Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move, That the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, and that the committee report back to the House by the end of March 2009.

This bill vests the fee simple estate in Whakarewarewa Valley and Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve land in Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The iwi partners will collectively become the landowners of this area, subject to the usual protections. For clarity, the area comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve, the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve. These lands surround the Whakarewarewa Village. The village has always been in Māori ownership and is not affected by this bill. The lands include the Pōhutu Geyser and other iconic tourist attractions. The Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will be transferred from the Crown to the trustees of the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust under the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation. As agreed by the iwi parties, the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will transfer from the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust trustees to the Whakarewarewa joint trust the day after the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation passes.

It is very satisfying indeed to be able to promote a bill that recognises the cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance of an area to the iwi. The bill continues the positive progress made by this Government and by iwi across the Bay of Plenty region in strengthening the Crown-Māori relationship, both through Treaty settlements and through contemporary initiatives like this one. The bill also provides for the more generalised interests of all New Zealanders. The Whakarewarewa joint trust has been established for the purpose of administering these lands, which will retain their recreation reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977. The leases to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute will continue, and the protections of conservation values contained within the Reserves Act will remain.

Before I go on, I acknowledge the leadership of Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao representatives. E mihi kau ana i a koutou, e Ānaru, e Rangi, koutou katoa ngā whaea. On 1 April 2008 iwi representatives presented Ministers with their proposal to remove the lands from the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation and vest them in a joint trust of the iwi partners. A number of representative entities are involved, and I pause to acknowledge each of them: Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust, Pukeroa-Ōruawhata Trust, Ngāti Whakaue Lands Trust, Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Whakauē, the Tūhourangi Tribal Authority, and the Rāhui Trust. Those entities came together to progress the successful resolution of a range of issues raised during the transfer negotiations, so that this bill could be finalised for introduction into the House. I congratulate them on their leadership and unity of purpose on this matter.

A large number of hapū and iwi entities were involved in this initiative, representing a diverse range of interests. This meant that the negotiations for the transfer of these lands were always going to require the determination, goodwill, and generosity of those iwi and hapū representatives. The common and shared interest of those groups in this area, and the whanaungatanga expressed by their leadership, meant that this initiative was achievable. I commend them for that.

For the purpose of this bill, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are defined as a single entity. A small number of iwi members asked that Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao be separated for the purposes of this bill. The Māori Affairs Committee considered that issue during the hearings on the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. The select committee report back to the House did not recommend that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao be separated in this instance. I am satisfied that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao have expressed a desire to be represented as a single entity, through both their endorsement of the vesting agreement and their agreement to this bill. The bill also provides for an independent mana whenua determination process, which I will talk about shortly. But, overall, this bill provides for Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao to determine their beneficial interests, and does not constrain them.

The bill, of course, represents more than a simple land transfer from the Crown to Māori, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The wider motivations for the Crown and the iwi negotiators included an agreement to vest the fee simple estate in those reserve lands outside the Treaty settlement process. By so doing, the mana of the land of the people of Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao will be recognised, and a stronger Crown-Māori relationship can continue to be built. Taken together with the pending successful conclusion of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation and the Central North Island Iwi Collective Treaty settlements, this bill will position Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao to build a better future for their people, and will provide a foundation for the better realisation of their potential as Māori in their rohe hau kāinga.

This bill will give effect to an agreement signed by the Crown, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and, at a later date, the trustees of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust. With 34 clauses, the bill itself is not overly long. Its contents, however, reflect the complexity of transferring this kind of Crown land to Māori. It is situated at the intersection of neighbouring hapū and iwi. It has well-known iconic value to the country as a whole and to tourists who visit the area. The bill will transfer the land to a joint trust that is representative of Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The agreement also recognises the wider significance of the land to the public generally.

