Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I move, That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill is an important milestone for the people of Te Rōroa. It addresses the significant and longstanding grievances suffered by them as a result of acts and omissions by the Crown. It will not only enable Te Rōroa and the Crown to move forward together in a positive Treaty relationship but also provide the foundation for Te Rōroa to build a better future for its people.

Te Rōroa have travelled a long and difficult journey to get to this point, and I want to underscore that for members: they have travelled a long and difficult journey to get to this point. I suggest to members—and I will return to this theme—that it is for Te Rōroa to have determined that they were ready to reach this point, and it is not for others to derail, or attempt to derail. All Treaty settlement negotiations are complex and take time, but Te Rōroa know this better than any other group. Not only have they sought redress since 1861; they have been negotiating their Treaty settlement claim with the Crown since 1992.

Settling this claim is another important step towards settling all historical Treaty claims. It continues the progress evidenced by other recent milestones, such as the draft agreement in principle for the settlement of Waikato-Tainui’s Waikato River claims, and the signing of terms of negotiation with Turanganui a Kiwa claimants recently in Gisborne.

I encourage every member of this House to read the preamble to the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill with considerable care. It sets out the history of the claim and records how the Crown breached its Treaty obligations in respect of Te Rōroa. It tells us why it is so important that this bill is before us today and why it should not be hindered by any in this House in its progress.

The negotiations for this claim have covered a lot of ground. They have been wide ranging, comprehensive, and certainly challenging. Both parties have demonstrated commitment and, I think, tenacity in achieving a settlement, despite the obstacles along the way. The people of Te Rōroa themselves have demonstrated their support for the settlement, with a ratification approval rate of 92 percent.

I want to emphasise again to members of the House that, in considering their position on this bill, they remember that the people who are affected by the bill—the people to whom this settlement belongs—have ratified this settlement with an approval rate of 92 percent.

I acknowledge the efforts of Te Rōroa kaumātua and kuia who are no longer with us, but who years ago sought redress for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. Ka huri atu ki ngā mate o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi, haere, haere, haere.

[I turn to each of the tribes and acknowledge their deaths. Depart the dead, farewell, depart.]

I also acknowledge the commitment of members of the Te Rōroa negotiating team, over the 13 years of negotiations, and the members of the Te Rōroa governance entity who have been working hard over the past 12 months in order to see this settlement go through to fruition.

The Te Rōroa settlement includes a wide range of redress, designed to meet the interests of Te Rōroa as well as to provide a foundation for their future. This includes financial redress of $9.5 million, which Te Rōroa have chosen to receive mostly as property; cultural redress, including an overlay classification over the Waipoua Forest; protocols; statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition all designed to facilitate Te Rōroa’s role in Crown decision-making and to enhance the Treaty relationship; and the gifting of 24 sites of cultural significance, comprising an area of over 2,000 hectares.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered this bill, and has submitted its commentary to this House. The majority of the committee has recommended that the bill be passed with minor amendments. I thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the bill, and I do believe that that consideration has been thorough.

In their submission to the committee, the trustees of the Te Rōroa governance entity spoke of the pressure of exercising the first stage of the right of deferred selection. The Government was pleased to be able to address these concerns by offering to extend that for a further 6 months after the settlement date. I note that this change does not require an amendment to the claims settlement bill. However, an amendment to the deed of settlement is being made, by agreement.

I am aware that concern is expressed by some that Kaharau and Te Taraire are not included in the land to be transferred to Te Rōroa in the settlement. Kaharau is predominantly in private ownership, which is a matter that members need to be clear about. It is predominantly in private ownership. The committee’s report states that some members find this unsatisfactory, and they say that the quantum should be increased to allow Te Rōroa to purchase both properties, or to allow for the acquisition of those wāhi tapu already identified within the two blocks. The National Party members say that the settlement is not durable, because these properties are not being returned through the settlement.

This settlement has also been criticised for not addressing issues raised by the Waitangi Tribunal in its reports. I remind members opposite that the Te Rōroa report was released—and I remind members opposite of this—in 1992. In the report the tribunal made recommendations that affected private land, including the area of Kaharau. It was the National Government of the day that determined the response to the Te Rōroa report. I am sure that many members will remember the division and the dissent, both in the local Dargaville community and, indeed, nationally, when the Crown tried to purchase other private land that the tribunal had recommended be returned to Te Rōroa. As a result, the Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended by that Government shortly thereafter to prevent the tribunal from making recommendations in respect of private land.

Kaharau is discussed extensively in the Te Rōroa negotiations, and, as the people of Te Rōroa know, the fact that it is not part of the redress is not about the sufficiency of the quantum. Te Rōroa have said that it is inappropriate for them to purchase Kaharau and that they do not want wāhi tapu areas identified publicly. Thus, in negotiations, the parties focused on enabling Te Rōroa to secure the return of the maximum amount of land while ensuring they were in the best possible position to obtain Kaharau themselves, should it become available. The Crown is also gifting the one small part of Kaharau that it owns to Te Rōroa, as cultural redress through this settlement.

We also strengthened other elements of the package in recognition of the fact that Kaharau is not being returned. For example, Te Rōroa is being gifted over 2,000 hectares of land as cultural redress. I point out to members that that is the highest figure for land gifted in any settlement since that of Ngāi Tahu.

The Te Rōroa settlement includes a wider range of redress than was recommended in the Te Rōroa report. Additional redress includes the quantum, much of the land being gifted as cultural redress, the relationship redress such as the overlay classification of the Waipoua Forest, and protocols issued by a number of Ministers.

Te Rōroa do not need others, including politicians, to tell them of the significance of the lands we have discussed. Ultimately, the decision as to whether this settlement is acceptable to Te Rōroa should be a decision for the people of Te Rōroa. During the ratification process there was a vigorous debate about the merits of accepting this settlement. The overwhelming majority of Te Rōroa chose to proceed. As I noted earlier, 92 percent of those who voted, voted to accept this settlement.

