Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
It is a great pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. Although I am more familiar with the members of Ngāti Apa who reside in Te Tau Ihu, I am very familiar with the land and the territory that we are considering in this settlement bill, which relates to the North Island parts of the Ngāti Apa iwi. I will start by referring to the words of one of my colleagues in the first reading of this bill. Mita Ririnui detailed the background to this settlement. We have now rolled up this Committee stage all together into what I understand can be quite a wide-ranging debate, and I would like to traverse some of the comments that Mita Ririnui made in the first reading. He said that the history is interesting. Ngāti Apa entered into negotiations with the Crown during the late 1800s. He said: “Ngāti Apa entered into a process, which basically began with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi for a simple purpose: they encouraged settlement but at the same time they wanted to be recipients. They wanted to be in the position where they could benefit from much of the technology brought here by the settlers. So they entered into many discussions with Crown agents, many of whom are mentioned in the preamble to this bill. Certainly they are mentioned in the historical account. But that did not happen. In fact, Ngāti Apa went through a process of being subjected to land confiscation and land acquisition to the point … where they were left with simply 1 percent of their original land holding. For them, that had a tremendous impact. … It led to the undermining of their culture, the loss of their language, and the fragmentation of their whānau, hapū, and iwi to the extent that they did not participate in the development of the Rangitīkei area. In fact, they were what we might call onlookers.”
I take those words from my colleague as a starting point for the detail of this settlement bill. Here we are, finally, after many, many decades, and many lives and deaths of tūpuna from the Rangtīkei area who will have been aware of this travesty from the moment of their birth until the moment of their death. They will have passed on the concerns and the grievance about the injustices to people who now carry the torch on their behalf.
Another of the points that have been noticeable in this whole settlement process of the North Island Ngāti Apa settlement has been the involvement of young people, of young negotiators. Here we have something that I suppose represents some of the worst and some of the best of our Treaty of Waitangi history in New Zealand—some of the worst in that the land confiscation and deprivation of a living or a livelihood were amongst the worst of the crimes that the Crown committed against iwi. But we also have some of the best in that we have young people, young leaders, emerging in Ngāti Apa who have been able to take this claim forward and to press for the kinds of redress that are now familiar to us in the Treaty settlement process. There is an apology, and this is right. It is proper. There is cultural redress, and that is right and proper. There is compensation, and that is right and proper, albeit probably nowhere near the dollar amount that could quite legitimately be claimed by Ngāti Apa. There is finally the restoration of some parts of land and property, Crown forest land, which is part of this settlement.
So we have all these elements here, and in this Committee stage it is important to reflect on some of the words on the page. It is very clear to whom this bill refers and what the meaning of “Ngāti Apa (North Island)” is. Those people are identified and are written into the legislation. There is provision for cultural redress in Part 2. The very purpose of the legislation at the outset is to record the acknowledgments and the apology offered by the Crown in a deed of settlement. Part 2 refers to the cultural redress, but Part 3 provides for commercial redress, which includes the transfer of settlement-licensed land and public access to the wāhi tapu on that land. Clauses 7 and 8 record the acknowledgment and apology offered by the Crown to Ngāti Apa. The text of that acknowledgment is written in full in the bill. The text of the apology is also written in full. I think those things can bear scrutiny and discussion in Committee.
Nobody in this Chamber will disagree with the settlement legislation. Let us wait and see, but I imagine that nobody will disagree with this. I do not want to labour points unnecessarily, but it seems to me that we have another good example of settlement legislation that does deliver the things that are now absolute prerequisites. I look forward to the day when historical claims are settled, they are over, and that period of our history has been settled.
Hon MARYAN STREET Link to this
I shall finish this contribution on the Committee stage of the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill simply by referring to a couple of bits in the bill that often do not get the airplay they deserve. Before the dinner break I referred to the fact that the text of the acknowledgments by the Crown, and the apology offered by the Crown, are set out in the bill itself. It is worth referring to these because in the descriptive bits that preface the legal clauses of the bill the text of apology says this, in clause 8: “(1) The Crown recognises the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of Ngāti Apa (North Island) in pursuit of their claims for justice and redress from the Crown and makes this apology to Ngāti Apa (North Island) and their descendants. (2) The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Apa (North Island) for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, and its principles, acknowledged above. (3) The Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions over the generations to the present day which have had a detrimental impact on the traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Apa (North Island), their access to customary resources and significant sites, economic and social development, and their physical, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing.”
These are the clauses that matter, together with the cultural redress, the compensation, and the return of lands. These are the things that cement in our future going forward. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Chair. I rise to support the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. I follow on from the previous speaker, Maryan Street, in saying that the bill has been a long time getting here. There are dates in here relating to 1842 and 1862.