To ensure that hapū and iwi have a way of determining their interest in the land, the bill enables the trustees to determine the beneficial entitlement to the fee simple estate in the land. The trust deed therefore includes a procedure for determining the beneficial entitlement to the reserves and the possible transfer of some, or all, of that land to the appropriate entities. As reflected in the vesting agreement, the Crown has acknowledged that the hapū of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and Ngāti Whakaue have the right to have their claims to the beneficial ownership of the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve independently determined. That may result in the subdivision of the reserves into smaller parcels in recognition of the particular interests of iwi and hapū, if that is what they wish.

The bill provides that the administering body of the reserves will be the trustees of the Whakarewarewa joint trust, who represent Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The trustees will become the lessees and will receive the rental proceeds from the leases to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, to administer them on behalf of the people. The bill is significant because the vesting will recognise the mana of the iwi parties to the Whakarewarewa Valley and Roto-a-Tamaheke lands. Iwi will lead the process through which their more specific interests in the lands will be reflected in the future. For those reasons, the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee and be reported back to the House by the end of March 2009. That will allow the select committee sufficient time to receive submissions on the bill after the Christmas break. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I start by saying that the briefing paper I received on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill is pretty straightforward and there do not appear to be any fish-hooks. But when I look closely at the background to the bill, there are some questions that my colleagues and I, and those on the Māori Affairs Committee, might like to ask when the new committee is established after the election. The briefing paper states that the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve were acquired by the Crown from Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That begs the question of what was paid for and how the land was acquired. Was it paid for, was it stolen, did the people at home say: “Please, ‘Mr Crown’, can you look after it for us because we’re not in a position to look after it.”? Those are the sorts of questions that I would like answered.

In reading through the briefing paper, it seems that although there is the transfer of the fee simple title in these reserves, they will remain as reserves for a long, long time into the future. They will always be reserves, even though the landlord may have changed hands. But, in effect, I think the bill is a bit of a Clayton’s deal. The fee simple title has been given back, but one cannot really do anything with it.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Yes, you can.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is good; the Minister says one can do something with it. That is fine, if that is the effect. But it looks as though, from the briefing paper that I have been given from the Minister of Māori Affairs’ office—

Pita Paraone: What?

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, a briefing paper from the Minister of Māori Affairs’ office—I do not know how I got it, but I got it. It must be one of those things that slipped off the back of the trolley.

Simon Power: Got it from Trevor’s office.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, I got it from Trevor Mallard’s office. But all kidding aside, the briefing paper says that the land will continue to be reserves under the Reserves Act. If that is true, then I would be of the opinion that people cannot do anything with it other than what is allowed for under the Reserves Act. We may have to tidy that up and find out for real what people can do with the land that has been handed back.

I will not take up too much more time, other than to reply to the point in the Minister’s speech about Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao—here we go again. But the funny thing is that on page 1 of the briefing paper, it states “Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi-Ngāti Wāhiao”, which is different from what is on page 4, which states “Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao”. I know that this is a real minor point, and that I must thank our kaumātua for pointing this out. They did not bail me up outside, but they saw me waiting for my other half, and they instructed me on the whakapapa of Wāhiao and Tūhourangi. So I thank them very much, and it is all clear—ko ātea. But I still have a problem with why there is a hyphen between the names of the two iwi on page 1 and then there is no hyphen on page 4, but just a straight “Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao”.

The great thing about this is that we have gone through the debates in the other two bills and maybe it will be one of the chores of the next Māori Affairs Committee to delve deeper into—

Pita Paraone: It’ll be the same one.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is highly unlikely, brother—highly unlikely.

Pita Paraone: It might have a new chairman.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, we might have a new chairman.

Pita Paraone: But Dave will be there.

Hon TAU HENARE: For that to happen, I digress—[Interruption] I will not go there. That is one of those issues that maybe the next Māori Affairs Committee can delve into.

I would question the paragraph on page 3 of the briefing paper asking whether the bill is part of a Treaty settlement. It states in the briefing paper that, no, it is not. I wonder why it is not part of an overall Treaty package. What is the reason for it? Is it just because the Crown is feeling rather benevolent and has said: “OK, you guys. You can have this.”, or what was the reason? It does not say in the briefing paper.