We all know that settlements cannot and do not fully compensate Māori for the losses they have suffered, either in economic or in cultural terms. We all know that for every wāhi tapu on Crown land returned to tangata whenua, there are many in private ownership that are not. But compromise on both sides has been a critical ingredient of every Treaty settlement since the 1990s—on both sides, and of every Treaty settlement. Every settlement is about the Crown and Māori reaching a point where they can agree to shift their focus from the past to the future. So, although Treaty settlements cannot be about full compensation, they should be—and I believe that each has been, since the early 1990s through to this day—an honest attempt to heal the past and provide for the future. The Te Rōroa settlement is about Te Rōroa making the decision to build, to plan, and to look to the future.

This settlement enables the people of Te Rōroa to look forward with anticipation, and to view the years ahead with optimism and enthusiasm. It provides them with a platform, of their own building, to grow and develop. This settlement establishes relationships to ensure Te Rōroa are involved in the decision making that affects them, and it returns land to them from which they have been separated for too long.

Perhaps most important, this bill gives effect to the settlement that Te Rōroa have determined to ratify. Their decision should be recognised, their decision should be respected, and their decision should be honoured by this House. The Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill should proceed through this House without delay.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

National opposes the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, and, as we said in our minority report, we do so with great regret. On other occasions in my short time in this place I have said that settlement legislation should be a cause of bipartisan celebration, and of course I stand by that. But this bill represents a cause not for celebration but, rather, for regret. I note the Minister Mark Burton’s comments about National and other parties derailing, or trying to derail, the settlement. I tell the Minister that I have read not just the preamble to the legislation but the full Te Rōroa report of 1992, known as Wai 38. I know what the issues are in this settlement process, what needs to be addressed, and what has not been addressed.

I also know what the response of the Māori Affairs Committee is when dealing with settlement legislation. As we say in our minority report, it is a very blunt instrument. We can say either yes or no, and on this occasion National says no. The key reason why we cannot support this legislation is that this settlement is not durable. Admittedly, the deferred selection process in the bill as reported back does represent an improvement on the bill as introduced, but it is still not particularly good. Of greater moment is the failure to address key items of cultural redress. How can there be a durable settlement when the issues we have identified in our minority report have not been addressed? I am referring to the return of kōiwi to Te Rōroa, and to the Kaharau and Te Taraire sites. National says that this settlement should have substantively addressed issues that were raised by the tribunal in its report, but major issues remain unresolved.

A word needs to be said about the course of the select committee hearings. There were a number of submissions, and they fell into three categories. First, there were those from representatives of the iwi. These were heard in Dargaville, and I was touched by the depth of feeling surrounding the settlement. The preponderance of views seemed to be that the settlement was not really a cause for rejoicing. Some people grudgingly said it was the best they could get in the circumstances. Others contended that one cannot have a settlement when key issues remain outstanding. I must say that I had a tremendous sense of sympathy for all submitters on behalf of the iwi. Rather than the settlement process healing division, this negotiation seems to have caused division. Secondly, there were a number of independent submissions, and I was very impressed by the submission made by Brendan Lyne of the firm of Grant Thornton in Auckland. Mr Lyne had given a great deal of assistance to Te Rōroa over the years. As I understand it, he also has a property in the area, and his contribution was compelling and thoughtful. Finally, some submissions were disgusting, both in terms of content and language. Some of them had to be returned by the select committee because the language was so inappropriate. Once expurgated they were permitted to be re-filed, and they were carefully considered by the committee. Whatever the depth of feeling about an issue, select committees should not have to receive obscene submissions.

At the end of the submission process my colleagues and I became very uneasy about the durability of the settlement, because something seemed to have gone wrong. We also received a briefing on cross-claim issues. I must say I do not like the term “cross-claim”; I prefer the term “other tangata whenua claims”. We thought a real issue was involved here, so I was less than impressed to be told shortly before we deliberated that a mediation that had resolved most of the issues had been held in 1997. How can the Office of Treaty Settlements simply come across a mediation agreement at such a late stage? As we say in our minority report, this is unsatisfactory and confirms our belief that the Office of Treaty Settlements lacks ministerial leadership, that it has inadequate institutional memory, and that the whole settlement process has become bureaucratised and process-driven.

I recall that in response to a question from my friend and colleague Mrs te Heuheu an officer of the Office of Treaty Settlements said that there had been five or six negotiating teams during the course of this inquiry. How can one expect the Office of Treaty Settlements to have a proper institutional memory when there is such a regular changing of the guard? How can one expect Māori to be other than extremely frustrated and disillusioned by a settlement process where the other side’s negotiating team changes as frequently as Italian Prime Ministers? If it were me, I would become extremely annoyed at having to re-educate the new team on what were the principal issues that needed to be addressed or wait until the new team upskilled itself.

Of course, in recent days the whole process has been called into question with two scathing reports from the tribunal about the Crown’s approach to negotiations. How can there be anything other than a serious problem with the Crown’s approach, when the tribunal has labelled the behaviour of the Office of Treaty Settlements as cavalier, unfair, generally uncooperative, providing of only partial answers to questions, and being less than open in its dealings with the tribunal? What sort of chaos is there when junior staff are making decisions about the relevance of documents and then Crown counsel are criticised by the tribunal, and when employees of Crown Law have to go around to the Office of Treaty Settlements to spend a few days going back through documents to sort out what is relevant? This is simply unacceptable. It can be tolerated no longer.

What is Labour’s response to all these concerns? As the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week would indicate, the emerging theme seems to be that if we do it properly, settlements could well be slowed up and the 2020 deadline will not be able to be achieved. So we have to be negligent and sloppy if we are to keep up with the deadlines. What an unacceptable approach to some of the most important negotiations that could possibly occur in contemporary New Zealand. Taking care to do things properly and eliminating slapdash, clumsy, and hopeless approaches to negotiations will have two benefits. First, New Zealand will see durable settlements, and, secondly, momentum will be gained. As Doug Graham and Jim Bolger showed in the 1990s, the first few settlements take some time, but then momentum is built up and things start to move. Under this hopeless Government the momentum has now been lost, and it will behove a John Key administration to get that momentum back.