The North Island Ngāti Apa claim is very, very interesting. There is explicitness about what was taken from them, what was given to them, and how they were charged for the advice or whatever that was given to them a long time ago. I recognise and remember my colleague Dr Cullen, who is not here, for the effort he put into this bill; Mita Ririnui, who is doing great work on the road; and, of course, myself. I thought I would thank myself for this. It is great to see the Crown moving this bill along. I look forward to the day when it will start a claim and finish one. I need to recognise the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who has put in a whole lot of effort, and I acknowledge that he is trying to get there.
There were some peculiarities about this claim. There were some tensions amongst the iwi themselves about a dozen or 15 years ago about even taking a position. I mention from the outset the incredible adoption and adaption of the old people and the young people. This was one of the first claims that I saw for many a year where the old people stood up and decided to tell the young people they should get out and finish off the job, but that they had to report back to them. It was wonderful to watch. It took a lot for the older leadership to ensure that they were understood. It took a hang of a lot of effort by Adrian and his crew to do the deal, and they did it well.
I hazard a guess that claimants could take a great lesson from the effort put into this claim by these people. Ngāti Apa as a group has been raising grievances with the Crown for over 100 years—a long, long time—and how they got to the final post needs to be celebrated. It was a mix of the old people and the young ones who took it forward.
The longstanding grievances have taken their toll and the iwi have lost a lot of their leadership. They have been traded out and surrounded by a whole lot of other groups—people who have settled their lands who took them by force. From 1848 the Crown purchased over 400,000 acres of land in which North Island Ngāti Apa held interests. Through these land transactions North Island Ngāti Apa endeavoured to establish a relationship with the Crown. That North Island Ngāti Apa sought subsequently to strengthen this relationship by expressing loyalty to the Crown has not, I feel, been recognised well enough by successive Governments. I am certain that in order to get to this stage all of that misdemeanour can be put asunder.
They undertook to strengthen the relationship. They chose to set a framework to work within and then invited Governments into it. I believe that the North Island Ngāti Apa claimants were some of the most hard-done-by in the sense of people removing land from them, shonky deals, and all that sort of stuff. The 1849 Rangitīkei-Turakina purchase stated that lands between the Whangaehu River and the Turakina River—approximately 35,000 acres—would be received for all of North Island Ngāti Apa to collect and settle on. That was in 1849. Later native land legislation enabled these reserved lands to pass through the Native Land Court, which awarded land interest to individuals rather than to all of the tribe, excluding many North Island Ngāti Apa from ownership of the tribal reserve lands. The Crown’s failure to ensure that the arrangements recorded in the 1849 deeds were given effect was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.
Over 100,000 acres of land in which North Island Ngāti Apa held interest was subject to native land laws introduced in the 1860s, in addition to reserves from the Rangitīkei-Turakina purchase. The operation and impact of the native land laws, in particular the awarding of land to individual North Island Ngāti Apa rather than to iwi or hapū, made the lands that North Island Ngāti Apa were able to retain more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. A lot of that alienation was orchestrated in quite an interesting way, with people being bought out and pandered to, and this contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of North Island Ngāti Apa, which are based on collective tribal and hapū custodianship of land. The Crown failed to take steps to adequately protect those structures. This had a prejudicial effect on North Island Ngāti Apa and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.
We came forward as a nation, and the purpose of this bill—which is stated to bind the Crown, which is really important—is to record the acknowledgments and the apology offered by the Crown to North Island Ngāti Apa in the deed of settlement dated 8 October 2008. It was signed by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen; by me as the Minister of Māori Affairs; and by the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.
I need to mention Lillian Ruihi Manawaroa Te Aweawe, Rōpata Te Hina—Bob Te Hina—Arikihānara Mare Mare, and Mariana Shenton, who are all four of North Island Ngāti Apa. The bill gives effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement, which is a deed that settles the North Island Ngāti Apa historical claims. That is why we support this bill, because we certainly have our fingerprints and effort all over it.
The apology is explicit: “The Crown recognises the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of Ngāti Apa (North Island) in pursuit of their claims for justice and redress from the Crown and makes this apology to Ngāti Apa (North Island) and their descendants.” It is an easy reminder in relation to 100 years; it is a long time coming. It states: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Apa (North Island) … Accordingly, with this apology the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs, begin the process of healing and make a significant step towards rebuilding a lasting relationship based on mutual trust and cooperation with Ngāti Apa (North Island).”