Hon Mita Ririnui: It’s the right thing to do.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, it is the right thing to do. So why was it not done in the first 9 years of this Labour Government? Oh, I get it. Now it is all—like I said before—ko ātea. I am clear now as to why the Government is doing it so late in the piece.

Hon Mita Ririnui: Because you didn’t.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, the question is why we did not do it. Well, I might even ask why we did not fight in the Crimean War, for goodness’ sake! Those members are in the Government. One would have thought that there was a better answer than: “Well, why didn’t you do it?”. In fact, I will give a reply to that question. Why did we not do it? Actually, I did not even think about it. At least the answer to that question from me is an honest answer, an upfront answer, but this bill is all about trying to curry favour. That is all it is. Because if it is not part of a Treaty settlement, then what is it for? Maybe I was a bit harsh. Maybe I am being a bit harsh. But maybe it is not part of a Treaty settlement because if it was, then the value of the reserves in question would have gone against the value of the whole Treaty package, and they would have gone over it, and it would have had an impact on the ratchet clauses both in the Ngāi Tahu legislation and the Tainui legislation. Maybe that is why it is not part of the Treaty legislation. Oh yeah, that is right. Anyway, in a nutshell, that is the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill.

Going back a bit, I congratulate Te Arawa in general. It is not their fault that this bill has been so late in coming. It is not their fault that there is an election in 6½ weeks’ time. Again, I offer my congratulations on their seizing the opportunity, but I will have to ask some questions. We will not be voting against this bill; we will be voting for it to go to the select committee, so that the select committee can ask, and maybe receive, some answers from the officials and the Minister in charge—whoever that may be—in the coming months.

Pita Paraone: It’s not going to be you.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, it is not going to be me. So now we have the matakite from Ngāpuhi. He even knows who will be the Minister. Well, well, I am astounded by my tuakana’s ability to get out that crystal ball and see who the Minister will be. If it is not me, well, who cares? This ain’t about me; this is about a bill that needs questioning. That is what we will do, and that is what this House will do, come the select committee debate. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill at its first reading, knowing that the select committee will not be considering it for some time. On the face of it, this looks like very simple and basic legislation, but it is actually more complex than that, as most settlements are.

I have some concerns that the Minister has not set out. Some of those concerns were expressed by members of, particularly, Ngāti Wāhiao about the process by which this bill came about. I have been sent some information and have been reading documents about concerns around the process by which this legislation, this deal, was endorsed. I understand that there are some real concerns about the eligibility difference between the iwi who are involved in the transfer of this land, concerns about the endorsement hui, and also concerns about the postal vote discrepancies. There was concern that some of the owners of the blocks have been excluded from the endorsement process because they are not involved members of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. I understand there is a request for the option of a separate registered role for Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao, so that there can be another go at developing a proper process.

I do not know the full background behind those concerns, but I do know that the Crown very easily accepts poor process when dealing with settlements. I believe, and the Green Party believes, that the Crown must not just be satisfied that there was a process, but that it should also be satisfied that the process itself was transparent, fair, and just for all of those who are affected by the decisions. I think that it is quite legitimate for the members of the iwi and hapū involved to raise concerns about that, and, generally speaking, the select committee considers those concerns and takes them seriously. It is extremely important that the mana whenua of the land in question in any settlement—this one included—have the fullest confidence that for them the process was a just, fair, and legitimate one. Of course, we know from many of the settlements that we have dealt with in this House, and from many that we have looked at as select committee members through the last few years, that often the processes involved are very poor.

It is interesting to note that because the select committee will not be considering this bill for possibly a month or two or three, depending on the outcome of the election, the Government has time to address the concerns that have been set out. It does have time to go back to those who have raised legitimate concerns, to work through the process with them, to come back to the select committee when it has its meetings on this bill, and to advise us on the outcome of those discussions and how it seeks to remedy the concerns about the process. There is nothing illegitimate about doing that. It makes perfect sense to do that. The Crown has the resources to go and talk with people, and in fact that is the whole point of the Treaty settlement process. It is intended to enable the development of much better relationships between the Crown and iwi. That is often forgotten in the furore about land and money, but actually, in part, the process is about strengthening relationships, and if the processes by which settlement bills come about are unfair, unjust, or exclude those who should not be excluded, then the relationship between the Crown and iwi is in peril, and the whole point of the settlement legislation is put in peril. It cannot be a full and final settlement if the process itself is unfair.

