Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. From the shores of Whangaparāoa in the south to the cliffs of Paepae o Tū in the north, from the western tides of Kōritotī, Ōtakamaitū through the currents of te awa o Hōteo flowing on to Kīkītangiao, Hauhanganui to the pā of Te Ārai o Tāhuhu. The children of Manuhiri, the people of Moekaraka waka, nau mai, haere mai. Ko Tamahunga te maunga, ko Ngā Poitoa o Te Kupenga o Toi Te Huatahi te moana, ko Ngāti Manuhiri te hapū, ko Ōmaha te marae.

[Tamahunga is the mountain, Ngā Poitoa o Te Kupenga o Toi Te Huatahi is the ocean, Ngāti Manuhiri is the subtribe, and Ōmaha is the courtyard.]

It was at Ōmaha Marae that the peoples of Ngāti Manuhiri gathered with the Crown in May last year to sign a deed to settle their Treaty of Waitangi grievances with the Crown. The agreement was the first settlement deed signed in the Tāmaki-makau-rau region. Those actions bring us all here today to consider the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill.

A key part of this settlement bill will be the official recognition of tipuna Māori names throughout the homelands of Ngāti Manuhiri. In recent weeks in Auckland, some have been asking what is in a name. The Hon Tau Henare spoke to this before in reference to Māori names. But my response is that a name is a history, a name is a whakapapa, a heritage—a name is everything. The Hon Parekura Horomia also supported this view. Over the years Māori heritage was gradually removed from the official identity of this and many other regions. Māori identity was renamed and replaced. However, bills such as this one we are debating today seek to restore that identity throughout our country.

Little Barrier Island was named because the explorer Captain James Cook decided that it looked like a little barrier. Bream Tail was named because Cook’s crew caught a lot of bream fish, or snapper, while they were anchored nearby. No one really knows why Goat Island got its name, as no one can ever remember goats living on it. These are names we have grown accustomed to, sometimes attached to, but they are only one side of the story of Aotearoa. It is Little Barrier Island in English, but what in Te Reo Māori? It is Te Hauturu-o-Toi. The resting place of the winds—Te Hauturu-o-Toi. It is the centre pole of the great net of Taramainuku. The descendants of Taramainuku lived at Bream Tail, or, as they knew it, Paepae o Tū. It is Goat Island in English, but in Te Reo Māori it is Te Hāwere-a-Maki, taking us back to the warrior chieftain Maki, the father of Manuhiri, from whom all Ngāti Manuhiri descend.

The television programme Who Do You Think You Are? sees celebrities rediscovering their whakapapa, their family tree. For New Zealanders, the settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims is our own version of Who Do You Think You Are?. How else can we know who we are if we do not know our own names? How can we know where we are heading if we do not know where we have been? In a region like Auckland, as mentioned earlier, with few modern Māori landmarks, it makes it even more important to ensure our ancestral Māori landmarks carry the names and heritage of the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau. If we are to share a nation together, then New Zealanders must also embrace our shared history and our shared place names.

Based at Ōmaha Marae, Ngāti Manuhiri describe their ancestral interests as extending along the eastern seaboard from Whangaparāoa in the south to Paepae o Tū in the north. In the west, those interests extend to the coastal range from Kōritotī and Ōtakamaitū near Araparera, to the Hōteo River and on to Kīkītangiao and Hauhanganui, which is Wellsford. They then run north-east from Patumakariri near Wellsford to the east coast of Te Ārai o Tāhuhu, which is Te Ārai Point, and Paepae o Tū.

Around 1840 Ngāti Manuhiri held customary interests over 250,000 acres. By the 1890s, they had lost 90 percent of their traditional lands. Today, in 2012, with only 1,300 acres or so in small multiple-owned holdings, Ngāti Manuhiri are effectively landless in their own homelands. The Crown’s alienation of Ngāti Manuhiri lands began less than a year after Te Tiriti o Waitangi was first signed in 1840. It began with the forced Mahurangi and Ōmaha purchase. It continued with the Crown’s individualisation and fragmentation of Ngāti Manuhiri lands. It was consolidated by the painful and forced eviction of Ngāti Manuhiri rangatira and families from Te Hauturu-o-Toi island.

The Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi have been carried over many years by generations of Ngāti Manuhiri people. Without the land and resources to take ownership of their own destiny, for generations of Ngāti Manuhiri people their right to determine their own economic and social well-being was denied. This landlessness meant that the right of Ngāti Manuhiri to uphold their own mana motuhake, to exercise their own rangatiratanga, was denied.

All those things lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be totally replaced. Yet the people of Ngāti Manuhiri wish to settle their grievances with the Crown with mana and with honour. Over the years and across generations the Ngāti Manuhiri people have led a long journey that has brought them to New Zealand’s House of Representatives today. Through perseverance, through conviction, and through leadership they have reached a strong settlement for their people. I look forward to this bill proceeding to the Committee stage without delay. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : E mihi kau ana i a koe te Minita Māori mō tō tuku kōrero mō te āhua nei o Ngāti Manuhiri, i a koutou ngā mea pakeke, ngā uri o Ngāti Manuhiri e whai kaha atu ki te tae mai ki konei ki te whakatikatika atu i tēnei nawe. Te roaroa hoki o te tū nei, te hoki atu ki te kooti, te whakahoki atu i te kōrero, me te tīmata i roto i a koutou e mahi atu ngā mahi mō te whakatikatika, nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[I acknowledge you, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and your sentiments about this situation relating to Ngāti Manuhiri, and you as well, the elder ones and descendants of Ngāti Manuhiri, who worked hard to get here to rectify this grievance. It has remained unaddressed for a very long period of time. It has gone before the court, it has been returned for further consultation, and now your efforts to begin rectifying the situation are at hand, so congratulations to us.]

This is an interesting settlement—very interesting. Of course, it is based in the area called Ōmaha, where some politicians have some big houses. Ngāti Manuhiri are based at Ōmaha Marae, Pakiri, north of Auckland. Ngāti Mauhiri descend from the tipuna Manuhiri. They are part of the Kawerau-a-Maki confederation, and also have close ties to Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Wai.

I think one of the principal issues that is very relevant in this settlement is that they have had a stressful time with the Crown. They did not agree in the beginning, and they went away and they came back. I do want to recognise that great supporting soldier—who is an uri of Captain Cook—Sir Douglas Graham for the effort that he put in to whakawhitiwhiti and help get the conglomerate to get their organisation to move forward.

Alongside that there are key figures. It is always difficult in naming people, because you leave people out, and a lot of them are here now. I see Clint and I see Mooks up there. I never knew what Mooks’ real name was till I had a look at the paper here. E mihi atu i a koe matua, me koutou katoa e noho atu i konei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou e Tame.

[I commend you, uncle, and all of you seated about here. So congratulations to you, Tame, and everyone.]

And there is Laly Haddon, who is an old warrior. One of the great things about Māori leaders is, you know—there is nothing like it—you see how great they are by counting the knives in their back! I want to recognise Laly Haddon—[Interruption] For whatever reason. I have watched this tall, sterling character with ailing health stand true all the time. That is what I have got out of Treaty settlements. It is recognising and seeing some of these characters, who have stood steadfast against all odds—against all odds.

I do not think people in Parliament and some of our colleagues ever appreciate that tension. It is a lot different, in the sense of the pressures that they have to take just to get here. On one side they have to try to be relevant and agree with the Crown, even though it is putting right what was wrong. On the other side they have tried to appease some of the differences amongst their people. I got hōhā when I was listening to the radio this morning and it was talking about Ngāti Manuhiri, that, you know, they have got to come to a general agreement. Well, I have actually seen it in the churches and the “cossie clubs” around this country where the factions do not agree. They still go there, because they all drink the same ale, but they have different opinions, you know? There are a whole lot of people who praise God—bless their souls—yet they do it in different churches, in different ways. Yet it is OK. So it is OK to have a difference, but it is better and bigger still that we get here, as the Crown—and I want to mihi to Minister Finlayson; he is the supporter—in relation to getting to this day for the people of Ngāti Manuhiri.

They have had a real go. They did not accept in the first instance what was put on the table. They went away and they came back. The negotiations and the negotiators on both sides need to be recognised and commended for that. It has not been an easy settlement. We saw and heard that at the rugby league—or rugby club. I had better be careful. I am not sure what sort of club it was, but it was one of those up there.