I asked the Minister of Māori Affairs a question today about the Government’s botched approach to Treaty settlements and the fact that whereas of the 19 settlements reached to date 10 were started and completed by National in the 1990s and a further eight were started by National, Labour has taken just one claim from initial negotiation to final settlement in 7½ years—just one. As the Minister said in response today, this Government is all about expediency. Exactly! And it is so disappointing when one considers how much good work has been done in the past. So, as I say, it is with such great regret that we have to oppose the second reading of this bill.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I take this opportunity for a call in support of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. To start off with, I thought I would raise a bit of the background to the deed of settlement. Te Rōroa has sought redress on a range of issues since 1861. The Waitangi Tribunal heard the claims of Te Rōroa from June 1989 to May 1991. The Te Rōroa report was published in 1992, and in 1993 Te Rōroa and the Crown signed a framework agreement to begin negotiations. In 1996 the Crown formally recognised the mandate of the Te Rōroa negotiators and signed comprehensive terms of negotiation, specifying the objectives and general procedure for negotiating.

Negotiations intensified in 2003, with substantial progress being made during 2004. In December 2004 Te Rōroa and the Crown signed a non-binding agreement in principle, which recorded that in principle Te Rōroa was willing to settle its historical claims on the basis of the Crown’s settlement proposal as set out in the agreement. In June 2005 the Government approved the proposed settlement package for Te Rōroa and invited the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to initial the deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown. A deed of settlement for presentation to the Te Rōroa claimant community was confirmed by an exchange of letters of 10 September 2005, and, following ratification by the Te Rōroa claimant community, the deed of settlement was signed on 17 December 2005.

I thought it was important just to place on the record the background to the process that led to the signing of the deed, at which I was present late last year. I recall the discussions held at that signing, and particularly the issues raised by Judge Joe Williams, who spoke of his early involvement in the process, as a young graduate lawyer at the time. He felt he had been shunted into what was then considered to be a controversial grievance settlement process, but it was certainly, according to him, a steep learning curve for a young graduate. More important, he acknowledged a lot of the Te Rōroa settlement group, and the kaumātua and kuia who had spearheaded and platformed the claim some 10 years previously. Having raised that point, he said that because a lot of them had not survived the process, they were unable to witness the final stages of this bill. He spoke emotionally about his association with the claimant group, obviously, having been a young graduate lawyer at the time. He spoke about the trust and the willingness of the group to try to strive towards a settlement, which to it represented a positive change in direction.

I do think it is important, when we hear from the Opposition that this settlement is not durable, to place on record that the deed of agreement and indeed the bill now before us are signs of an agreement between Te Rōroa and the Crown, and that they have not been influenced by an outside group. If that is the case, then surely we must accept, on the basis of trust and goodwill, that this bill strikes a position of acceptance for us to be able to move on in the passage of this legislation.

The other matter that I want to raise relates to the issues that the Māori Affairs Committee handled. We heard from the Minister about the area of deferred selection. Although committee members raised concern about what the committee could and could not achieve, in this particular case we have managed to have some substantial movement by extending the deferred selection time frame by a further 6 months. Although that does not have an effect on any changes or alterations to this bill, we have learnt from the Minister that there has indeed been some agreement on and acceptance of it from Te Rōroa as well.

All in all, having heard a cross-section of concerns from submitters when the committee travelled to Dargaville, at the end of this process and following the report back of the bill to the House, as chair of the committee I want to take this opportunity to extend thanks to committee members for the work they have conducted throughout this process, and also to acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements. Mr Finlayson raised the issue of the change in the number of negotiators who have come through that office. I understand he mentioned about five or six teams within that office over that period of time, and given that there had been some changes, he raised that as a question of durability.

I do think, though, it is important to look at the other side, and to acknowledge the claimant group’s team—the Te Rōroa negotiating team—and the vast changes that it must have experienced in just trying to keep up with the process. But, again, I want to reiterate that Judge Joe Williams, in his address on the day that the deed of settlement was signed, was very careful to say he wanted to acknowledge all those negotiators from Te Rōroa who had not survived the process. It would have indeed been an opportunity for them, had they survived it, to be here to participate in this final stage.

Finally, I want to say that because Treaty claims settlements are agreements between claimant groups and the Crown, we are keen to know that they have both accepted them. On that basis we know that this settlement will be durable, that it does represent a positive change in direction for this claimant group, and that Te Rōroa is getting on with the business. Kia ora.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

It is with mixed emotion that I rise to speak on the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. When the bill was introduced to the House in March earlier this year, along with other colleagues of this House I expressed my congratulations on, and support for, the fact that Te Rōroa had, after many, many years in negotiations—not to mention the generations over which they had carried this burden—finally secured a settlement. I remain supportive of them for making the decision to settle with the Crown. To make such a decision, after carrying a burden for generations, is a big thing. I think we probably saw that at the first major tribal settlement back in 1995 when Tainui, and Sir Robert Māhuta as leader, finally took the step to settle with the Crown.

Like all settlements, of course, Māori achieve a fraction only of what they claim. We accept that. But it does seem that in this case Te Rōroa has had to accept much less, and maybe the size of the tribe highlights this. They seem to have had to accept much less than they deserve. But the mixed emotion that I feel comes from the fact that although I respect entirely the right of Te Rōroa, as an exercise of their rangatiratanga, to settle their longstanding grievance with the Crown, National cannot support the legislation, because we believe that this Labour Government has failed utterly to ensure durability for the settlement.

I mentioned that I rise with some mixed emotion. Of course, on the day that we rise to support the introduction of a bill, until we have a chance to scrutinise the legislation and to meet face to face with the claimants and all others who believe they have an interest in the settlement, we are not to know that the settlement might fall short of what Te Rōroa are entitled to. That is the value of the select committee process, which enables closer scrutiny of the settlement. But there is the qualification in this case—and this is the downside when we are examining settlement bills—that there is no opportunity to change the bill, because it results from a deed signed by two parties, one of which is outside of this place. So a committee cannot make any change unless the two parties to the deed of settlement, which forms the basis of such legislation, agree to any such change.