Having said that, I say other concerns will come before the select committee. Those who have negotiated and agreed to this legislation will have worked very hard to bring it to the House at this stage. It is very difficult to work one’s way through a settlement process. I know this is not a settlement bill, but it is related to settlements and it is the same process, essentially. So their work and their efforts have to be respected, and it can take months and months, years and years in some cases, for this kind of legislation to come before the House.

So the Green Party will look very carefully at the results of this legislation at the select committee. We will listen carefully to all those who make submissions. We strongly urge the Government to engage with the members of Ngāti Wāhiao in particular, and with all those involved in the settlement, to make sure it really is a fair and just process. That is not costly; that is what building honourable Treaty relationships is all about. Kia ora.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : At nearly 5 to 11 at night, I am pleased to take a call on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. We have heard the Minister set out its provisions. The Whakarewarewa Valley Land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve are of significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The Whakarewarewa Valley Land comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve.

The bill provides for the fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to be vested as follows. The fee simple estate in the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve is vested in the Crown. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it is being vested in the Te Pūmautanga trustees, and the fee simple estate in the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it is being vested in the Te Pūmautanga trustees.

I will make some observations on a couple of matters that my colleague Tau Henare raised. I have just recited what the bill provides for; looking further into the bill, we see that the statement is made—certainly in the briefing papers—that this bill does not form part of any Treaty settlement but, rather, it is intended to assist in building healthy relationships between the Crown and Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. I am as curious as he is as to what that basis is all about. There is nothing wrong at all in the Crown’s wish to build strong and healthy relationships with any iwi, but does that mean that in future, as we go around the country settling claims, we might effect certain transfers just because we need to build these relationships?

I would have thought that a briefing paper might propose a better and more transparent reason for these transfers than that. I would have thought that maybe the most obvious reason for the transfer is that these are traditional lands. They were held by the iwi—presumably, by Ngāti Wāhiao, maybe—and it makes sense in this day and age, when the Crown is settling a comprehensive claim with Te Arawa interests, that these traditional lands, or reserves, are returned to the iwi. I am as curious as my colleague Tau Henare is to understand how that plank, that basis, can assist in building healthy relationships between the Crown and Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao.

I congratulate Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao—no doubt about it. They have been beavering away, working very hard for some years now, to try to settle all those issues that have long been on the table for them and to seek some conclusion to their grievances. There is no doubt that the Whakarewarewa Reserve has been a matter of contention for them.

Maybe the Minister needs to have someone prepare the briefing papers better. I certainly thank the Minister for sending them along to us, but it just does not hold true, and it is not necessarily a good basis on which the Crown might be being seen to transfer lands held by the Crown, when indeed there are more valid reasons for the Crown to do this sort of thing. In any event, that issue is raised.

This bill will be referred to a select committee, the Māori Affairs Committee, and that committee will have plenty of time to explore that issue along with other issues that are raised in the bill. Then there is the issue of the status of the Whakarewarewa Valley lands and Roto-a-Tamaheke as a recreation reserve. What will their status be? The bill provides that the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve, Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will remain recreational reserves under the Reserves Act 1977. On the one hand these reserves are being transferred to the iwi, yet I ask whether this is another case like—

Christopher Finlayson: Mauao.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —yes—the Mauao reserve in Tauranga. Is this another case like that, where the Crown, on the one hand, gives, but, on the other hand, takes? [Interruption] Well, it does not matter for the moment. I am not really asking for an answer tonight. But I just raise the issue, because it does seem odd. We have these reserves, which have these deep cultural, spiritual, and historical associations, and on the face of it they ought to be in the hands of the iwi anyway—in the ownership of the iwi. We still do not know how the Crown got them. That is not set out in this bill. That is another issue, as well.