Hone Harawira: Rugby league.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Rugby league. The Warriors should be sacked!

I want to recognise Laly Haddon, Peri Watts, and everybody else. These negotiations did arise out of Sir Douglas Graham’s efforts, in June 2009, for all groups in Kaipara, Mahurangi, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Hauraki, and Coromandel, including Ngāti Manuhiri, to enter into direct negotiations with the Crown to settle all the historical Treaty claims. These days, as the Minister said earlier, should be labelled as Treaty settlement days, because that is what they are. They are not days of urgency. This urgency has been a long time coming. It has been so urgent it has taken 150 years to get here! So on these Treaty settlement days like today, it is great that we can come together to ratify and consolidate the initialling of the deed of settlement.

The Ngāti Manuhiri claim relates to the failure of the Crown to create adequate reserves for Ngāti Manuhiri during the purchase of Mahurangi and Ōmaha in 1841—native land laws and the operation of the Native Land Court in the Crown’s acquisition of Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island. We have certainly heard—under the stewardship of that great leader of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare—100-odd submissions in relation to the tensions and people’s world view of that. So it is appreciated that there are differences there, but it should be said that at the end of the day it is not going to disappear, and it is something they could work together to manage for the benefit of having it under their guidance.

The Crown’s actions left Ngāti Manuhiri virtually landless. It had devastating and enduring effects on the spiritual, cultural, and economic well-being of Ngāti Manuhiri. You know, I drove up along this well-funded highway north of Auckland to this holiday camp place. I saw these incredibly sized houses, and I asked: “Who owns that house there?”. No, no, it was not the locals. It was not the locals. Whose is that house over there? It was Glen Osmond’s. Somebody was talking about a planet the other day—he had one there. I do not want to sound jealous about the wealth that is there, and whatever else, so I think, Minister, one thing is that some of those houses should be returned to Ngāti Manuhiri, even at this late stage!

As part of the settlement package, in addition to the Crown apology and acknowledgments, Ngāti Manuhiri will receive financial and commercial redress to the value of $9 million, which includes $2.498 million cash, and the Warkworth District Court and Pakiri School sites, which will be leased back to the Crown. I am really encouraged about this Warkworth District Court, because they really could have a look at the skyrocketing rates, which the people of Ngāti Manuhiri tell me are hurting them. This is a serious issue, because where some of them live it has always been valued as their hau kāinga, where their tipuna might have been or their families have been for generations. All of a sudden, because of this prosperity of other people from other planets who have built there, their rates and values skyrocket—not because of them. I would strongly suggest that it is considered as we go along towards finalising this settlement. Cultural redress, which includes Hauturu, is recognition of Te Hauturu-o-Toi to Ngāti Manuhiri. There is the vesting and gift back to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand within 7 days of the Hauturu-o-Toi nature reserve in the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust. I am always fascinated by the returns.

I just want to quickly go to some interesting points in the bill. There is one here about the statutory acknowledgments in clause 36, “Application to river or stream”. It provides that “If any part of the statutory acknowledgement applies to a harbour, that part of the acknowledgement also applies to the bed of the harbour and everything above the bed.”—everything above the bed, which is water. That is a really good pointer for where we may be going in the water discussion. I am pleased that it is in this document—I am pleased that it is in this document. It is no good ducking and diving, so well done, the negotiators. The flowing of the fresh water—oh, it applies only to flowing water, fresh water. Well, it is all water anyway, so that is great.

In clause 52, “Actions by Director-General”, it says “The Director-General must take action in relation to the protection principles that relate to a whenua rāhui site, including the specified actions.” I think that is great. What it means is that recognition or understanding is being given to the mana of Māori. Māori have mana over water. Māori have mana over all of those issues, and this is one way of giving it relevance. Fix it in here. It is already done—well done, Minister. You need to travel this past those people on the roadshow.

In the general provisions, clause 68(2) says that “Subsection (3) applies if a cultural redress property vests subject to an interest that is not an interest in land,” and clause 68(3) says that “The interest applies in respect of the cultural redress property …”—blah, blah, blah. It goes on to say there are qualifications, modifications in the status of the land and “despite any change in status of the land in the property.” So those are the three important parts—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its very good work. This bill, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, raised a number of issues in the select committee, and I think the committee navigated its way through the 100-odd submissions extremely well. There were two issues that arose, and I want to touch on both of them very briefly.