I can recall when we went to the marae to sign the first lot of documents. The old people—and there was still a bit of tension—welcomed us with open arms and they were certainly more than respectful. It was a real enjoyment to see the celebration and the humbleness of those people. One could certainly understand the effort that had gone in from the young group.
The cultural redress is quite clear: “protocols to be issued to the trustees by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage; and an acknowledgement by the Crown of the statements made by Ngāti Apa (North Island) of their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association with 9 statutory areas, … the vesting in the trustees of the fee simple estate in 17 cultural redress properties and subsequent management arrangements in relation to various sites; and the alteration of place names.”
The alteration of place names was very, very important for them, because in some of the areas and sites of significance one of the key issues was how people had taken away the mana of the people by renaming places with some far-flung value from overseas and ignoring what was really Ngāti Apa’s.
Mita Ririnui said in his speech the last time we discussed this bill that it was incredible that the young people of Ngāti Apa could bring this settlement to the House without too many problems. I can say that the problems they had were handled very well. They were more than capable, which shows us how young people can bring this to the fold.
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this
Ā, kia ora anō tātou, tēnei huihuinga o tātou i roto i tō tātou Whare i a tātou e whakatata ana ki te paunga o tēnei tau, e whā, e rima, e ono pea rā e toe ana, kātahi ka tutuki ngā mahi i whakaritea hei kōrerotanga mā ngā kaitōrangapū i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei tau. Nā reira, me mihi atu au ki a tātou tā te mea, kāhore pea he take rahi atu, pai atu i tēnei, hei kōrerotanga māu tātou i te toenga o tēnei tau tā te mea, ko tā tātou e mahi nei i tēneki pō, he whakawhiwhi atu i ngā uri o ngā kaumātua me ngā tūpuna nō rātou ēnei taonga i te tuatahi, kātahi ka whakakorea, nā eke rawa ki te wa e noho nei tātou, e whakahoki ana ki a rātou. Nā reira, kāti ēnei kōrero ki tō tātou reo Māori. he wāhanga pea e toe ana nā, ka hoki mai anō ahau. Kia ora tātou katoa.
[Greetings once again to us, this assemblage in this House of ours, as this year draws to a close with about 4, 5, or 6 days remaining when the politicians in our House complete what has been set down for us to achieve this year. So I need to acknowledge us, because there is no issue greater or better then this one for us to debate in what is left of the year, because the task before us tonight is to deliver these resources to them, descendants of the elders and ancestors who owned them originally but had them confiscated. The situation prevails to our time today, as we consider their return. Insofar as saying something in our mother tongue is concerned, this is sufficient for now. Should a part remain later, I will come back again in our Māori language. Thank you all.]
I join my colleagues in supporting the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. Ngāti Apa are not only located in this part of Aotearoa that we are talking about, they also are part of the Kurahaupō waka confederation, and an element of that confederation moved into Te Wai Pounamu. There was a time when the iwi Ngāti Tū Mata Kōkiri, if my memory serves me correctly, were the tangata whenua in that portion of Te Tau Ihu o te Waka. Not only did Ngāti Toa and elements from the Tainui waka go into that area, but part of Ngāti Apa as well. Good news has been visited upon the Ngāti Apa of that area. One of their great leaders the whaea the kuia Kath Hēmi had the ability to whakapapa not only to Ngāti Kuia but to Ngāti Apa and, I dare say, to Rangitāne.
I recite this history because in this part of Aotearoa there has been a dispersion of iwi and hapū, partly as a result of colonisation but also pressures as a result of inter-iwi dynamics, and some went to Te Wai Pounamu. To mention the name Ngāti Apa down there is to invite a rather hefty response from Sir Tīpene O’Regan as to where the Ngāi Tahu boundary exists, but that is for another discussion.
This is also the people of Tariana Turia, and I acknowledge her this evening. No doubt she has played a key role in ensuring that these claims, in particular the ones from this area, are not overshadowed by the more obstreperous iwi. I include my own Ngāpuhi nui tonu iwi and that of my colleague Mr Parekura Horomia, Ngāti Porou. We tend to try to crowd out the space of people who have a somewhat more reserved approach to these matters. One may not believe it, but I do have that view about Tariana Turia. No doubt she is reserving as to whom she will visit her favours upon, post-2011.
