DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I rise on behalf of the only party to oppose this bill.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Shame on you.

DAVID GARRETT: It is a shame, I say to Mr Horomia, that he is not giving me the courtesy I gave him, which was to speak without interruption. Although I was sorely tempted, I thought I would show respect by not interrupting the member. It is very sad that Mr Horomia should take that attitude at the outset. There will be those who will be offended by my speech—most notably, I suspect, my colleagues to my left. I would simply like to say that it is not intentional. I am not rising to give intentional offence. The ACT Party genuinely believes the contents of what I am about to say. I hope that, as I have said, some members at least will have the courtesy to listen, as we have listened with respect to them.

I wish to start by quoting, as best I can, William Hobson, New Zealand’s first Governor, who, when signing the Treaty of Waitangi, greeted each Māori co-signor with the words: “He iwi tahi tātou”—we are one people. The Treaty promised that we would all be equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of race. It did not say that Māori and Pākehā, as two separate entities, were equal partners. That is an invention of the 1990s. Article 3 expressly gave Māori all the rights and privileges of British subjects. Although that seems a little funny today, it was seen as something that had great value in 1840.

There were indeed many breaches on the Crown’s side, and those are rightfully being redressed. But today we believe that the Crown in this House is committing another major breach by putting the Waikato River under co-governance. Co-governance of our resources was not envisaged by those who signed on to create a new nation in 1840. It represents the abandonment of the cornerstone of democracy: one person, one vote. It makes a lie out of article 3 of the Treaty.

The Kiingitanga Accord contained in schedule 1 of this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlements Bill explains the impact of co-governance. The accord states that decisions must be made by consensus. That would not be a problem if half of the people who will be making up the Waikato River Authority were not undemocratically chosen and representative of such a narrow base. Waikato-Tainui and other tribes are effectively being granted veto power over anything that may have an effect or an impact upon the river.

The accord specifically states that they have control over “development, amendment and implementation of strategies, policy, legislation and regulations… and the processes for granting, transfer, variation and renewal of consents, licenses, permits and other authorisations for all activities that potentially impact on the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.” That is a lot of power and trust being placed in the hands of such a few people, many of whom will be unknown to most New Zealanders.

I ask who exactly do these people represent? The 2008 Waikato River deed of settlement on which this bill is based seems to have been written with very few Māori in mind. The deed states that the Waikato River represents the mana and mauri of Waikato-Tainui. The river is a metaphysical being with its own mauri.

The concept of mauri—life force—will, in our view, have little significance to most Māori, who, according to census figures, are mostly Christian. But that phrase is, essentially, the life force of this bill. It is that belief in a life force that gave birth to many of the clauses in the bill. The Crown is giving half of the control of the Waikato River and its surrounding land to five iwi led by Waikato-Tainui because of a religious belief, or a world view, as Ms Street referred.

People can believe in whatever they like. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of religious expression. What makes this bill so dangerous is that it promotes one group’s belief or life view—ontology, I believe, is the technical term—over all others.

This bill and the 2008 deed of settlement can be traced back to the 1995 deed between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown, which specifically excluded the river from the so-called full and final settlement. Section 24 reserved a future claim to the river, for reasons unknown to me, perhaps for a time when iwi leaders could secure for themselves a more attractive package. Leaving aside for a moment that the 1946 settlement, which I referred to in an earlier speech on this bill and which was said to be a full and final settlement of all raupatu claims, was set aside by the next full and final settlement in 1995—we can leave that aside—the disturbing factor about both the 1995 settlement and this one is that they are based on deeds of settlement that in neither this legislation nor the 1995 Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act formed part of the legislation itself.

Perhaps that is deliberate, because when we find those deeds, it is clear from their terms that they are not, in fact, the final word on the subject matter at all. Both may be amended by agreement between the Government and Waikato-Tainui. This fact, and the history since the 1940s at least, tends to suggest that the grievances will never be fully and finally settled. The more honest Māori radicals, such as Mr Harawira and  Professor Margaret Mutu, admit that this is the case. They say that no generation of Māori can bind those who follow.

Twenty years ago Sir Geoffrey Palmer said that the reference to Treaty principles that he inserted into the State-Owned Enterprises Act would be meaningless. That has proved to be very, very wrong. So when the Government flew Pita Sharples and Māori Television to New York to sign the aspirational Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, we are inclined to believe Hone Harawira when he said that we will see the declaration “applied to your children and your grandchildren, and all of your other mokopuna as well”.  

For the last couple of decades, the Treaty settlement process, of which this bill forms part, has been characterised by Governments of both sides making thoughtless token gestures, only to see them take on unexpected legal significance. It is no wonder that many people are feeling angry.

Now, we have completely full and final settlements, and entered an era where nothing will ever be settled, where grievances will be created against ordinary people by both Crown and Māori, and those aggrieved will have nowhere to turn.

Many New Zealanders have, regardless of their race, an affinity for the Waikato River. Most of us value it greatly for what it provides. We do not have to be Māori to feel a connection or to be angry when the river becomes dangerously polluted—or so we thought. But this bill says that our connection does not matter. At 170 years on from the Treaty signing, we are further away than ever from being one people. This bill is, in fact, saying the exact opposite: forget Hobson’s “We are one people”. This House is today making a conscious choice as to which of those two people are more important.

Many people will not believe me when I say that we in the ACT Party fervently wish Māori to have the same health statistics, education statistics, welfare statistics, and, yes, crime statistics as the rest of us. The problem with this legislation and similar bills is that it encourages Māori to look backwards, to dwell on grievance rather than to look forward. Aside from the other objections, we are no means certain that this will help the people it is meant to help—Māori people. We believe that we are heading further down a very dangerous road, and the ACT Party is unashamed to oppose this bill.