We in National are not unaware of these matters. For goodness’ sake! It was our party in Government that introduced, for the first time, proper Treaty settlements—real Treaty settlements. It is our party that will go down in history as being the party in Government for the first time ever to embark on a Treaty settlement process. So we are not unaware of the issues that members on the other side of the House raise. We are intimately acquainted with all of the detail of how these settlements work.

But, as my colleague Christopher Finlayson has said, we find that we do not support this settlement. We acknowledge that an improvement was made to the deferred selection process as a result of representations to the Minister, but we do not believe that that is enough. As my colleague has already said, and I will repeat it, there remain other issues that have not been resolved. Those relate to the return of kōiwi to Te Rōroa, and to the Kaharau and Te Taraire sites. We think that as long as these issues remain unresolved, this settlement runs the risk of not being durable. We hope that it will be, obviously, but we think that those two issues in particular are real flaws in this settlement.

I suppose that when one has the opportunity to sit on the select committee, and when one bears in mind the issues that sit behind this legislation, one is reminded again of the Waitangi Tribunal report published in 1992. Those findings were that the Crown used unfair methods to purchase Te Rōroa lands and failed to make proper provision for reserves for Te Rōroa; the Crown adopted unprincipled land-purchase methods in acquiring interest in the Waipoua No. 2 block; the Crown, through its land purchases and land administration, destroyed the sense of community of Te Rōroa at Waipoua; the Crown, through its land purchases and economic policies, denied Te Rōroa the benefits of borrowing for development enjoyed by other New Zealanders at the time of the settlement of this country; the Crown failed to protect Te Rōroa wāhi tapu and allowed their taonga to be violated; and the Crown failed to listen to their grievances or act on recommendations for redress. That is what sits behind this settlement. It is a damning indictment on the behaviour of the Crown way back during the time when Te Rōroa were dispossessed.

So when it came to looking at the settlement, the Minister, unlike those of us who were on the committee, did not have to sit there and listen to the submissions from the iwi. They were heartfelt. The pain was still real. They were very mindful of what the tribunal had recommended, and very mindful as well that the settlement falls far short of the recommendations of the tribunal. That is what the Minister does not know, that is what he did not hear, and that is what he does not have to live with now. Regardless of the fact that they have signed this settlement, the feeling was—and we felt strongly about this—that they had no choice. They had no choice; that was what they told us.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) Link to this

Te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki ngā whanaunga o Te Rōroa nā rātou nei tēnei taumahatanga e Tari, mai rā anō i te tau 1882.

I am just paying tribute to and acknowledging the people of Te Rōroa in terms of this resolution to the injustice that they have been fighting for since 1882. Of course, we acknowledge the negotiations and the Waitangi Tribunal’s report in 1992, and a lot of things have happened between those dates. But I say to the House that I am certainly amazed at and very interested in some of the contributions that have been made tonight by members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and specifically the National members. I remember the negotiations and the discussions that took place in terms of the Ngāi Tahu settlement, when Doug Graham said that the integrity of the settlement agreement that has been negotiated by two parties cannot be undermined. I want to repeat that. This was from a member of Parliament whom Māoridom has a lot of respect for—Sir Douglas Graham—and I think that he made this statement before he became the honoured Sir Douglas. He said that it is not the role for this Parliament or any of its members to play political humbug with a settlement that has been made by two parties, and in that case it was between Ngāi Tahu and the Crown.

I remember very, very vividly that that message was endorsed by the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, which I was a member of at that time. That chairperson was none other than the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. So sometimes in the affairs of Māoridom some of the words that we say beforehand come back to haunt us afterwards. There is a reference to that in terms of Māori whakapapa but, sadly, I am not permitted to utter those types of references in the House this evening.

I was also interested to hear the heart-touching contribution from Chris Finlayson, when he said that he was “touched” by the genuine contribution from the submitters who had made submissions to the select committee. I would say to that member that Māoridom deserves to be touched by more than just some sort of throwaway line to say that he, as a member of the select committee, was touched by the integrity and the emotional depth of the submissions made to the select committee. Let me say that if the member was so touched by it, he would change the policy of the National Party when the National Party is committed to demolishing the Māori voice in this Parliament. How touched can the member be? You see, one is examined and scrutinised by Māoridom in terms of one’s whole attitude and whole approach to the issues that involve Māori people, not in terms of just one part of it.

But I want to acknowledge the process, and I want to acknowledge the commitment of Te Rōroa, and many of them are whanaunga of myself, Tau Henare, and Shane Jones. For us who live in the realms of Ngāpuhi in Tai Tokerau, I want to congratulate them. Kia kaha, kia manawa nui.

[Be strong and stout-hearted.]

It does not matter where we go in terms of the settlement process with regard to treaty claims; not unlike Pākehā, we will never ever get 100 percent consensus. That is an impossibility. It is a dream and a fantasy. But what we can do is give commitment, and encourage and salute the people who have made a commitment to resolving this ongoing process and this ongoing injustice, when we reflect that it started back in 1882. We come to the issue of wāhi tapu, such as Te Taraire, which are sacred areas for Māoridom and sacred areas for Te Rōroa. Kaharau is another area that is very sacred and significant to the people of Te Rōroa. Yet they recognise that in fact parts of that land are not owned by the Crown.

Let me say that when I read the preamble and I read the contribution as to the reasons that members of the National Party are opposing the settlement, they say it is because those pieces of land were not returned to Te Rōroa in terms of the settlement. But who proposed the legislation to prohibit private land being part of any Treaty redress? Who did it? It was not this side of the House. I want to remind the honourable Chris Finlayson—

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Given what appears to be a reluctance on the part of some other members to stand and participate in the second reading debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, I, on behalf of New Zealand First, will take this opportunity to do so. Engari, i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei o āku kōrero, e tika ana kia mihi atu ki ngā hunga o Te Rōroa e noho tonu ki te wā kāinga, ki te hakarongo i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero i puta mai i roto i te Whare nei e pā ana ki tā koutou pire. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

[But before I continue with my address, it is fitting that I acknowledge those ones of Te Rōroa who remained at home to listen to how this debate relating to your bill fares. Greetings to you.]

First of all, I just say that I declare a vested interest in this bill, and I do so for the simple reason that by whakapapa I am linked to Te Rōroa, although I will not be a beneficiary to this settlement.