But let me come back to this bill. This bill enables the transfer of property and resources back to the tangata whenua. I just saw that one of the properties, of great interest no doubt to Simon Power, is the Marton golf course. Only a cursory view of recent Treaty-based history would tell us that there have been some dreadful rows about golf courses in Aotearoa. Indeed today I heard the daughter of Eva Rickard—Angeline Grensill, the academic at Waikato University. As I heard her voice, I could hear the strength of her mother, the woman who in the late 1970s stared down Mr Muldoon over a golf course and also assembled a motley bunch of university students and various other fellow travellers who were interested in reviving interest in our language, culture, and land rights. It is good to know that that was eventually settled. I might be slightly ill-informed on whether the Marton golf course has created a similar level of disharmony, but I doubt it very much.
Not far from there is an area where one of the great kuia rangatira of Te Ao Māori was born. Her name was Mere Rikiriki. She had the whakapapa of these people. Members from that part of Aotearoa, including the current member for Whanganui, would know of her name. She was reputed to have predicted the emergence of the great Māori leader from Ngāti Apa and similar tribes, Wīremu Tahupōtiki Rātana. I say that because when we are offering reserves, the underlying title to golf courses, land that has an economic value in terms of its afforestation, and the rentals associated with growing trees on that land, we must never forget that the landscape derives a lot of its meaning for the local Māori when they are able to recite the names of the hapū and the tūpuna, because it is an ancient Māori belief that to recite or to utter the name is to invoke the presence. As they say: “He mana anō tō te kupu, he mana anō tō te ingoa”.
So although there are neighbouring claims that have not been settled and they are on a slower trajectory, it is good that we can join and move forward on this issue. There will not be an immediate bonanza, there will not be an immediate El Dorado, from these kinds of lands, but it satisfies a part of the Māori personality and the Crown’s honour that we do the best we can at a given point in time and do it with honesty and sincerity and are willing to stand up and be counted. It is easy to lambast deals of this nature: that it is an insufficient quantum, it is an inadequate response. But in all of these Māori Treaty-based initiatives that we are pursuing in this decade we rely on the goodwill of the people on both sides. If we move too far away from having either the ability or the sight to foster ongoing goodwill, then we lose the mandate, or we lose the legitimacy, within the public to continue with this work.
It is good that the two main parties, supported by other parliamentary parties, etc., are able to say that these lands are being restored. Indeed, some of them will be administered by local government. I fail to see why my own relations in the far north and, indeed, my very good friend the Mayor of Far North District Council are not able to explore with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations whether that represents a remedy to the ongoing wrangles in that lovely seaside village, otherwise known as Taipā. The name Taipā comes from the fact that wherever one touched there was a great deal of seafood, although Auckland is about to invade my area over the next 2 or 3 weeks so I fear the seafood may take a bit of a hammering. However, Labour will be back by the end of next year and the seafood will be restored—kina, pāua, kōura, mātaitai, kai moana—all sorts of different delicacies.
Rahui KateneKūtae, yes. As is always the case it is a challenge to define whom one is settling with. But those rules, and the role of defining who the members of Ngāti Apa are, lie with their rūnanga. The Crown has observed a set of constitutional thresholds and it really is a responsibility that has to lie with the hapū and the rūnanga, as opposed to us following some sort of North American model where an entitled family might be a fraction of this and a fraction of that. In fact, I have met a whole host of descendants of the original Native American tribes and they give their blood quantum in fractions. I perish the thought: one day I am going to have a mokopuna, because my daughter is about to get married and the fellow she is marrying is a little bit Portuguese, a bit Spanish, and a bit Māori. My daughter is a bit Dalmatian, a bit Welsh, and a bit Māori. So we have not gone for that approach; we have gone for this very expansive view that those who are members of the hapū, are accepted by the local people, and have the ability to attest that they whakapapa back to the original tūpuna can then claim to be Māori. If the group they purport to belong to decides that someone is not living up to their name or that their zest for consuming the rights that that whakapapa might give them are not up to speed, then they will be told off. Kia ora tātou.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
Whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga, kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura, he tio, he huka, he hauhunga. Tēna koutou ki te Whare.
[Cease the winds from the west, cease the winds from the south, let the breezes blow over the land, let the breezes blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air, a touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day. Greetings to you, the House.]
I started with that whakataukī in response to the Hon Parekura Horomia’s comments that there has been a slow number of settlements under this new Government. The reason I used that whakataukī is that it talks about a red-tipped dawn coming across the nation.
Ha, ha! It talks of the promise of a new day, and that is what we are seeing under this Government. Although the Hon Parekura Horomia sits on the other side and says there have not been many settlements under this Government, he is quite clearly incorrect. Under the previous Labour Government we saw a mere 1.6 settlements per annum over 9 years.
Chester BorrowsThere were 1.6 settlements. Under this Government we have achieved 10 settlements in just 2 short years. I do not pretend to be a mathematician of any ilk, but I simply divide 10 by two and come up with five. Perhaps I am wrong, but I suggest that five settlements per year are quite a bit more than 1.6 settlements. On any count we are well ahead of the previous Government in terms of settlements.