The first issue, averted to by Mr Horomia, concerns the co-governance of Te Hauturu-o-Toi. Every Treaty settlement is important. Every stage of its implementation is a major milestone. But at the select committee a number of submissions were received relating to the island. Most of the submitters who opposed the bill are, in fact, affiliated to Ngāti Wai, and they were very worried that settling first Ngāti Manuhiri would settle Ngāti Wai grievances. There is no dispute that hapū and whānau of Ngāti Wai who do not affiliate to Ngāti Manuhiri do have longstanding customary interests in Te Hauturu-o-Toi. Those interests are recognised by Ngāti Manuhiri today, and are referred to, actually, a number of times in the Ngāti Manuhiri deed of settlement, including in the agreed historical account. There is no doubt that Ngāti Wai historical grievances other than those of Ngāti Manuhiri are not being settled through this bill. This settlement is for the descendants of the tupuna Manuhiri, and no other.

What became obvious during the select committee hearings was that the drafting relating to co-governance arrangements with the Department of Conservation over the island was very prescriptive. As written, the bill did not adequately consider the possibility of other groups becoming involved in those governance arrangements. That was very significant as it had not been the intention through this settlement to freeze out other groups. So the recommendation came back from the select committee for a new clause, clause 96A. It is very important as it makes it clear beyond doubt that the bill would not prevent other iwi from becoming involved in the co-governance arrangements if other enactments provide for that, and I am very much looking forward to commencing negotiations with Ngāti Wai very soon. This amendment has been agreed to by Ngāti Manuhiri, and their deed of settlement has been amended to ensure that the recommended change is consistent with the deed.

The second issue concerned the gift and gift back of the island. There was a concern that that arrangement conveyed exclusive mana whenua to Ngāti Manuhiri. Gift-back arrangements are used in situations where the land has a high conservation or other value and the Crown wants to retain ownership, but where significant historical grievances need to be addressed. This was a very important part of the Ngāti Manuhiri negotiation. But let me make it clear: there was no intention by the Crown or Ngāti Manuhiri for the gift back to convey exclusive mana whenua to Ngāti Manuhiri or otherwise alter customary interests in the island. The select committee heard the various submissions on this topic, and then Ngāti Manuhiri and I agreed that further assurance should be provided, so we have amended the deed of settlement to include a clause stating that for the avoidance of doubt, the gift back is not intended to convey exclusive mana whenua over Te Hauturu-o-Toi. I have to say that these statements of clarification do not belong in legislation, but I bring it to the attention of the House as a further and positive outcome from the very good work of the Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Mr Henare.

With those comments I will leave it there. I will be more fulsome in my third reading speech, but I thought it was important to emphasise the fact that the select committee dealt with this matter extremely well. Those two issues were extremely sensitive. They gave rise to quite a number of submissions, and I hope that we have, as it were, solved things so that Ngāti Wai interests will not feel anxious any longer.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā rā koutou e aku rangatira i roto i te Whare nei, a Ngāti Manuhiri, nau mai, hara mai. Hara mai i raro i te tuanui o te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Salutations indeed to you, my esteemed ones in this House, and welcome to you, Ngāti Manuhiri, welcome. Welcome under the roof of this House, standing here ready. Salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings to you and to us all.]

I rise to speak at the second reading of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, on Treaty settlement day. I too am pleased to have been participating in the Māori Affairs Committee, which heard many submissions on the bill. As Minister Finlayson has just pointed out, there were a couple of key aspects where I am very pleased at the way they have ended up in terms of clarification on those two particular points.

I want to just start my speech, and I have sort of had a theme on my Treaty settlement speeches. I like to go over the importance of understanding Māori history and whakapapa, or genealogy—the family tree, so to speak. My whakataukī Pākehā has been that to understand whakapapa is to understand Māori history. The rich tapestry—to pinch a phrase from my whanaunga there, Tau—of the history of Aotearoa is woven like an elegant but sturdy whāriki, made to sit upon and hold weight, with each strip of flax crossing back and forth and connecting to another strip going the other way. Soon those strips of lovingly prepared harakeke run out and make up the borders of the whāriki. But that whāriki represents the whānau, hapū, and iwi, and each strand is a source of information and a font of tribal knowledge.