It is a bill that obviously sets out to return areas of land of deep significance to the iwi, yet at the same time it raises issues that I find rather interesting, particularly at 11 o’clock at night, after being in the House for 15 hours. It is the sixth bill with Māori interests in it that we have had, and I suppose that at least if it raises these questions, it does help to keep me on my feet and keep me going until midnight. It is an interesting question. We are giving with one hand, and we seem to be taking it back with the other.

These are reserves, anyway. What the iwi will be able to do with them will be limited, as well. I think that between now and when this bill surfaces again, in the new year, even though there might be a change of personnel—hopefully, there will be—those questions will be answered.

The only other matter I wish to raise before I resume my seat is that it will not be any surprise to the koroua sitting in the gallery that some of us have had pleas, requests, from certain interests in Ngāti Wāhiao who see this area as theirs traditionally, and they say that if anyone has a deep association with the area, then it is them. The issue that was raised earlier in the affiliate legislation raises itself here as well, where we have the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and of course that is of deep concern to some. I know the koroua understand that. The issue will be raised again here and it will be explored again in the select committee, as well.

But having said those things—and I have said it already but I will say it again—I do congratulate the Te Arawa elders who are in the gallery. I also congratulate them on coming here late at night, at 11 o’clock, to support the first reading of this bill. It is another part of the settlement that their affiliate has negotiated with the Crown. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa, pō mārie.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, engari i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei pire, e mihi tonu ki a koutou ngā rangatira mai i Te Arawa. Ahakoa kei waenganui pō i puta mai te pire nei engari, ko te mea nui kua puta mai.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but before I continue on this bill I acknowledge the leaders of Te Arawa. Although this bill has emerged in the middle of the night, the main thing is that it has appeared.]

I am acknowledging the presence of the elders from Te Arawa in the gallery at this time. I said that irrespective of what time of day this Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill has come before the House, the main thing I am sure, not only for myself and the New Zealand First Party, but for the elders of Te Arawa, is that it has come before the House. This indicates that the bill is now part of the process, and subsequent to this debate it will be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration. This is not a settlement bill, as a number of speakers who preceded me have mentioned, but it is associated with settlement bills and in particular with the affiliate Te Arawa legislation that was passed earlier today. New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill going to the select committee because it will allow those people who are concerned about a number of issues to bring them to the select committee for consideration. I know that representatives of the Ngāti Wāhiao rūnanga attempted to make an appointment to see me today, but unfortunately, due to the number of legislative items today that concerned Māori, I was unable to meet with them. But essentially the concern is in terms of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. I think that many of the concerns expressed during the hearings on the affiliate Te Arawa legislation were a prelude to this particular bill, and that is the issue of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao.

As I mentioned during the debate on those bills, this is not an issue, I believe, for this House to debate; rather, it is an issue to be resolved by the iwi themselves. The Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve are of significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. They comprise the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve is vested as follows: the fee simple estate in the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve is vested in the Crown. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it has been vested in the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa trustees. The fee simple estate in the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it has been vested in the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa trustees.

I do not think there is too much more that needs to be said during this first reading; suffice it to say that there is no doubt of the iconic position that this piece of land—I should not say “piece” of land, because it really is of cultural and traditional historical significance to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao—plays in the wider economy of our country. In fact, because of these lands many of our overseas visitors come to New Zealand to enjoy the scenery that this area provides not only for visitors from overseas but also for many New Zealanders. I think it is an indication of the contribution that Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao make to the wider economy of our country. New Zealand First will support this bill being referred to the select committee. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. E Pita, he paku kōrero ki a koe ki a koutou e tangi nei mō tā koutou hoa, tō tātou hoa, ā, ka nui te tangi o te ngākau i tēnei pō. Waiho a ia kia moe.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all of us. Pita, a little word to you in respect of you collectively mourning your colleague, our colleague; there is much grief within us tonight. Let him rest.]