It is not about when they start, my friend. It is when they finish. It is not about whether you set out to climb the Himalayas and reach Mount Everest; it is whether you climb them; whether you “knocked the bastard off”. Actually, we are knocking those bastards off, and doing it one by one. We have done 10 over 2 years, or five per annum. Ngāti Apa is another one—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is about the term “bastard”. I have a great deal of admiration for that man, given his fortitude for playing second place to Parekura Horomia’s cousin Hekia, but we do not use the word “pōriro” on the marae, and we ought not to use “bastard” in the Chamber.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I just say to the member that I thought the word was used in the context of a very well-known quote from a famous New Zealand icon. It is part of the New Zealand vernacular. It is also a word about legitimacy or not, so it is not offensive in itself. I did not think that the member was using the word in an offensive manner. He was using it, I thought, in a colloquial manner, and the Chair certainly did not take any particular offence. I invite Chris Tremain to continue.
Thank you, Mr Chair. It was certainly not meant in any manner that would offend. It was used to clarify exactly what members on this side are achieving in terms of settlements. We believe that settlements are an important part of moving this nation forward. It is a bit like the way that Parekura Horomia moved forward on Saturday last week in the Iron Māori. I should bring to members’ attention his achievements when he took part in the Iron Māori in Ahuriri this week. It was a half-marathon. I am not sure how many laps he did, but when we are talking about settlements and taonga I am surprised he is not a taonga that is still left out on the racecourse, my friend.
I would not have been able to keep pace with the member.
The point I make is that the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill is wonderful legislation. We are proud to be bringing it to the House and proud to be making significant gains for Māori in this country. Settlements are important, and in closing I make the point that a number of Pākehā wave their hands and say we have settled too much or spent too much on making these settlements happen. If we look at it in the wider context, we have spent less on the settlement process to date than I understand may have been spent on the South Canterbury Finance claim. The point I want to make clear is that this legislation is empowering Māori to be part of the wealth-creating engine of this economy. The more we can do that, and the more that iwi and hapū are part of that economy, the more they will lift themselves off the deck in terms of the statistics that we all decry. I think Parekura Horomia would join me, as would Shane Jones, in that sense. The more we can lift that aspiration, the more we can make Māori part of the wealth-creating engine of this economy through settlements, through wealth creation, the better this nation will be. I will close with the example of Whale Watch Kaikōura and what that community has achieved through a settlement process that has empowered that community. Thank you very much.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this
I did well in the Iron Māori; I did the 21 kilometres. But I did not see the previous speaker, Chris Tremain.
I join with Chris Tremain and commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for doing 10 settlements in 2 years. I also commend Dr Cullen and myself for setting the platform over 10 years to make sure that this Government had 16 claims that it could quite simply finish off. We have done all the hard work, and it is wonderful.
I see the Minister in the chair, the Hon Wayne Mapp, passing notes to Chris Tremain. That is not the role of the whip; it is supposed to happen the other way. That is what this settlement is about—an interchange of notes. It is about transactions that people never stuck to. There were people from the Crown handing notes to the purchasers—Mr Spain and the other fellow. They went around the country buying up the land. They said one thing, and did another.
As my colleague Shane Jones said earlier, in the early 20th century many Ngāti Apa were attracted to spiritual leaders and movements. The first of these leaders was the North Island Ngāti Apa spiritual leader and prophetess, Mere Rikiriki. She was well known. Her followers showed concerns about their loss of land and mana. Following the First World War, many of the Ngāti Apa were also drawn to the spiritual and political leader Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana, whose tribal origins included Ngāti Apa. From the early 1920s the Rātana movement grew. The point is that Ngāti Apa have stood the test of time with humility, recognising that the deal had not been done properly.
In the interchange of notes, it is very interesting to see that the rangatira Āperahama Tīpae was most indignant from the outset at the transactions of Mr Spain and the other purchasers, who came in and talked about giving $1,000 for so many acres, but then trebled the size of the purchase. Some indecent things were done. He was indignant that he had not been consulted during previous attempts to purchase land. It is very, very interesting. He negotiated hard with Ngāti Apa to secure their consent to the Whanganui purchase, in return for a small share of the payment that Mr Spain had recommended he make to Māori for their lands. It was fascinating, because Āperahama Tīpae said that the land was barren of Pākehā, these new people, and he wanted his house to be filled by all these new people who came off the boat—pale-skinned people. He was very, very keen to have them come into his house, which was his lands. He was of the view that if he got these people in, he could mirror the success that he watched being built around him. It was a bit like those issues that are akin to the Kīngitanga.