May I acknowledge my own part in the weaving of this mat, known as the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, for I too am a descendant of Maki, the eponymous ancestor of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Our shared history tells of a chief of Ngāti Awa-o-Runga-o-Te Rangi, also known as Koro Ātiawa, named Maki, who had as a wife the daughter of Mutunga, a wahine by the name of Hinepueru, and whose area of influence stretched between Taranaki and Kāwhia. My ancestors of Ngāti Rārua and Ngāti Toa, who back then were known as Ngāti Māngō, and who were his relations, went north to Kaipara and on to Hokianga in support of Maki’s take. He eventually returned to the Kaipara to settle the land with those inhabitants, who never opposed him.

That group of journeying warriors and family became the original Te Kawerau-a-Maki, who intermarried and settled the Kaipara, and came down into the Waitakere and other parts of Tāmaki. Indeed, my ancestor Tūpāhau was part of Maki’s journeys, and so settled on Maungakiekie with a beautiful wahine of Waiohua named Hineteao. Years later, another take took Tūpāhau back to Kāwhia and Marokopa to assist more relations in his original homelands of the west coast, between Taranaki and Kāwhia. That is my connection to Ngāti Manuhiri: Maki-nui of Ngāti Awa-o-Runga-o-Te Rangi nō te Tai Hauāuru.

Every taonga has a name, and the name of this whāriki that I have been explaining is “kōrero ōnamata”—of history. Its name suggests an association to history and genealogy and to the spoken word. These three things are woven into the whāriki that lie before Ngāti Manuhiri today.

So, to repeat, to understand whakapapa is to understand Māori history. My other colleagues in this House will talk about the background to elements of the bill, but there is a common theme that has been running through these readings, and that is the equivalence of mana and whenua, of authority and land, in the equation that makes up Māori life.

May I take the time now to talk about Te Hauturu-o-Toi, as that was the big issue that we confronted as a select committee, which is Little Barrier Island. This culturally important little island has played a significant role in the history of Ngāti Manuhiri and, indeed, all Māori. In our kōrero onamata, Hauturu is a float on the net of Toi-Te-Huatahi, regarded by Māori as a founding father of this nation. So with the use of toponomy and whenua, the naming of the land, Toi used certain points from Hauraki to Whangarei as markers of his mana motuhake, that authority. From those very early times of Toi, through to the middle ages of the 1500s and the 1600s, the mana of Hauturu changed several times, until the arrival of the tupuna Maki of Ngāti Awa-o-Runga-o-Te Rangi nō te Tai Hauāuru, the great-grandson of Haumia of the Poutama region of North Taranaki.

So my own tribal kōrero recalls Maki pursuing a foe all the way to the Hokianga, where he captured his enemy, but in that unique Māori way he let his captor go. Maki then returned to the Kaipara and, with those original inhabitants and his original followers, invested in the Waitakere and Waitematā regions, eventually ending with his descendants, Ngāti Manuhiri, a hapū of Ngāti Wai, having mana over the region we have spoken of today, including Hauturu.

So this kōrero onamata is tika, but today it is acknowledged by the Crown that Ngāti Manuhiri will receive Te Hauturu-o-Toi back for a period of 7 days, before gifting it back to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. We did include some clarification, in recognition of the submissions that we received that it was not recognition of the mana to the exclusion of other iwi. So that has been reflected in the bill, which we have reported back.

There is a rich history in terms of these Treaty settlement bills, and I have been able to outline my own connection. People must think “Gee, that guy’s connected everywhere!”, but, literally, there are a lot of connections and that makes up who we are in our unique history as Māori in Aotearoa.

I would just like to mihi to Ngāti Manuhiri, all of the negotiating team, and all of the great rangatira who were involved in the progression of this claim, which is now through to this bill stage. We are nearly there. We are just up to the second reading and we are on the home stretch. I would just like to mihi to you all. The beauty is that by doing this mahi it is sort of opening up to me and revealing a whole lot of connections and a whole lot of the history that makes up, as Tau said, the rich tapestry that we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand as tangata whenua. So I would just like to mihi to them all and I commend this bill through to the next stages of the House. Kia ora anō tātou.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ki ngā tangata o Ngāti Manuhiri te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Green Party and, particularly, on behalf of our co-leader Metiria Turei, who is a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has been hearing the progress of this bill.