On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to take a call in the second reading debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. The bill has come back from the Māori Affairs Committee, where we heard from submitters, most of whom were linked by whakapapa to Te Rōroa. I want to say that some disquiet was expressed by a number, if not all, of the submitters on a number of issues, and all of this was in spite of their being part of the process that gave Te Rōroa negotiators a mandate to accept the settlement with the Crown.

Although some may disagree with what I am about to say, certainly the feeling that some Te Rōroa people presently have is that the quantum to settle this claim and all subsequent claims of Tainui and Ngāi Tahu has, in fact, been affected by the terms of those two settlements—that is, Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. This gives rise to the thought of whether settlement quanta may not be as durable as they could be. However, I am mindful that the negotiators have obtained the mandate from their people to accept the quantum in terms of this settlement, and, like the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, I recognise the tino rangatiratanga of Te Rōroa to do so. Some members of Te Rōroa have mentioned to me on the side that they felt aggrieved that the negotiators had accepted the terms of settlement, and that they had a sense of there being a fait accompli in terms of the offer made to them.

I remind the House that this claim is the second from the north to actually reach this stage of settlement—the first, of course, being that of Te Uri o Hau. I also want to remind the House that the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on this claim was issued back in 1992, which is a reminder as to how long the people of Te Rōroa have had to wait. In addition, the 1992 report gave rise to the issue surrounding the “acquisition” of privately owned land for settlement. Of course, that recommendation led to subsequent legislation ensuring that this did not occur. Notwithstanding that, it ought to be noted that some of the lands that make up this particular settlement were once in private ownership, and the owners of those lands are still feeling aggrieved by that. I ought to say that during the select committee’s hearing of submissions, two submitters, whom my comment applies to, wanted to make submissions, but for various reasons the committee judged not to accept their submissions.

However, this bill is about the claim from Te Rōroa, and it gives effect to the deed of settlement agreed to by the Crown and Te Rōroa and signed by them on 17 December 2005. This bill legislates for a full and final settlement of all of Te Rōroa’s historical claims, and after listening to the tenor of some of the contributions made to the debate so far this evening, I can see quite clearly that there is some doubt as to the durability of those settlements. I have come to realise that unless there is a willingness on the part of the Crown to take heed of whatever might be recommended by the select committee on the issue of quantum, whatever we might think in terms of its fairness, we are somewhat hamstrung. However, I will acknowledge that in this instance some latitude was extended to allow for the extension to the deferred selection provisions that essentially will give Te Rōroa up to 6 months after settlement date to purchase those properties included in the agreement at the date of the deed of settlement. If we consider that the time frame is roughly 2 years, we see that the value of those lands would, of course, have increased in that time, so I thank those who are responsible for making that decision in extending that time frame to Te Rōroa.

I want to comment on what the settlement provides for Te Rōroa. In this settlement the quantum is regarded by some as one that places into question the durability of this settlement. In particular, I make reference to the Waipoua commercial forest and the Kaharau block. In regards to the Kaharau block, and the significance to Te Rōroa of the wāhi tapu status in which they regard this block, there are some who feel that this settlement does not come anywhere near the heart of the Te Rōroa claim. Although the opportunity for Te Rōroa to acquire the total block may lie somewhere in the future, the reality is that their financial resources are limited in terms of what cash resources they will have at their disposal following this settlement. I would have thought that a possibility could be for the Crown to take responsibility for the purchase of this block now or sometime in the future, at least when the present landholders were prepared to sell. As the Rev. Daniel Ambler mentioned in his submission, “Until this is settled, Te Rōroa elders will continue to feel enslaved.”

Another submitter commented that enacting the proposed legislation would change the present iwi state of depression and grief, mixed with hope, to a state of a permanent sense of tangi once the Act removed the obligation of the Crown to address this grave injustice.

The other part of the settlement I would like to comment on, which is described in the bill, is that of the commercial forest. The settlement must be reasonably acceptable to Te Rōroa, and it must be fair if the Crown’s stance is to hold on to land or profit from its sale, and to continue to use returned Te Rōroa land for another generation. I make reference specifically to the Waipoua commercial forest, which will be returned to Te Rōroa after the present forest has been felled. I would have thought that there might be an opportunity for the Crown to include those forests when returning it to Te Rōroa.

Quite clearly, there is some doubt not only amongst the wider community but certainly within Te Rōroa about the durability of this settlement. I take on board exactly what the Minister has said about the right of Te Rōroa to make their decisions and for the right of Te Rōroa alone to decide whether to accept this settlement. I know for a fact that the leader of the negotiators, Mr Alex Nathan, was not available to provide a submission when the select committee met in Dargaville, for various reasons. I would have liked to hear him make his submission in public in order to gain an idea as to how the negotiators felt when dealing with this settlement and, in particular, how those who represented the Crown felt during the negotiations.

Having expressed some disquiet about the settlement, I want to place on record that New Zealand First will support this bill, recognising the tino rangatiratanga of Te Rōroa in the decision they have made to settle with the Crown. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will vote for the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, and we will see how the Committee stage goes, but we reserve our position on further stages of the legislation.

Te Rōroa have sought redress on a wide range of issues since 1861. The Crown has successively failed to appropriately deal with the grievances of Te Rōroa, prior to and, I think, including this settlement. This settlement provides some redress to them but it does not provide real justice. Lands stolen are not being returned.

One of the primary purposes of the 1992 Waitangi Tribunal claim by Te Rōroa and the subsequent settlement was to remedy the Crown’s failure to set aside Kaharau, Te Taraire, Manuwhētai, and Whāngaiariki from the lands that were purchased in 1875 and 1876. Protest over Kaharau, Te Taraire, and other, smaller Waimamaku wāhi tapu is as old as 1887. It was 120 years ago when a surveyor began the process of cutting the area up. The iwi were consistent in their understanding that those areas were to be set aside from any sales, but the Crown rejected that and would accept only that “any old graves on the block a few acres surrounding them could perhaps be reserved under the provisions of The Land Act without causing any inconvenience.” And that title would remain in the hands of the Crown. Indeed, the Kaharau block, with its very long history of dispute, will not be returned to iwi, not even in this settlement 120 years after the first cutting up.