I suppose what is important, as the previous speaker mentioned, is that it is wonderful to get to this point in time. The issue is that it is not a competition, and certainly I hope we are not professing that this is about only accelerating or praising the economic position of Māori and building it on Treaty settlements. The Treaty settlement will never correct, replace, or build up what was taken. I am really pleased that that member noted that. We do hear of these people, some of whom we know as kakī whero in this country, but most New Zealanders are reasonably decent. They know when a wrong was done, and they want to put it right. That is what I want to commend Mr Tremain for. At the end of the day, this settlement will not correct all of those wrongs that were done, but at least this is an attempt to take it forward.
If we believe that there is not enough money—because it seems to be it is with this damn money, which is used to correct those things, where we impinge the Māori people, as the Crown impinged the Māori people’s mana—then we have got something wrong. There has always been a fascinating differentiation between mana and moni. Some people have made out that they are talking about mana, and really they are after moni. That happened with money in the early days. A lot of people promise a lot of money for a lot of mana, but it did not work out.
I am fascinated, and I thank that member for reminding me about how we found $1.75 billion like that, in a very short time, to correct a lot of reckless gambling. But I wonder at times. Women were screaming at me on Saturday about Māori being mad, bad, and sad, and that all they do is go to the TAB and play housie—those sorts of people are nutters. Thank goodness the average New Zealander is not like that. I wonder whether every Māori, or every Pākehā for that matter, who went to the TAB or to housie got their money repaid, because they invested it recklessly. I say thank you to Mr Tremain. I really admire him for bringing up the $1.75 billion.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
No, it was $1.75 billion. You see, this is a distortion of the figures again—Pākehā to Māori. That is terrible! I know it was $1.75 billion, but that member says it was $1.5 billion. It is still alive and well! Shame on that member! It is still alive!
I am encouraged by that member. He recognised that I did the Iron Māori. There were 764 Māori who decided to swim for 2 hours, bike for 90 kilometres, and some brave souls walked 21 kilometres. What was that about? It was about participation.
Craig FossHon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I say to Mr Foss that I was there; he knows that. I was trudging along. I held my head up high, and I went down the track. That member knows that. Where was that member?
I am encouraged by what Mr Tremain said. I am pleased that the Raupunga settlement is getting very close. On 22 December the deed will be done. I look forward to Mr Tremain ensuring that the Ahuriri settlement is done, that the Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua settlement is done, and those out at Hineuru and Waikaremoana. I look forward to that.
I encourage Mr Tremain to continually talk to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He is not a bad joker, actually. He will get there. He has a lot to learn, but he has a reasonable nature and he was kind enough to invite us along to settlement sign-offs. But it is like anything else. The beginning is the most difficult, and the middle part is more difficult, as my friend from Whanganui knows. There are all these ups and downs and tensions, and we get all this make-believe—the people who do well out of it are the legal advisers. But getting towards the end of a settlement is something that we should share and celebrate. I commend the Minister for that.
Mr Tremain, who is a mathematical wizard, has made me understand that it is $1.5 billion—I do not know how he gets $1.5 billion for a Treaty settlement, but they have done five in the last 2 years. I want him to remember that there have been 9 to 10 hard years spent negotiating at the top end, pushing things around, and getting it into a box where he is easily able to push it along a bit, sign it off, and be thanked and have praise heaped upon him, and be told that he is the man because he has done all of this by himself.
But, you see, Māori are not fools. They know what is going on. They know that more than 100 years is a long time to wait but that they will get there. Mere Rikiriki, Wīremu Rātana, and all of those great people are remembered at this time, as are the older people who handed over to the young people to get this settlement. Minister Turia’s son was one of the key people in this, as was Andre and the group of women who were there. They did a great job of this, with a great Government at the time, and they have certainly helped this Minister forward to get to a better place.
Along with Mr Tremain I am looking forward to the Ahuriri settlement, so that when I do the next 21 kilometre walk next year, along with him, and him swimming, I will know that Māori own the land. That will be wonderful. It will be great to walk on land where the tūpuna and kuia used to do that. They used to fish when the waters were clean, and make sure that the food reserves were full. That this Government will replenish and replace that is certainly something to look forward to.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Mr Foss talks about the earthquake. He would not know an earthquake even if he visited one.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
It is a fiscal earthquake. That is the fiscal report, I say to Mr Foss. That is why he is still on that side of the Chamber, and my cousin is on the second bench. I commend my cousin Hekia Parata for becoming a Minister. She is my close cousin. The one thing in Māoridom is that we cannot deny our genealogy. Some Pākehā try to hide it away. We have got rangatira—chiefly, kingly status.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this
I think it is appropriate that on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who is not able to be here tonight, I take a call during the Committee stage of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. We have heard a lot of rhetoric across the Chamber, and as we get close to Christmas that is probably appropriate because it is a sharing, in a good-humoured and good-natured way, of credit and claims, and there is a sense of, dare I say it, ownership of this particular settlement.