The Green Party has in the past supported Treaty settlement bills, because we believe that the work of the kuia and kaumātua in bringing the settlements to this stage should be respected. Sometimes we have been able to negotiate changes to the settlements in favour of iwi and hapū. Most of the time the Crown refuses to entertain any notion of genuine change to address iwi and hapū concerns. It is, therefore, really, an easy vote to cast, as we have some serious objections to the settlement process, particularly as it has descended more and more into deals, rather than genuine restitution from the Crown to Māori for the losses that you have suffered.

We do not believe that these settlements are full and final. We think they are deals done today according to today’s constraints, and that the issues will be revisited again in the future. We are seeing this more and more, and we just have to look at the issues around why, as an example. We acknowledge the huge losses Ngāti Manuhiri have suffered at the hands of the Crown, and we do not detract from that, but we must always state the failings of the Crown in our contributions to these debates. We must remind the Crown that if it continues to exercise undue power of the process to the detriment of iwi and hapū, we refuse to simply rubber-stamp these bills.

Earlier in the year the Greens abstained on the first reading of this bill, for the first time in our history. Our vote will not change, despite the work of the select committee. I acknowledge the chair, Mr Henare, I acknowledge the members of the select committee and the Minister, who have worked very hard on this, and I acknowledge also all the submitters and all their work.

During the select committee hearings, we heard very concerning reports about mandate, conflicts of interest, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, some disregard for the Minister of the issues of Ngāti Wai over this settlement. A major argument of the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust—the mandated negotiating body—in support of this settlement was that Ngāti Wai had supported it. They relied heavily on the decisions of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board. However, there were serious conflict of interest issues that were not resolved to our satisfaction.

Two issues of concern involved the people involved in the two bodies. One very serious issue was the mandate of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board to support the bill. One person held the position of chair of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board and of the Manuhiri Omaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust. In addition, Wayne Peters was the legal adviser to both the trust board and the trust. We specifically asked during the hearings whether the conflict of interest issues were advised to the members, recorded, or otherwise managed in any way. We were told no. We were told there were no conflict issues, even where these had been raised by some Ngāti Wai.

During the process of the select committee, a properly held special general meeting of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board was called. At that special general meeting the members overwhelmingly voted to oppose this settlement bill. The trust board considered that decision, but as it was not required under its trust deed to adhere to that decision it retained its previous position of support for the bill. It appears that this was lawful, but in our view it remains ethically questionable because of the serious conflict of interest issues that arose from having two people playing key roles in both organisations.

As a result of both the actions of the trust board in response to the special general meeting and the failure to properly sort the conflict issues, we do not believe that there is significant support in Ngāti Wai for the bill. We concede that the trust board supports it, but not the people who are most affected by the provisions of the bill. Therefore, we cannot rely on the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust assertions that it has Ngāti Wai support for this settlement.

We acknowledge that the bill has been amended to state that the provisions do not prevent future settlements from providing co-governance arrangements for other iwi in the future. This change is not sufficient to alter our vote. We remain very sceptical of the Crown’s intentions with this legislation to hand over Hauturu to Ngāti Manuhiri ownership for 7 days before it is returned to Crown ownership minus 1.2 hectares set aside for Ngāti Manuhiri use. We think this is an example of giving with one hand and taking with another, and we can see that this type of mechanism might well be used by the Minister in future settlements concerning Hauturu.

Ultimately, the box is ticked but the substance of the deal remains with the Crown. The Crown gives up practically nothing. This is not restitution. We consider this type of gift to be a Crown insult to those whose land was taken without their consent, those who were forcibly removed from their land. We believe that the Crown dishonours itself with this deal. We understand that Ngāti Manuhiri people have pursued this settlement as best as possible in the current circumstances—we acknowledge that. We wish them well. We wish them all the best in their pursuit of their rangatiratanga at this time.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I will not take too much of the House’s time, and I will leave the majority of my comments to the Committee stage and the third reading. Can I say, though, that, in response to the last speech, although I am not going to bag it or anything like that, the question is this: are we saying it is a good settlement or are we saying it is a bad settlement? At the end of the day, Ngāti Manuhiri has signed the deal, not us. They said they want to sign the deal. Like I said earlier in the day, it is easy for us to sit here and make speeches, but they are the ones who have got to live the life. They are the ones who have to get on with whatever they want to get on with. It is not for us to say “You should take it.” or “You should leave it.” At the end of the day, that side will decide whether they should take it or leave it. So they have decided in their wisdom to take the deal that is on the table.