I do not accept Minister Burton’s comment made earlier in the process of this legislation: “the settlement falls shorts of your desires in relation to Kaharau. It is my hope that you are able to be reunited with Kaharau at some time in the future.” In fact, it is the Minister’s job to reunite Te Rōroa with Kaharau and he has failed to do that. I know that the Government argues that Te Rōroa could have used the settlement quantum to buy the land, but this disguises the fact that Te Rōroa need to acquire a number of other Crown-owned properties to make sure that the settlement is economically viable into the future. Kaharau is an area of about 600 hectares with an approximate rateable value of over $1.5 million. The residue of the quantum that Te Rōroa have left, after they purchase the other Crown-owned properties that they have to purchase, is $70,000. They have no hope of getting this land back with that.

The Government’s position on Kaharau and Te Taraire was neither fair nor in good faith. The point of the settlement was the return of those lands. The settlement quantum should have been sufficient to include the purchase of those two key properties, and it was not. The Government simply did not consider that the return of those properties was of sufficient importance to increase the quantum. If it had, it would have made sure that those properties were returned.

This is one of the key problems with the Office of Treaty Settlements and with the settlement process: claimants and their needs are simply not taken seriously enough by this Government or, I think, previous Governments. I think this is obvious in the recent critiques against the department in the Waitangi Tribunal report on Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. The Office of Treaty Settlements was severely criticised for failing to engage with tangata whenua groups, failing to give them accurate information, and failing to communicate with them in any meaningful way. The Office of Treaty Settlements would not assist Ngāti Whātua in dealing with cross-claimants, and left them to manage the problems that the Office of Treaty Settlements had caused by its failure to engage properly in the first place. In effect, the Office of Treaty Settlements has become complacent to a point where it simply ignores what it does not want to engage with or does not need to engage with, and, instead, uses its considerable resources to bulldoze settlements through.

I understand that the Government probably thinks that it is meeting the needs of the public by its unseemly haste to conclude settlements regardless of the inherent unfairness of them. I think it has been driven by focus groups and by the resonances of the racism from the last election. But the fact is that the New Zealand public do not all think like Don Brash. So before I conclude my speech tonight I want to read some quite long extracts from a letter from Stephen King, a founding trustee of the Waipoua Forest Trust, which established the Millennium Kauri Forest, and a member of the Pākehā community who lives within the Te Rōroa rohe.

He says this: “Tena koutou katoa, as you are aware, our trust and the parent NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust have been working for 22 years working hard to restore the Waipoua Kauri Forest for which Te Roroa are the kaitiaki. We have invested more than $4m in land protection and restoration and for the past 9 years worked in a formal partnership with Te Roroa to restore this national treasure. I have lived at the forest and worked with Te Roroa for more than 13 years. During this time in the community, I have observed the grief of Te Roroa and been to claims hui and to the tangi of numbers of kaumatua and kuia who did not survive the negotiation process. I have shared the pain of two negotiators who suffered heart attacks as a direct result of the crippling and heartless negotiating terms and process.

I have seen the sacrifice of 18 years of prime leadership, particularly of Rev. Daniel Ambler and Alex Nathan, whose outstanding abilities would have been better invested in forwarding Te Roroa and our community than being bogged down in unnecessarily protracted negotiations. During 15 years of protracted negotiations the crown has continued to take logs and profit from Te Roroa land, amounting to a sum substantially more than that offered to settle the claim. Now the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill is set to consign another generation of Te Roroa to economic hardship (having to borrow money to purchase back its lands) while the crown continues to profit from another full rotation (27 years) of log extractions. It is impossible”—he says—“to see how the crown has acted fairly or sincerely in settling this claim.

… Following parliamentary submissions commencing 1907, the court awarded in their favour in 1932 and then endorsed by Wai 38 in 1992. Signing and enacting a deal won’t erase this issue from the community. Despite signed agreements, I advise the government that this is unresolved and will remain so until a provision is made for crown purchase now or in future, when landholders are ready. One landholder has been awaiting an approach from the crown for the last 10 years. The other major landholder is receptive to future acquisition or acquisition with lifetime use. …

Until this is settled, Te Roroa elders will continue to feel ‘enslaved’ ”—as my colleague has referred to—“… because they do not have control of the bones and resting places of their ancestors. Further, their mana will be eroded within Northland for failing to deliver on a core of the claim, something that generations before have fought for and they carry the mantle for. …

I implore you to address the situation. Failure to do so will affect not only Te Roroa, but the pakeha community as well, particularly the farmers whose land will always be affected by the knowledge within the community it is stolen land that rightfully belongs to Te Rōroa. Te Roroa will always feel they belong to that land. Legislation will not break the link or expectation for resolution.”

He goes on: “2008 will mark exactly 100 years since a Waipoua Kauri National Park was first promulgated to parliament by govt. ecologist, … Waipoua was the site of NZ’s first lowland forest conservation battle in the 1940s. For 20 years successive politicians and public have patiently awaited the settlement of Wai 38 to enable the formation of a Kauri National Park. After years of work and careful thought, we have a new style of park which the trust will be putting to government and key leaders for acceptance in 2008. The first priority, however is ensuring that the Wai 38 settlement bill does in fact lay a secure foundation upon which Te Roroa can plan, progress and afford the space to embrace a project which will become an internationally recognised natural wonder. Whatever form the park takes it is imperative that it is founded on a healthy relationship with Te Roroa and a proud recognition of their kaitiakitanga together with the guardianship role of the ordinary kiwi constituency … This is all part of our heritage and sense of national identity. Being fair to our tangata whenua partners is an essential part of bringing integrity to our proudly espoused kiwi values and moving forward together.”