Te Whakarewarewa o Te Ope Taua a Wāhiao is perhaps the closest to what we would call a national icon. It is the first location on the tourism map, a site of significance for overseas dignitaries, and a busy and active business enterprise. Over the centuries a regular stream of distinguished manuhiri have been called on to Pākira Marae at Whakarewarewa as a mark of the esteem in which this nation holds them. I found out that in the 1880s Te Kooti Rikirangi, founder of the Ringatū Church, was officially welcomed on there. When the late King George V and Queen Mary visited Whakarewarewa in 1901, apparently over 5,000 of our people and 3,000 Pākehā people arrived in Rotorua. I am told that huge crowds flocked to Whakarewarewa for the civic welcome home of the Māori Battalion when it returned from World War II. And we remember those unique, world-famous guides who brought such quality to the tourism trade of this nation: Guide Rangi, Guide Maggie—Makereti Papakura—Guide Bubbles, and Guide Sophia. Those from Rotorua know that Guide Rangi is said to have made world headlines when she greeted Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, with a hongi.

But Whakarewarewa is also much more than a priority on the touring itinerary. In tribal history, it is the unique home of atua Te Pupu and Te Hoata, who emerged from the core of Papatūānuku, breathing in and out, creating in their path the geysers, the bubbling hot pools, and the hot springs.

From what we heard at the Māori Affairs Committee, it seems that Ngāti Wāhiao are confirmed as the customary holders of the ancestral lands of the Whakarewarewa Valley. They have lived there since way back. They live there to this day. The large carved tupuna whare there is called Wāhiao. It is named for these people. The Whakarewarewa Valley land comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve.

The Tūhourangi people, we were told, found refuge in the valley after the devastating 1886 eruption of Tarawera mountain. Through Native Land Court decisions in 1883, 1888, and 1893, the entire area became vested in the Crown. Ngāti Wāhiao maintained fee simple title to the adjoining lands through to the present time. Many of the Tūhourangi people settled with their relatives the Ngāti Wāhiao people at Whakarewarewa, and there was some intermarriage—as one would expect—as a result. We heard from whānau who described how their grandmothers and, obviously, their mothers were of Ngāti Wāhiao, or perhaps their fathers were. Intermarriage happened, they all lived in close proximity, and there became an association between the two peoples. Those who gave their views at the select committee were clear that the mana whenua has always rested with Ngāti Wāhiao.

And so we are here today to initiate a deed with the Crown to provide for the transfer of the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The Ngāti Whakaue link here, as I understand it, is to what might be called Arikikapakapa and Te Roto-a-Tamaheke.

This is where the challenge begins. The introduction of vesting legislation to effect the transfer is not without difficulties, as other members have said tonight. Although I made reference to Whakarewarewa as a site of national significance, it is important from the outset to note that there is dispute around the very notion of giving customary rights to both Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. I had better say that the matters relating to Ngāti Whakaue are relatively clear. As others have said, Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao believes that this bill, in giving customary rights away, is a wrongful alienation of an established property right without consent. Ngāti Wāhiao have comprehensive documentary evidence of the petitions they have laid before the court dating back to 1883. They describe Tūhourangi as being admitted to Whakarewarewa by a tuku of land later, and state that for the purposes of this legislation Ngāti Wāhiao will be included with the descendants of Tūhourangi.

I have received a letter that was sent to the Minister of Māori Affairs and Dr Cullen from the hapū nominees for the Whakarewarewa Valley negotiations, which will be fundamental to future dialogue and debate. In that letter it is stated that on 5 February 2006 Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa promised that the valley would be returned exclusively to Ngāti Wāhiao. As I expressed this morning on the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, where these pieces of land have been returned under the affiliate, the matter of the uncoupling of Ngāti Wāhiao from Tūhourangi needs to be sorted, because here is the follow-up bill that takes it from Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa to a new entity. Having both bills so close has not helped.