We all know that it is a minuscule settlement. It is a—I was going to use some of my South Auckland slang, but I thought I had better not—

Hone Harawira: Not if you want to be Speaker.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is right. At the end of the day, Ngāti Manuhiri have decided. I hear what the member from the Green Party said about Ngāti Wai, and there are some issues around that. But put yourself in this position. In a small Māori community, obviously sometimes there is going to be a perceived conflict of interest because the lawyer is working for two people or two organisations.

Hon Member: Get two lawyers.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, you know, I mean, it is not as if Ngāti Manuhiri people are so overflowing with gold and riches that they can afford to go to Kensington Swan or whoever.

Hon Simon Bridges: I used to work for Kensington Swan.

Hon TAU HENARE: And one of my colleagues did work for Kensington Swan until he got asked to give the toilet key back.

I do not think that this settlement hinges on whether Ngāti Wai agree or not, and one of the things about doing a Treaty settlement is that it is very hard to actually get a change in the bill. I think our select committee did a wonderful job by actually getting the change—I think the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations mentioned clause 96A, which clarifies the co-governance agreements with our Department of Conservation over Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island, and they are not exclusive. What that amendment says is that it is not exclusive only to Ngāti Manuhiri. So it does not wipe out any claim Ngāti Wai may bring at a later date.

So I hear what the member said, but I also think that the select committee did its job and did a pretty good job in trying to convince the Minister to put a change or a definition that would say to Ngāti Wai: “Look, this doesn’t count you out.” In fact, it does not count out anybody who thinks they have a relationship with Hauturu. I might leave it there because I know that my brother over there wants to get to lunch.

The last thing I will say is that in a process where the select committee asks the Minister to change something in the bill, the Crown has to agree and so do the home folk. So it is not just a change because the select committee asks for it; they have actually got to get agreement from the home people if there is to be a change. I commend both the Minister and also Ngāti Manuhiri for agreeing to that change to make sure that it is clear that there is no exclusivity. I will leave it at that.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) : Kia ora, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā whānau o Ngāti Manuhiri, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. It is my pleasure to speak on the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to tautoko what our chair, the Hon Tau Henare, has just said, and I want to share a little bit about what happened in the select committee. We appreciate the fact that he hosted us when we came to him to hear from his whānau. We had 140 written submissions and we heard 17 oral submissions on the bill. The key issue, as has been outlined by the Greens, and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations alluded to it, was the opposition to the inclusion of Te Hauturu-o-Toi. In fact, 95 of those submissions were against the inclusion.

What I want to say about this process, what I think we need to realise about this process of Treaty settlements, is that, for me, I think it is our country’s truth and reconciliation process. It is recognition that we, as indigenous peoples of Aotearoa, have been colonised and we have had our lands and our resources taken from us. It is with the generosity of our hapū and iwi that we can actually move on. I mean, these settlement processes are about moving beyond grievance, and actually giving resources back to hapū and iwi so that we can construct positive lives for our mokopuna and our tamariki.