This is the view of the Pākehā community, which the Government should be listening to. Kia ora.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

Otirā, kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tēnā hoki koe kai te Kaihautū o te Whare, nāu tonu e ārahi nei i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, kua takoto kei waenganui i a tātou i tēnei pō. Ki a koutou ngā mema, ahakoa kei tēhea kokonga o te Whare e noho ana, mai rā i Te Tai Tokerau, ko koutou ngā mea i whāwhāhia ai hoki i ngā taumahatanga o te Karauna, i ngā rau tau kua pahemo ake nei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings indeed to us, the House; to you also, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, as you guide us through our debate tonight on this bill before us. Also to you, the members, regardless of seating, greetings to you, as well. Especially to those of you from the north, touched by the burdens of the past 100 years upon the Crown, greetings. Greetings indeed, to you collectively.]

Before speaking to this bill I want to acknowledge the contributions of all members, in particular the members from the Tai Tokerau, the Hon Dover Samuels and Pita Paraone, and the contributions soon to come of the Hon Tau Henare and Hone Harawira. It is important to acknowledge them, because they are close to this claimant community, not only are they part of the whakapapa but they are also part of the history that has been spoken about in the House today. It is important to acknowledge that. I also acknowledge your affiliation with that area, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that, too, is quite often understated in this House.

I am impressed by the contributions, but there are some aspects of the speeches this evening that I am not impressed with, at all. Without being too unkind to the previous speaker, I wonder when people like Stephen King are quoted on behalf of the Pākehā community, why it is that in spite of that man’s acknowledgment of Te Rōroa’s history and its association with the Waipoua Forest and the hills, valleys, and coastlines of the north, he has not in the past gone out and advocated for the acknowledgment and return of these lands and assets.

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

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Me mihi ake ki a koutou katoa e ōku whanaunga i tū mai ki te kōrero ki tēnei kaupapa i te pō nei.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all of us in the House. My acknowledgments to those relatives of mine who rose to speak to this matter tonight.]

We are debating the second reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. The submission from Te Rōroa Mana Whenua Trust and Te Rōroa Whatu Ora Trust on the settlement was six pages long, and four of those pages were a list of the names and signatures of those who had died during the prosecution of this claim—a graphic and solemn testimony to the suffering of Te Rōroa in its quest for a just settlement. Nō reira e Te Rōroa, anei tō mokopuna e mihi atu ana, e tangi atu ana ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki tua o te ārai, te utu mō ngā mahi tāhae, mahi mōrikarika a te kāwanatanga.

[So to you, Te Rōroa, here am I, your grandchild, acknowledging you and grieving for those who have passed away as a consequence of the thieving and abominable actions of the Government.]

Another submission, from the Reverend Daniel Ambler, described, in some painful eloquence, the grief he felt for the mana of his tūpuna and at their wāhi tapu being ripped out of their arms by the Crown—a grief, he says, “which has left us feeling so diminished and incomplete.” One can almost touch the sense of defeat and emptiness that runs right through the 25 submissions received by the Māori Affairs Committee. The people of Te Rōroa—ngā uri o Ngāti Kawa, Ngāti Whiu, and Te Kuihi—did not deserve to be treated in such a callous and an uncaring way. The descendants of Manumanu, of Ngākuru Pana, of Rangitauwawaro, of Parore Te Āwhā, of Hapakuku Moetara, of Kōhuru Te Whata, of Tiopira Kīnaki and Marara Māhūhū and many, many others are worthy of far more respect than this Government is showing them.

To Te Rōroa, I say this: “I greet you today, and those who stand with you—you whose spiritual and physical home runs from the Kaipara up to the Hokianga; you who have fought to protect those sacred lands and who have guarded and preserved the significance of Waipoua for us all to enjoy; you who stood strong like Tāne Māhuta, trying to shield and defend your future descendants from any further grievance and wrongdoing. Your honour is evident in the way you have fought for your mokopunas’ future, in the same way that your fathers and grandfathers fought for the future of the whole of Aotearoa in the First and Second World Wars. What cost does the price of citizenship have? I acknowledge, in particular, those who have fought to protect the sacred sites of Kaharau and Te Taraire, which the Government has refused to return. For what it is worth, Te Rōroa, this moment is yours.”

But in acknowledging the significance of Te Rōroa’s efforts since claims were first lodged with the tribunal way back in the 1980s, we must also look at the part the Crown has played in reaching the deed of settlement in December 2005. The submissions describe that part in vivid detail. Gary Hooker highlighted the lack of sincerity in the Crown apology, by pointing out the Government’s continuing attempts to sanitise Te Rōroa’s history and its own crimes against Te Rōroa. Sheena Ross spoke of the unsatisfactory registration and voting procedures, of defects in the proposed cultural redress, and of the pathetically inadequate quantum offered to Te Rōroa. The Waipoua Forest Trust said it was critically important that the settlement be finalised so that the present generation could move forward economically, while also restoring the unique character of the landscape, but it concluded rightly that the present deal failed to do that and failed to create a sense of settlement.

It seems that those words continue to fall on deaf ears. Indeed, less than a week ago the Waitangi Tribunal itself stated: “The burden on both Māori and Pākehā of the great wrongs that were done in the past will not be lifted if the process of settling creates new wrongs. We consider that the process for settling now being followed is creating divisions within Māori society that are very damaging. Damage to whanaungatanga, to te taura tangata is a great wrong: it affects Māori society at its very core. It also goes to the heart of the Treaty guarantees in article two.” That was said just last Friday. Three days later the tribunal reported again that it was “left fearing for the customary future of Te Arawa Waka”, because of the “ ‘serious flaws’ in the way the Crown consulted with ‘non-settling Te Arawa groups’ ”.

Yesterday we were told that the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill would not be coming up today, and then at the last minute, bam, it is back on the Order Paper. It seems as though the Government is determined to rid itself of all three disasters at once, by ramming through another seriously flawed settlement.

Brendan Lyne, head of the New Zealand corporate finance division for one of the world’s largest accounting firms, Grant Thornton, is Pākehā, and he is hardly the type, one would think, to want to bother himself with the Te Rōroa settlement. But even he felt moved to make a submission, noting that like past attempts at settling that were later seen to be unfair, this one too would be unlikely to endure. He described himself as “a New Zealander who passionately believes that all within this country should be treated fairly and justly”, and his assessment of the Te Rōroa settlement was that: “The failure of the Crown to return Kaharau is an injustice perpetuated on the back of the original injustice. Adding insult to injury the Crown appears to be inviting Te Rōroa, through its own resources, to attempt the impossible task of seeking to acquire Kaharau”.