So what is the problem? Well, it seems that the key matter, as I say, is to recognise the mana of Ngāti Wāhiao in the arrangement by uncoupling the names. I have tried to get a good handle on this and why the split has come about. It seems to be something like this. The land in question is included in the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa legislation. Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are an affiliate to that organisation, as we learnt this morning. This Whakarewarewa legislation allows that land to be allocated to beneficiaries. So, as I understand it, Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa calls an endorsement hui at Wāhiao to consider the bill, and the people at that hui indicate a desire to protect the interests of Ngāti Wāhiao, and they vote to have three Tūhourangi plus three Ngāti Wāhiao work together with Ngāti Whakaue representatives. In order to progress the agreement, it is decided to have an endorsement vote. In order to consider those who could participate, those who were registered with Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao under the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa arrangement were able to vote in a postal ballot—no problem. Because Ngāti Wāhiao as an iwi were not recognised under the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa deal as a distinct entity, they were required to have a ballot taken at a hui called on 27 July 2008 at Wāhiao. Clearly, Tūhourangi has a database of beneficiaries, and circulates papers to those people not only in Rotorua but throughout the country and abroad. Ngāti Wāhiao, on the other hand, rely on those who attend the hui. A concern raised was that the actual landowners could not be present and could not participate in the postal ballot, because they were not registered, or perhaps were overseas.

Hon Darren Hughes: Speak from the heart. Put the notes away.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am. As I understand it, the postal ballot delivered around 400 responses. The hui ballot attracted around 40-50 votes. The postal ballot was clearly in favour. The hui vote was against. Was it clearly understood that the two votes would be combined? Of that I am not sure, but it was not understood by some. The view of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao was that both methods of voting had to be won; if, for example, the hui vote was lost, as happened, that was the end of the deal. This, some thought, was to give strength to the matter of the significant mana whenua interests of Ngāti Wāhiao.

So where are things now? Well, I am not too sure about that, but the concerns remain. And so, with this context in mind, it is on the cards, and can be pretty much predicted, that the select committee process will be fraught with a little bit of conflict. This bill gives effect to the deed to transfer recreational reserve lands, Whakarewarewa Valley land, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The bill also defines a joint trust established by Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao to hold the three sites. In itself, all of this may well be challenging. The way in which Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao discuss together how to determine an appropriate division of responsibility and ownership in relation to this site will inevitably be crucial for future relationships.

The land in question is substantial. The Whakarewarewa Thermal Valley includes the 45 hectare Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the 15 hectare part of the Arikikapakapa Reserve on which the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute stands, and of which it has a lease in perpetuity. The valley also includes the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve of 4.3 hectares and part of the Whakarewarewa forest.

At the heart of this bill is the notion that the transfer is intended to assist the Crown in building a healthy relationship with Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. That is well and good, but the crucial matter will be whether our own internal processes can come to a win-win situation for all. Against the background I have tried to paint, is there a willingness to do this? Like other members, I hope so. Is there anything to lose by those involved talking with each other? Not really; it will not cost anything. Could it be a facilitated process? It is not for me to say, but the model is there in the central North Island iwi deal, with people like Wira Gardiner. In the end, the worst possible outcome would be for us to arrive back here to hear the bill in the select committee process, and to find division. Ko tāku noa ake, ko te kī atu, ko te tūmanako ia ana ka whakakotahi nei tātau i a tātau, kia tutuki pai tēnei o ngā moemoeā. Huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[Mine is simply to advocate the hope that we become united so that this one of the dreams is completed well. Greetings to us throughout the House, and thank you.]

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) :Otirā, e Te Arawa tangata, Te Arawa waka tū tautoko anō ngā mihi ki a koutou haere ā-tawhiti mai rā i te wā kāinga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kōrua tahi o tēnā o ō tātou rōpū tōrangapū, Aotearua Tuatahi e Pita, kōrua tahi, tautoko i ngā mihi mō tērā o ō tātou rangatira kua huri ki tua o te ārai. Otirā, kia ora tātou.

[To you indeed, the people and canoe of Te Arawa, I rise once again to support the accolades accorded to you who come from a distance from home; greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you. To you two, Pita of that political party of ours, New Zealand First, condolences to that esteemed colleague of ours who has crossed beyond the divide. Greetings to us.]

