David Garrett Speech - Waitangi Settlement Bill
act-new-zealand
Thu Jul 29 2010 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
David Garrett Speech - Waitangi Settlement Bill
Thursday, 29 July 2010, 4:56 pm
Speech: ACT New Zealand
NGATI TUWHARETOA, RAUKAWA, AND TE ARAWA RIVER IWI WAIKATO RIVER BILL - First Reading
Speech by ACT New Zealand MP David Garrett To Parliament
Wednesday, July 28 2010
Anyone who heard my speech in the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill will not be surprised that the ACT Party stands opposed to the Ngāti Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill, the successor to that divisive bill.
It is not, I have to say, a very pleasant position to be in—the only party in the House opposing such a measure, which, no doubt, has the utter support of all of those in the gallery.
It is notable listening to the speeches that have gone before. In our view both National and the Greens have been speaking in code.
National has talked about co-governance, partnership, and sharing. What it really means is granting iwi a right of veto over activities that they do not approve of. The Greens Co-Leader Russel Norman has talked at length, but, as usual, not explicitly, about sources of pollution and permitted activities.
What he is actually intending or what he should be saying is that the Green Party seeks to make farming—the lifeblood and the backbone of our economy—an activity that farmers will have to apply for a consent for.
It is Māori Language Week, as we all know, so I will do my best with this one: “he iwi tahi tātau”. That is a phrase that one will find not said in this House this week. It means, of course, we are one people. It is what Governor Hobson said to each signatory of the Treaty.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
The bill before us, as its predecessor, violates this fundamental Treaty principle.
It establishes a precedent, wherein the Crown and Māori leadership elite divide New Zealand’s key assets amongst themselves—and for what? Is it a Treaty settlement? Well, page 2 of the explanatory note of the bill says: “The deeds between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa and Raukawa do not settle historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngati Tuwhatetoa or Raukawa relating to the Waikato River.” So I guess that it is not a settlement.
The Treaty process, as it pertains to the region’s Waikato-Tainui people, was settled in 1946. The Crown agreed in that year to pay an annual sum of £6,000 for 50 years and then £5,000 every year after that in recompense for the wrongful confiscation of lands in the 1860s. That is $2 or $3 million every year in today’s money.
As Michael King wrote of the final settlement negotiations in Ngāruawāhia in 1946, the Waikato-Tainui leadership was so pleased at this offer, they jumped up and accepted before the Prime Minister could change his mind. History has shown, however, that it was Waikato-Tainui who changed theirs.
By the 1990s they were angling for a better deal. In 1995 they signed another full and final settlement with the then Government. That one specifically excluded the Waikato River issue until some future date, making a complete mockery, once again, of that full and final tagline, because we can have only one full and final settlement Once we have a second full and final settlement, we open the line for a twenty-second and a thirty-second full and final settlement.
Mr Harawira has said “Ka pai.”, and Mrs Turia is agreeing. Hansard should record that the Māori Party is acknowledging in this House that we have no full and final settlement and that they will never end. Mrs Turia is laughing; she thinks it is funny that the grievances will go on forever and that there will keep on being these pathetic, misguided attempts at settlement, because they will never end. This bill will further enshrine in law the concept of us-and-them, a far cry from the one-people vision that the Treaty intended. I realise that the intention of many is to have an “us-and-them working together in a shared vision and strategy.
Many in this House feel that way. I am sure also—in fact I would say for sure that many Māori feel a special bond with the Waikato River. It is naive, however, not to think that there are those who look at the river and see dollar signs. Let us not pretend otherwise. In any group there are those who seek any advantage they can find. This bill and the concept of co-governance provide those sorts of people with limitless opportunities. This is a threat we will face multiple times when this bill comes into effect—my notes state “if and when”, but we all know that it is “when”.
I will ask a question that transcends even that: at what point will us New Zealanders—New Zealanders like me, my father born here—be allowed to claim a special relationship with the land as Māori do. Will it take another 100 years? Will it take longer? Or perhaps will it be never? The last point is how many Māori see things.
Although most Māori get on with the business of living, many in their so-called leadership continue to play the “we were here first” card. Those leaders claim that they have a relationship with the land and the rivers that the rest of us will never ever have no matter what we do. We will never have that same connection, so they say. Thus, we end up in a situation where five iwi—allegedly representing about 66,000 people—wind up controlling the nation’s longest river. I am aware that the bill talks of co-governance, but the reality will be very different.
I would be a little surprised if all of those grunting and making sighing noises from the other side have read all of the bill. Some extracts from the explanatory note are alarming—we need only go that far. For example: “Persons carrying out duties under sections 12 to 14 …must recognise and provide for iwi environmental plans….” I ask what “recognise and provide” means.
Further on, the bill allows iwi to recommend to the Minister of Fisheries to prohibit fishing, which “will be made unless the Minister of Fisheries considers that an undue adverse effect on fishing would result.” This bill is not about working together; it is about gifting to some iwi considerable veto power over any activity that they disapprove of. The bill is full of such examples.
There is nowhere near enough time to go through all of them, but they each carry serious legal and social consequences. The message to be taken away from this bill is that whatever an individual person’s attachment to the river may be, the significance of that attachment will be judged by iwi leaders who have already determined their relationship to be for ever more special because they were here first. I see Mrs Turia agreeing. They are special because they were here first.
This bill is typical of the Government’s approach to race relations: piecemeal and short-sighted. We saw it in Pita Sharples’ covert mission to the UN to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mr Harawira thinks, as do most people with any sense, that far from being an aspirational document with little effect, it will have profound effect on this country.
Mrs Turia says that it is great. Just as Sir Geoffrey Palmer saw no problems in referring to undefined Treaty principles in our law, National sees no risk in signing us up to a declaration that requires us to fund a separate Māori Government. If members doubt it, they should go and read the declaration. The fact of the matter is that co-governance is a farce, and anyone who has read the bill cannot fail to reach that same conclusion. The concept seems noble and low-risk, but like the mistakes of the past and those National is planning to make in the near future, it will further divide and hurt us as a nation. The social, economic, and legal quagmires we are heading for will be the next generation’s problem.
The Treaty settlement process we are still involved in, 25 years after Geoffrey Palmer said the famous words of section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act, will pale into insignificance compared with what our children have coming to them.
The ACT Party opposes this bill.
Thank you.
ENDS
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from ACT New Zealand on InfoPages.