Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I seek leave to have proposed new Part 4 in the name of Christopher Finlayson inserted into the bill we are debating.
The CHAIRPERSONHon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I am not going to argue with you, Madam Chairperson, or the Speaker, and I thank you very much for your wise comments. But I think it is an absolute and abject crying shame that the Crown never saw this situation coming. The Crown must have known somewhere along the line that such an amendment was going to come up.
We were led to believe at the Māori Affairs Committee—and I refer to page 23 of the commentary on the bill—that “amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” I think that was a bit of bum information. The Office of Treaty Settlements and the Government representatives must have known that the new entity was established in the year 2005, on 21 December. So we got some wrong information, and that is why we are standing here.
One of the crucial points of this settlement bill is that the whole of Parliament is in support of it. We are not trying to squeeze any more money out of the Crown. We are not trying to diddle the Crown out of whatever. We are not trying to get one over the Crown. Because some of us have been approached by the people who make up half of the settlement, I ask members to please support us in moving the assets from one entity to another, which has already been established. We did not know that the entity had already been established when we were in the select committee; otherwise, it would not have been in the commentary.
The question that has to be asked is whether the officials told members of Parliament the truth. The officials can shake their heads, but I intend to try to find out, at the next Māori Affairs Committee meeting, whether we were told the truth or whether we were led up the garden path. I am quite disappointed. We agree with the ruling given by the Chairperson and the Speaker that a new entity cannot be set up, as it states in the commentary. That is fine; we cop that—it is not a problem. But I have serious doubts as to whether we were given all the information about this issue, as it is stated on page 23 of the commentary on the bill.
The bill’s title is the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, but maybe it should be called the “Ngāti Mutunga Confiscation Settlement Bill”. I refer back to my comments earlier about the text of the acknowledgments and apology, and I say we should call the bill what it is, not what we are comfortable with so as not to offend anybody. We are talking about the history of a people. This is a people’s story concerning both the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga. It is about something that has happened, and it has taken many years to reach an agreement between the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga. So let us call the bill the “Ngāti Mutunga Confiscation Settlement Bill”. As the bill reads now, Ngāti Mutunga claim there was a breach. Everybody knows there was a breach and a negotiated settlement, so let us call it the “Ngāti Mutunga Confiscation Settlement Bill”. Kia ora.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
Although I do not normally speak in support of the previous speaker, he did raise some valid points. It just goes to show how important settlement legislation is and also the way the text of an apology is recorded. The debate over the last 40 minutes is testament to the need to have more clarity in trying to meet the wishes of any claimant group in terms of the position the Crown takes in such matters. The fact that one party to this legislation approached some people in this Chamber—and I ought to place on the record that I do not know why they approached that particular group—quite clearly is something of concern to that claimant group. Although I accept that, in terms of the processes of the House, the Supplementary Order Paper submitted by the National Party was ruled out of order, I think all of us cannot disagree with the intent of it and that on a mere technicality we are being denied the opportunity to help to fulfil the request of a claimant group—I need to repeat, a claimant group—and that of all those who have suffered breaches of the Treaty, I suggest that this particular claimant has suffered the most. The Committee had the opportunity to provide the sort of redress that it felt would be appropriate. Sadly, I have to accept the ruling of the Chairperson, and, indeed, the Speaker.
But before I sit down, I reiterate the issues regarding the references to the principles of the Treaty. The commentary on the bill refers to a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, yet most members of the House would agree that any reference to such principles is vague, unclear, or non-existent. Those adjectives have been used by some members in the Chamber. On behalf of New Zealand First, I am saddened that our Supplementary Order Paper has not been supported. I understand the comments of the honourable member Chris Finlayson that that part of the Act where it refers to another document, has led to this legislation. We accept that. I think that is valid, but where it helps to define the claimant group, as it does in clause 14, we think its exclusion would not remove the durability or the intent of the legislation. I just wanted to reiterate that point. Kia ora.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
This is a very sad day for this Parliament. I think we should have gone the extra mile to see what we, as a Parliament, could do for Ngāti Mutunga, particularly bearing in mind the history of the Taranaki wars. As Mr Paraone said, the incident at Parihaka is one of the real blots on New Zealand’s history, and I refer to recitals (8) and (9) of the preamble. I think it is worth reading out recital (9): “On 5 November 1881, more than 1,500 Crown troops invaded and occupied Parihaka. Over the following days, some 1,600 Māori were forcibly expelled from the settlement and made to return to their previous homes. Houses and cultivations were systematically destroyed, and stock was driven away or killed. Taranaki Māori assert that women were raped and otherwise molested by the soldiers:”, and two of the leaders were arrested and held until 1883. This House had no difficulty passing special legislation to provide for their imprisonment without trial.