I stand in support of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, and once again—and I do not want to be left out—I declare a conflict of interest. But is it not interesting that today will become a historic day because of the number of Treaty settlement bills that have been passed through this House in a single day? Although it may seem a very long day for the members in this House, it has been an even longer day for the representatives of Te Arawa here in the gallery this evening. About this time last evening they would have been just leaving the warmth of their homes in Rotorua to take this big trip down to Parliament to witness this historic day, so for them it has been an even longer day and an even longer journey.

I have heard a number of people in the House today raise a number of issues that I intend to respond to. An issue was raised around that iconic maunga at the entrance to the Tauranga Harbour, Mauao. The question asked why the maunga was transferred back in fee simple title, yet the Crown retained the ownership. But that was not the case, at all. The people of Tauranga agreed to the return of that maunga, but they also agreed that the maunga, or the estate, should remain as a reserve, mō ake tonu atu [forever].

That requires the application of the Reserves Act. The Crown remains associated with the maunga and the estate because of the Reserves Act, but at the same time all costs in maintaining the reserve remain with the Crown’s agent, the Tauranga City Council, and the public liability in terms of health and safety remains with the Crown. I think that is a pretty good outcome. There are people in this House who said that the Crown transferred back to the iwi of Tauranga the shadow but retained the substance.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: We didn’t say that.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: It is true, even though Georgie says she never said that. I am saying it is true. The Crown transferred back to the iwi of Tauranga only the shadow, and why was that? It is because that is all the Crown had. You see, the substance we talk about—and it is the same for Whakarewarewa—is the history, the culture, the association, the ancestral connection, and the spirit of the estate. That is the substance, and that has always remained with us. No one, not even the Crown, could take that away from us. So when we talk about the transfer of these iconic assets, it is important that we get our thinking right.

I will come back to the bill. Once again, we are talking about a similar arrangement. The Hon Tau Henare was in the House earlier, and I am disappointed that he has left because he raised a very relevant matter. He asked why this was not included as part of a Treaty settlement. The other question he asked was “Why now?”. I will answer the latter question first. Why not now? What does time have to do with it? He asked why it was not part of a Treaty settlement. Well, the fact is that it was. It was part of the Te Puni Kōkiri settlement package, but through an agreement between the iwi, Ngāti Wāhaio - Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakaue, it was agreed that this part of the estate be removed from the settlement package. As Dr Cullen mentioned earlier today, the Crown asked Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa to demonstrate some flexibility, and that was done, but Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa made it clear that their flexibility was as wide as the Crown’s generosity. So here we have it: the removal of this particular estate, the Whakarewarewa estate and Te Roto-a-Tamaheke, out of the Pūmautanga o Te Arawa settlement package, to be resolved separately from that particular settlement. That was not inconsistent with the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that Ngāti Whakaue, who were not included in the Pūmautanga o Te Arawa settlement, should be recognised as owners in common with Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao in the valley, and this bill achieves that.

The speakers who stood before me highlighted particular aspects of the bill—in fact, in quite significant detail. I felt it important to respond to those queries and criticisms, because we do not want people leaving this House tonight with the wrong impression about this whole matter. Mr Henare also asked “Well, why?”. My response to him is that it is the right thing to do. There can be a very complicated technical response to a question like that, but the answer is quite simple: it is the right thing to do. Because the estate was part of the Pūmautanga o Te Arawa settlement package, it follows that the Crown’s acquisition of the estate had to have been by raupatu—in other words, without the consent of the traditional owners. That is not a new thing. That is not uncommon. That happened around the country, and to anyone who says that Te Arawa lost nothing, I can say that the record says something completely different. There is not an iwi in Aotearoa that was not affected by the actions of the Crown in terms of the dispossession of their estates.

The matter of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi and the coupling of the two iwi is something that has been bandied around this House. I do not intend to mention it any more, because that is a matter, as has been mentioned in this House, that Te Arawa as a people will resolve on the marae, at home, and in their own time. So time is moving; I was told to keep my speech very short by my colleagues here, and I believe I have achieved that. Ki a tātou katoa kua huihui nei, e te Rangatira, ā te wā, kia ora tātou katoa.

[To all of us gathered here, and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the time will come, so greetings to us all.]

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.