It is worth putting some of these things in context. As we all know in this Chamber, we have been dealing with settlements effectively since 1995—specifically the Tainui settlement and the fisheries settlement. Mr Tremain said that the total payout for South Canterbury Finance of $1.75 billion is greater than the settlements over that 15-year period. It would be very close indeed. I think that it is worth our giving pause for thought. If we look at it in terms of annual amounts, in 15 years the total amount we have paid in settlements is approximately $100 million a year. That is out of annual expenditure by the Crown of $60 billion on behalf of its citizens. So we are talking about a small amount of money, relatively.
What we are really doing here tonight is restoring mana and dignity. It is important for iwi—North Island Ngāti Apa, along with all other iwi who have claims—that we recognise their role as iwi, rather than as individuals. Young people in particular, who might in many instances be alienated or feel a sense of dispossession, will themselves gain something if they know that their people have a sense of empowerment. I have been listening to the debate. In particular, both Mr Tremain and Mr Jones emphasised the importance of settlements being a springboard to development. It is not so much the settlement itself that does that, but the sense of empowerment; it is the ability to move beyond the past that matters.
I refer to one part of the preamble—in fact, the very last sentence of the preamble. It states: “Today, Ngāti Apa (North Island) own less than 1% of their traditional lands:”. Reading that, one might think this must have been a massive raupatu, but it was not like that, in fact. It was a series of incremental measures taken over 100 years that led to dispossession. That has led to a deep sense of grievance, which we are settling today. In fact, the amount of money is perhaps not that important—$16 million is not a large sum of money. There is some cultural redress, there is some transfer of land, but it is largely symbolic. What really matters here is the sense of empowerment for iwi and the ability to move into the future.
It is easy, I guess, for different parties to claim credit, and it is right that we do, but I think that, 2 weeks from Christmas, we should think of those things that actually unite the major parties in the House in particular. I think it is also appropriate to recognise the specific role here of the Hon Tariana Turia—in part it is her people who are being recognised—and the role of Ratana.
This is only one of many settlements. There will be more to come. But at some point in the future of New Zealand—it maybe a few years away yet, and it might not be achieved as quickly as one might like—we are going to be able to say that we were able as a nation to move past the past; we will remember the past, but it will not weigh on us, and it will not be a burden of grievance. There will be a sense of memory, and the ability of people to progress. That is really the context of the settlement.
The bill’s preamble is very important. Having history written in statute matters, because it is enduring, and it is there as a testament. It is the Crown recognising the past and then settling with the people to enable them to have a sense of purpose for the future. We all wish that the future of the rangatahi of Ngāti Apa will not be blighted by the sense of grievance that their tūpuna have suffered.
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this
I follow on from my senior colleague Parekura Horomia. I want other members of the Committee, in particular those on the Government benches, to note that there is a bicycle in Napier that bears testimony to Parekura’s attempt to deliver the goods. That bicycle could actually be used to uplift the ebbing prospects of the Prime Minister’s cycleway. When Parekura says that he was the Ironman, it is very churlish of Mr Foss and others to deprecate his contribution.
In terms of what Dr Mapp has said, I will take us to the actual preamble to the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. The preamble is really a narrative of bicultural history and colonial history in that part of the country. A name that looms large in this narrative is the name of Donald McLean. Donald McLean, amongst other things, was responsible for the promotion of the four Māori seats and the creation of Māori representation, which is being unwisely undermined by our colleagues in the ACT Party. But that is another matter; those members are not long for this world. Donald McLean’s role in relation to this bill shows how one single individual was extraordinarily influential, and not only in areas such as Ngāti Kahungunu. One day a Government of the future will get to the claims of Hawke’s Bay, and that Government will find that Donald McLean, the Crown’s commissioner, was very influential there in acquiring, on behalf of the Crown, vast tracts of land. It is evidenced that he did a similar thing here.
Also represented in this narrative is the story of the Kohimārama Conference. These are largely obscure events, and that is an indictment on social studies, or whatever the heck it is called these days in the education system, which is diminishing by the day as a consequence of the delinquency from the current Minister of Education. But that is another matter; we leave the small task of correcting her excesses to Dr Pita Sharples, and we will hold him responsible in the event that a single further Māori family suffers, which they no doubt will, as a consequence of her delinquency or his dilatory approach.