That is a real blot on New Zealand’s history. It is something so many New Zealanders know something about, and in the first reading of this bill it was the subject of a number of emotional speeches by various members of Parliament. I would have thought that the very House that could pass that kind of odious special legislation could go the extra mile for Ngāti Mutunga in the settlement legislation, especially when the settlement report from the Māori Affairs Committee, in reporting back to the House, got it wrong. Once again, I have to say the report simply is incorrect, because it proceeds on a faulty premise. What I am seeking to do is to amend the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of a post-settlement governance entity. The report says that is not feasible, but that is not what I am seeking to do. So there we have it.
There was a humble attempt by me to try to go the extra mile for Ngāti Mutunga; and not for party political purposes. I was interested in the comments of Mr Paraone who said it was perhaps a bit odd or surprising that they were dealing with the National Party on this. The background to the matter was that last Monday I was sitting at Rotorua airport, and I am sure Mr Flavell will confirm this, and Mr Tuuta from Ngāti Mutunga came and sat down and we were speaking about the settlement legislation. He mentioned there was a bit of a problem with the transfer of assets, and I said for him to send me a note and I would see what we could do. That was not for party political purposes but simply because I feel very strongly that this settlement legislation is extremely important for the good of the country. I particularly recognise the serious events that occurred in Taranaki and wanted to do something for Ngāti Mutunga and for Mr Tuuta, for whom I have the highest regard.
It is interesting that the rūnunga wrote to the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee on 13 November setting out the various points that I have tried to make in the course of the Committee stage. I do not know whether they have received a reply, and I wonder whether the chair of the select committee will take a call and address some of those matters. It simply addresses the point that Ngāti Mutunga does not seek any parliamentary involvement in the establishment of the new governance entity Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga. This was done on 21 December 2005. But they did ask whether Parliament could assist by way of the transfer of iwi assets from the old entity to the new entity. Legislation recognising the change of ownership of assets to the new entity would simplify and expedite the task for Ngāti Mutunga in making this transition. So I was simply seeking to pick up precedent provided in the Te Arawa lakes settlement legislation, and other settlement legislation. Procedural difficulties appear to have got in the way, and that is a great tragedy because I think, in the light of that odious 1883 legislation, we as a Parliament owe it to Ngāti Mutunga to go that extra mile. I am disappointed that pettifogging procedural niceties have got in the way.
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this
I take the opportunity to respond in some way to the concerns raised by the previous speaker, Christopher Finlayson. I note that during the debate parts of the commentary on the bill have been shared with the Committee. I think it is important that we read the whole extract from the commentary in order to give an overall picture of the issue. It particularly concerns me that there has been a claim that the Māori Affairs Committee has been given faulty advice and has set up a faulty premise in relation to the commentary, so I will attempt to rectify that issue and confirm whether that is indeed correct.
Page 23 of the commentary states: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” Page 23 of the commentary also states: “The Parliamentary Counsel Office advised us that amending the bill to disestablish or establish private trusts would be very unusual and could have implications for previous settlements. They told us that establishing a new governance entity is a private matter. Settlement legislation addresses matters necessary to achieve the settlement which cannot be achieved with certainty under normal (non-legislative) processes. Although settlement legislation has been used in association with private trusts to the extent that the trusts are made perpetual instead of being subject to the rules that limit the life of a trust, the Crown will not use government legislation to establish a legal entity to receive and manage settlement assets.”
In reading that entire part of the commentary, I find that it lines up with the rulings provided by Madam Chairperson and, subsequently, by Madam Speaker. So I find it very difficult to accept that the committee had been given wrong advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements or the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I actually think that the advice was correct, and it is in line with the rulings that have been provided this evening.
The previous speaker mentioned that the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee was to receive a letter from Ngāti Mutunga on—if I heard it right—13 November. I make a point of ensuring that I respond to those who write to us, and I can confirm to the member that although I have not yet sighted that letter I will indeed be prepared to respond accordingly. I refer now to comments made by the Hon Tau Henare and say that the committee is meeting on Wednesday, and obviously there will be some debate and discussion on that matter.