As well as the grievances created by the exclusion of Kaharau and Te Taraire, the Hokianga whānua, hapū, land, and resource claims collective also raised the concern about overlapping claims. Will Ngākuru described the cost of this process in his submission, when he said: “The settlement process has divided Te Rōroa. … Trustees need time to communicate with the whanau and involve them in the process. OTS have indicated a July settlement, this would place a large amount of stress on Te Rōroa and lead to further division.”

Over and over again, the submissions have spoken of a flawed process, of scepticism about the integrity of the registration and voting procedures, of the anguish experienced over the exclusion of Kaharau and Te Taraire, and of an insultingly low quantum that fails to recognise the seriousness and extent of the Crown’s Treaty breaches against Te Rōroa.

So the Māori Party will be splitting our vote on this bill. We will give one of our votes towards respecting the right of Te Rōroa to seek justice for its claims, but our other three votes will be abstentions. We will not vote against Te Rōroa, for it deserves redress and it deserves an immediate response. But we will not vote for the disgraceful way that the Crown forced Te Rōroa to the wall. We will not vote for a process that is driven by the Government’s tight-fisted attitude to Treaty claims, and we will not vote for a process that has led to a serious miscarriage of justice for Te Rōroa.

Stephen Naera’s submission summed the situation up well when he said: “Take anything out of this Bill that reflects full and final settlement… Return our taonga and koiwi at crown expense… Remove reference to the crown acting with honour during this process.” To Te Rōroa, I say this: “We do not believe that this is a full and final settlement. We do not believe that justice has been done, and we do not hesitate to say to you and to your descendants: kāhore anō kia ea tō koutou tono. Ā tōnā wā me hoki mai kia oti tūturu ai. Your request has not been honoured. When you are ready, come back and complete the job.” Nō reira e te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri rauna, kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

Thankfully, there will be a reshuffle on that side of the House. I say that because that Minister, and his predecessor, have not given all their heart and all their will to a job that deserves a hundred percent. I do not believe that if, when one is given a job and when one takes that job, one does not give a hundred and fifty percent of one’s heart and will, then there is no legacy. Quite frankly, that Minister and his predecessor leave no legacy whatsoever.

Is the settlement of Te Rōroa durable? No, it is not. Is it fair? No, it is not. There are two questions in any settlement. It does not matter where the settlement is—whether it is in Te Rōroa, whether it is in Taranaki, or whether it is in Ngāi Tahu. Is it durable and is it fair? Those are the two questions that I ask myself more often than not. And more often than not, the answers to those two questions are “Yes”. Yes, it is durable. Yes, it is fair. Unfortunately, this settlement is neither durable nor fair.

There has been talk tonight about whether the settlement was signed and agreed upon under a certain amount of duress. After 13 years or so, the settlement was absolutely signed under duress.I do not mean that the Minister or people from the Office of Treaty Settlements sat there with a big hammer and knocked the participants around. But 13 years of a process is enough for anybody to one day say: “OK, I agree; let’s get on with it. Hopefully we will get something out of it.” That is what I mean by duress.

I turn to the issue of cultural redress, the return of kōiwi. I heard my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui speaking about that. Yes, I did repatriate some taonga, and I am still as proud as punch for that, even though I think I got a bad rap for it when it happened. But that is water under the bridge. I want to say that it would be very, very easy for any Government—not only Labour but any Government—to get a meeting with the museum and work something out about repatriation. Because that is essentially what happened when I went overseas; I sat down with a couple of museums and talked about repatriation. It is easy when one puts one heart and soul into it.

As my learned colleague Chris Finlayson said, the submissions on this bill were interesting. The ones from Te Rōroa were heartfelt, and one could see the pain and the struggle of years gone by. These submissions were not from people who in the last 3 or 4 months had written a submission and produced 25 copies to the select committee. They were from a group of people who had worked tirelessly for more than 13 years. One could see the weathered look of those people who had survived the process of negotiation. Their submissions were ones that I think we will all remember.

There were the submissions from the independents and, yes, there was the submission by Stephen King—not the author of horror novels, although when he walked into the select committee I thought he was out of a horror movie. I had always heard of this bloke; I had seen him on the TV. I too share the sentiments of the Hon Mita Ririnui that when Stephen King cut the tree, only a baby tree, I felt so sorry for the tree.

Then there were the ugly submissions—the ugly submissioners. In all my time in the House—to some it is not long; to some it may be far too long—I had never ever seen submissions like I saw in the Te Rōroa settlement process. These ugly submissions were full of language that even I—from South Auckland, from Ōtara—baulked at when I read them. Not a lot worries me; not a lot phases me. Those submissions from Allan Titford and the One New Zealand Foundation did. I am glad to say there was a unanimous decision in the select committee to make sure that we would not hear those submissions because of the language. So I say kia ora to my colleagues on the select committee.

I know that my colleague Chris Finlayson does not like the term “cross-claims”, but I suppose it is what I have been brought up with. There are issues about cross-claims in this settlement—as there certainly are in Ngāti Whātua and Te Arawa—which tell me that the processes this Government has are not particularly right. If the processes were right, then there would be no problems, things would move smoothly, and we would all be in favour of a durable and fair settlement. Because some things have not been done properly, we say no; we say that we cannot support a settlement where a number of things have not been signed off properly. I respect my colleagues from New Zealand First and Labour for wanting to get this bill through, but I also reserve the right to say that National will not stand by and see people treated in such a manner that they do not get a hell of a lot out of this deal. Nine million dollars—OK, that is a couple of Saturday wins in Lotto. That may be good; that may be bad. But what really riles me is the fact that after all that has been said and done, the cash that Te Rōroa gets to purchase other lands—such as, maybe, some of Kaharau, some of Te Taraire—is only $74,000. I think that when we put it in those terms—and this is a settlement to say sorry, to apologise for the past—we see that it does not go anywhere near it. I do not want to be a member of a party that wants to unpick settlements along the way, and we will not. We will not unpick settlements that have been done in good faith.