I come back to the essence of this bill. Although it is about our families, etc., it is also about the key contributions that significant figures in colonial history have made. In a limited sense they probably thought they were actually improving matters. Indeed, there is a reference where Donald McLean expresses inordinate surprise that Commissioner Spain had not reported that Ngāti Apa had considerable interests in the Whanganui block. The name Spain features large in the history of Māori land transactions, and indeed the man was even active in the north; I fear he had something to do with Taipā, which continues to bedevil my relations and Pākehā neighbours, and a few of my Māori whanaunga as well. He was actually involved in the first Land Claims Commission, so for people who fear that the Waitangi Tribunal is a recent innovation that is blighting the country and ask why it all cannot just go away—unfortunately they never will—they ought to read what actually happened in the 1840s.
One of the first things that happened was that there was an old Land Claims Commission. Some of the characters in this narrative sat on that claims commission. That was when the first land claims were investigated. Of course, they looked at the blocks of land that had been acquired prior to the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi, and they ascertained what particular blocks of land ought to stay with either the inheritors or the individuals who believed that they had bought vast swathes of the country from the tūpuna, the rangatira, and the tribes.
It is quite extraordinary that only small amounts of land remain available for the purpose of restoration back to Ngāti Apa, but it is a salutary lesson that the debts of history continue to—“haunt” is too strong a word—challenge modern generations of New Zealanders.
What is particularly important about this bill is that although the amount of money may be small, an important resource is being restored in terms of the land that is capable of being afforested. We are going through a growth phase of earnings associated with forestry. In all honesty, I am only disappointed more Māori land, in this particular area or other areas, has not been afforested. If there is any money left in the Crown Forestry Rental Trust one day, I look forward to hearing that such moneys might be dedicated to such a purpose.
When these settlements are eventually implemented it is important not only that the Crown continue to work with the rūnanga but that the Crown, with the rūnanga of the day, start to focus on the units within Māoridom that really make all the difference: the families. If the families of Ngāti Apa are concentrated on by the Crown as it works with the rūnanga to develop new initiatives and policies, then the kinds of problems the current Minister for Social Development and Employment is endeavouring to deal with will be helped.
I must say I welcome Paula Bennett back to the Whare Pāremata. I was not one of the Māori men who were critical of her when she said that it was about time the leaders of the rūnanga and the incorporations started owning more of the problems and generating the solutions to the dramas that affect our young—not necessarily our kids, but our young teenagers. All of the work of a rūnanga will fail if we continue to allow these negative statistics, which particularly blight our young men, to race away on us. This may be only a rare occasion on which I am offering such charitable thoughts towards the member for Waitakere, but I welcome her back. I will hear of her on Radio Live, where no doubt we will learn more about how Sarah Palin gave her geography lessons.
Hon Paula BennettOK, she did not just drink tea while she was over there; she learnt the full meaning of the name Tea Party.
I come back to the bill. A host of sites are in here, and I see that not only local government but the Department of Conservation has ongoing responsibilities. We need to ensure in the future that State agencies such as the Department of Conservation are adequately funded to address those obligations. We need always to be very careful when we implement these settlements that we do not unwittingly introduce too much red tape. When people want to use the resources to create jobs and develop investment, etc., we have to address environmental interests, but Māori, rūnanga, and investors themselves will be very quick to complain if, as a consequence of the implementation of the settlements in association with the Department of Conservation and local government, we get new layers of unnecessary complexity.
I reflected on that concern when we discussed matters to do with the Waikato River. Indeed, it is coming thick and fast over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which will be a test with regard to whether Māori can have any faith in the current governing coalition. Although Labour members are prepared, unreservedly, to support this particular bill, we are deeply concerned by the ongoing negativity that flows out of the select committees, etc., and, indeed, by some of the extraordinary utterances coming from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He may be exasperated that people feel that Vikings, Phoenicians, and other sorts of lost Europeans were floating around the Pacific, but it is probably not constructive to describe them all as clowns. I recall Doug Graham calling Hugh Barr a clown. Unfortunately for current politicians, Doug Graham is gone and Hugh Barr is still here. That might say that Hugh Barr is on some sort of elixir. We seem to float through this House and eventually move on, but the likes of Hugh Barr, I think, has a role in the seabed and foreshore legislation that is inversely related to his ability to be constructive or to help solve these issues. It is disappointing that he is a chorus for the ACT Party. Kia ora tātou.