, then I do not think that many people will be around this House by that date—I certainly will not be here. I just wonder at their rationale, because quite frankly the majority of the Māori people in this country want to get this business over and done with.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā tātou katoa. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero ki a tātou a Māori nei, māmā noa iho te kōrero mō te anga whakamua, ko te whakatinanatanga koi nā te uauatanga. Ko tā te ao Māori e kimi nei ko tētahi huarahi kia ea ai ngā uauatanga e pā ana ki ngā kerēme, ko te whakatinanatanga koi nā te mahi uaua. Ko te nuinga o te kāinga me kī, me kōrero au mō te Waiariki, kei te whakahē ki tēnei wāhanga. E te Minita, koi nei te tikanga o te noho whakahirahira o tēnei wāhanga o te pire. Ko te nuimga o tērā hunga, he kaikerēme. Koi nei mātou e kī nei, me ūkui katoa i tēnei wāhanga o te pire. Katoa.

E pēnei ana te kōrero, ko te wāhanga 16 o te pire kei reira tētahi whakamārama mō tēnei mea mō te “historical Treaty claim”. Ā, me kī ko ngā nawe, ko ngā pēhitanga i mua tonu o te 21 o Hepetema, te tau 1992. Ko tā mātou e kī nei o te Pāti Māori, āe, kātahi anō tēnei kōrero o te “historical Treaty claim” ka puta mai, engari kei te rongo i te kōrero o Georgina te Heuheu. Nā, ko tēnei wāhanga o te pire, kā tīni haere tērā wāhanga . Ka mutu, ka whakatahangia ko ngā mea ō nehe ki tētahi wāhanga. Ko te mea nui kia whakatau i ngā kerēme katoa. Koi nei tā mātou e hiahia nei. Engari, mēnā ka whai tēnei huarahi, kua pahū ake ētahi kerēme anō o tēnei ao.

Ko te mate kē, kāore tēnei kāwanatanga i haere ki te mata o te whenua ki te pātai i ngā iwi, pēhea ō rātou whakaaro mō tēnei pire. Ahakoa kua tata eke ki te rua tekau tau o te kirimana i waenganui a ngāi Māori kia haere te kāwanatanga ki te iwi Māori ki reira kōrero ai. Nā, ehara tēnei i ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti o Waitangi, arā, ko te “partnership”, ko te “participation”, otirā, ko te wānanga i ngā take e pā ana ki a ngāi tātou. Me kī, ko te wānanga i ngā take mō te painga o te katoa.

E te Kaikōrero, ko taku hoa a tākuta Pita Sharples i ngana ki te kōrero ki te akiaki i te Komiti Whāiti Māori nei ki te poro i tēnei wāhanga o te pire—otirā, kia waiho ki te taha pea kia mutu rā anō te kōrero ki te ao Māori—engari huare ake. Me kī, kai te pātai te Pāti Māori me ūkui tēnei wāhanga o te pire kai roto i ngā kōrero i runga i te tēpu.

Kō tētahi uauatanga o tētahi kōrero o roto o te pire ko tēnei kupu ko te “submit”. Ko te “submit”e kōrerohia ake nei, ko te pepa kotahi? Āe rānei, he pepa kotahi, āe rānei e rua ngā pepa, āe rānei he ripoata? He pātai nui tērā. Ko taku e kī nei, āe, kai te kī mai te mema anō hoki, te tikanga, mā tēnei pire e taea ai e te kāwanatanga te whakariterite i ngā huarahi hei whai a ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro. Ka puta mai te kōrero a te mema o Nāhinara, a Georgina te Heuheu kai te kī mai a ia, ko te nuinga kai te mohiotia e te motu. Ko tāku e kī nei, nōhea tēnā kōrero, nāwai tērā i kī? Ko tā mātou o te Pāti Māori e kī nei, kua mutu kē tērā. Kua kōrerohia kētia, ko te 1.3 piriona taara tāku e kōrero nei, kua oti kē tērā. Ko ngā kaupapa here o te Office of Treaty Settlementskua oti kē tērā. Ko te wāhanga ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi, kua oti kē tērā.

