Hon Christopher Finlayson

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : The National Party will support the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill through all its stages.

As a lifelong Wellingtonian, born and bred here--

Hon Members: Oh!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —unlike many people here—it gives me great pleasure to say that I enthusiastically support this settlement. It is long overdue. We deal with legislation as it goes through the House, and we look at the provisions that make up settlement legislation, but I submit that there is no substitute for looking at the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, because it is only when we do that that we see the injustices and the disgraceful conduct by the Crown, which has gone on for far too long.

This claim began as Wai 145. It was brought in 1987 by the Wellington Tenths Trust and the Palmerston North Māori Reserve Trust. As a result of hearings before the Waitangi Tribunal and evidence that had been adduced, the tribunal reported that “it became apparent that the claimants’ grievances extended beyond matters which were solely the concern of the Wai 145 claimants.”, and that is why other parties became involved—for example, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rangitahi from Taumarunui, Rangitāne, and others. The report is salutary, and I think it would be really useful for members to read it and, indeed, for reports to be made more generally available, because they play such an important role in outlining the history of our country.

Let us look at the key tribunal findings on events as at 1840. The first key finding was that “At 1840, Maori groups with ahi ka rights within the Port Nicholson block … were Te Atiawa at Te Whanganui a Tara and parts of the south-west coast; Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui at Te Aro; Ngati Tama at Kaiwharawhara and environs and at parts of the south-west coast; and Ngati Toa at Heretaunga and parts of the south-west coast.” A key finding of the tribunal—and the Minister referred to it in the course of his speech—is that “The 1839 Port Nicholson deed of purchase was invalid and conferred no rights under either English or Maori law on the New Zealand Company or those to whom the company subsequently purported to on-sell part of such land …”.

On the grievances from 1840 and the breaches of the Treaty, “The Crown took most of the town belt land from Maori without obtaining their consent or carrying out any consultation and without making any payment …”. As one goes through the grievances one sees the constant repetition of lack of consultation: “The Crown also took various reserves in Wellington for public purposes and assumed the ownership of Matiu (Somes Island) in 1841,”—again, without obtaining any consent. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has referred to the inquiry that was set up. It was switched from an inquiry to arbitration—again, without any consent and without any steps being taken on the part of the Crown to ensure that there was a fair process that was acceptable to Māori and could be followed.

The 1844 deeds of release breached the Treaty. Ngāti Tama were not treated properly at Kaiwharawhara and at Heretaunga. I pass over Ngāti Rangitahi because they are not included in this bill. They will be the subject of other negotiations at some later stage. The Minister has referred to the McCleverty transactions, which were unacceptable. So it goes on, right up until very recent times—for example, the alienation of urban reserves: from 1840 to 1882, 23 valuable Wellington Tenths reserves were taken “for hospital, educational, and religious purposes without any consultation with or the consent of the Maori beneficial owners …”, and when compensation was paid it was “manifestly inadequate”. The Minister said that there were complaints about administration of the Wellington Tenths Trust and they continued right through to 1985. Waiwhetū Pā land was taken for river protection purposes when it need not have been.

These kinds of mistakes have been made since 1839, and it is high time this Parliament addressed them and introduced this legislation. National will certainly be cooperating because it is important that this bill be passed into law very quickly.

• Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Before the luncheon break I was reviewing some of the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, which did not make particularly pleasant reading. They were, with apologies to the late Justice Mahon, a litany of failings. The last one I mention, before turning to the bill, relates to the Wellington Harbour and foreshore. The tribunal found that “Maori have been prejudicially affected by the actions of the Crown and legislative provisions which authorised the reclamation of substantial parts of the foreshore of Wellington Harbour. Those Maori so affected were Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Taranaki, and Ngati Ruanui …”. I certainly endorse the statements made by the tribunal about reclamation around Wellington Harbour. The reclamation at Kaiwharawhara is a particularly bad one.

Now we come to the bill. The bill sets out a number of standard provisions. Some matters did not need to be contained in the bill—they are simply contained in the deed of settlement—but they are also worth referring to. I do not want to encourage Mr Paraone, but there is reference at least in the explanatory note to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles. I do not want that to be an invitation to Mr Paraone to make another speech about vague references to principles.

What are the key elements of the bill? First, it provides for vesting in the trustees of certain cultural redress properties. I refer to 1 Thorndon Quay, which we all know; the Pipitea Marae site mentioned by the Minister; an urupā site at Mākara; the Point Dorset Recreation Reserve, which is another one that is well known to Wellingtonians; and the Matiu Historic Reserve.

Next the bill sets out the Crown’s acknowledgment of the statements made by Taranaki whānui of their spiritual, historical, and traditional association with certain historical areas. The ones that immediately leapt off the page at me, because of my knowledge of Wellington, were the Kaiwharawhara Stream, the Hutt River, the Waiwhetū Stream, Wellington Harbour, the Government Buildings Historic Reserve, the Turnbull House Historic Reserve, and the Rimutaka Forest Park. There is provision for official amendment of eight place names, ranging from Ngauranga Stream through to Steeple Rock—which, as we all know, is just off Seatoun. Certain elements of the settlement package are referred to in the deed of settlement only; the Minister has covered those.

I am particularly interested in the option for the trustees to purchase certain properties, particularly four Shelly Bay properties. I have had a bit of insight into the potential for a development there, and I regard it as really exciting. I think all Wellingtonians will be beside themselves with joy when they see what is planned, and that is why I am so keen for this legislation to get through. This is all pretty exciting and it will make Aucklanders absolutely jealous.

Finally, a very good acknowledgment in the deed of settlement, which I do not think I have seen before, provides a very good precedent for the future. It provides for an appropriate Minister of the Crown to chair an annual hui between relevant Ministers of the Crown and trustees for various purposes. I think that is an excellent idea and it is to be encouraged, because the after-settlement discussions will prevent problems occurring in the future.

All in all, it is good legislation and National supports it. We will cooperate in the passage of the bill through all its stages, including select committee. I will save my congratulations to the various negotiators and those who have played a part in the development of the bill until the third reading.