Nō reira, ko tāku ki tērā wāhanga o tērā kōrero. Nō reira, ko tā mātou e kī nei, āe, me anga whakamua engari me whakatikatika i ēnei wāhanga. Ko tāku e kī nei hei kōrero whakamutunga, me poro i tēnei wāhanga, me tīmata mai anō i te tīmatanga. Me hoki ki te iwi, ki reira kōrero ai. Kia ora tātau.

Nō reira, ko tāku ki tērā wāhanga o tērā kōrero. Nō reira, ko tā mātou e kī nei, āe, me anga whakamua engari me whakatikatika i ēnei wāhanga. Ko tāku e kī nei hei kōrero whakamutunga, me poro i tēnei wāhanga, me tīmata mai anō i te tīmatanga. Me hoki ki te iwi, ki reira kōrero ai. Kia ora tātau.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Kia ora tātau katoa e kōrerotia nei ngā kōrero mō te kaupapa nei.

[Greetings to us all debating this matter.]

I very rarely agree with my whanaunga from Matauri, but I would like to stand here tonight and record for Hansard my support for his recommendation that the closing-off date for Treaty settlements be 2100. Me mihi atu ki a koe, Dover, e whakatakoto i tērā kōrero roto i te Whare nei.

[I salute you, Dover, for making that statement in this Chamber.]

But on a more serious note, I come back to a general question, which I address to all Māori in this Chamber. It is a simple question: do they believe—and I ask them to raise their hands if they do—that their tūpuna thought there would be a deadline for Treaty settlements? What I thought would be the case is so; none of us believes that our tūpuna thought that. Let the record show that neither the Minister of Māori Affairs nor any other Labour Party Māori MP put up a hand. Neither did the translators, the officials, nor anybody else in this Chamber. So while we are here talking about a closing-off date for Treaty settlements, no Māori in this Chamber believes that any of their tūpuna thought there should be one.

That being the case, I ask myself what the rush is. The Treaty was never meant to have a deadline, although if it is to have a cut-off date then I do support the Green Party spokesperson’s suggestion that it be 2050 because, if the statistics are right, by 2050 we will be halfway there, and when that bill comes up in 2050, it will be out the back door as quick as look at you. So kia kaha rātou te moe tahi, te hanga i te iwi, kia pai te āhua o tēnei Whare.

[I encourage them to wed each other and to create a race that will enhance this Parliament.]

The Treaty was not about a deadline. There was no end date. Our tūpuna had no expectation that there would be an end to their claims to rangatiratanga, an end to their rangatiratanga runga i wā rātou whenua, ngahere, moana me wēnā atu o ngā taonga o Te Ao Māori.

[self-determination over their lands, forests, waterways and those other treasures of Māoridom.]

There was no expectation by Parekura’s ancestors—or Dover’s, Dave’s, Clem’s, Pita’s, Metiria’s, Georgina’s, Te Ururoa’s, or mine—that their rangatiratanga would come to a end on any particular date. I know this to be true, as do all of the other Māori in this Whare. If Governor Hobson had said: “You can have your rangatiratanga but on a certain date it’s all going to come to an end.”, then how many people would have signed the Treaty? It would have been the same number of people as the number who put up their hands in the Chamber tonight—none.

The Treaty is about our management of our resources, both Pākehā and Māori. The Treaty talks about dispute resolution, about rights of citizenship, and about governance. It does not talk about an end date for any one of those things.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

In respect of Part 4 I would like to raise a generic issue about the settlement of claims, whether relating to aquaculture or otherwise, and I would like to raise a point that was brought up with me by one of my whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau, where many wise people come from. He said to me that one of the reasons we should be opposing the Treaty claims settlement process, be it in relation to aquaculture or otherwise, is that—

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You ruled against the previous speaker speaking from another desk. But under Speakers’ ruling 45/6 it is quite clear that a speaker can speak from any desk that he or she likes.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

I move, That the Committee divide the bill into Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill, the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill, .