What we need to acknowledge in this process is that, in fact, we are in a process. Ngāti Manuhiri were ready to go. Why should we hold them back? Ngāti Wai is on the schedule to negotiate next year. In addition to Ngāti Wai, we have Ngāti Rehua, we have Te Kawerau-a-Maki, we have Marutūahu, and we have Ngāpuhi, who also have interests in Te Hauturu-o-Toi. What we have done as a select committee is to recognise that there are mana whenua interests over this piece of land. A very rare thing happened through the select committee process. It was not just tokenistic rubber-stamping of the process. We as a select committee actually implemented and inserted clause 96A. That clause is titled “Involvement of other iwi” and it reads: “This subpart does not exclude representatives of other iwi from being involved with the Hauturu plan, if other enactments provide for that.” So, with the gracious consent of Ngāti Manuhiri, we inserted that. I want to acknowledge the whānau who are here for the rangatira that you have shown, for the fact that you were ready to go but you have preserved the ability for the other whānau to be involved in what will be, I believe, co-management—and more than that, because you have your own whenua, on which you will build a marae, or do whatever you want to do with it. But the fact is you will get some of that whenua back.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee and my fellow colleagues on the committee. It was a process where we did listen, and it made a difference, and we are here today at the second reading. I am happy to be part of a Parliament that wants to get on with this reconciliation process, to give the resources back to hapū and iwi, and to let you do with it what you choose. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, huri rauna tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Koutou e noho mai nā, e ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Wai, o Ngāti Manuhiri koutou, tātou rā wēnā. E tika ana kia kaua e whakaarohia mēnā kei roto koe i tērā hapū, ehara koe kei roto i tēnei hapū. He whānau kotahi tātou o roto o tērā o wā tātou moana, ōna motu, ōna whenua katoa, nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou.

E Mooks, tēnā koe. I think Parekura Horomia still does not know what your real name is. I told him that I actually thought it was Mooks. But me mihi atu ki a koe i haere mai nei.

E tika ana kia mōhio ai koe i taku rongona atu ki ngā kōrero o te Rōpū Kākāriki, e tautoko ana i tō rātou kōrero i te mea, koia te wairua kua rongo nei au i roto i ngā kōrero i te kāinga, te kōrero kua rongo nei hau i roto i tā mātou noho kōrero i Ōmaha tae noa ki tēnei wā. Kei reira tonu tērā whakaaro, me te mea anō hoki, hara tō rātou kōrero hei takahia i te mana o Ngāti Manuhiri ēngari, kia tohutohu atu ki te kāwanatanga, kia kaua e whakakāhoretia i te mana o tēnā, o tēnā, o tēnā. Nō reira, me mihi atu ki te Rōpū Kākāriki e tū kaha ana ki roto i tō rātou ake kaupapa i te rā nei. Ēngari, mōkū i tēnei wā kia kaua tātou e w’akatakoto i wēnā raruraru ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Miere ēngari, kia whakahokia wēnā kōrero ki te kāinga mā mātou anō hei korero, mā mātou anō rā hei w’akatau.

Heoi anō mō tēnei wā, kua tae mātou ki tēnei wā whakatau, nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou i haere mai nei i tēnei rā, tātou anō rā e nohonoho nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri atu, huri noa, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and salutations to us all in the House. To those of you seated there, my relatives of Ngāti Wai and Ngāti Manuhiri, you lot, you are indeed us. It is right that you do not consider whether you are in that subtribe or this subtribe, as we are one family of that part of our harbour, its mountains, and all its lands, and so I acknowledge you collectively.

Hello there, Mooks. I think Parekura Horomia still does not know what your real name is. I told him that I actually thought it was Mooks. But I need to single you out for coming here.

It is right that you should know that, when I heard the sentiments expressed by the Green Party, I supported what they said, because that indeed was the spirit I felt in the talks back home and heard firsthand in our discussions at Ōmaha, right up to this moment. That talk is still there. It seems as well, too, that the Greens are not going on about bashing Ngāti Manuhiri’s autonomy, but rather pointing out to the Government not to extinguish the autonomy of that one, that one, and that one. So I must congratulate the Green Party for standing staunch on what it believes in today. For me, personally, at this point in time we should not be raising those problems before Parliament, but should be taking it back home for us to discuss and deal with there.

Therefore I need to acknowledge you who came here today. To those of us once again seated about here, salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively, throughout and about. Thank you to us all. ]

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) : I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. It has been very interesting with this bill. There is no need for me to go over what has already been said this morning, but Ngāti Manuhiri’s work with Ngāti Wai means that this settlement has created momentum for settlements throughout the upper North Island, this being the first of the Ngāti Wai settlements, so it lays that foundation. I would say that the select committee process is robust, and we certainly had a robust meeting with robust discussion when we were at Leigh.

It was also a little bit sad, because one of the Māori Affairs Committee members did not do her work, and incited some young people who were there. So the day ended up with a lot of recriminations and allegations. It was disappointing that it came about like that, but the end result, again, is that there is great healing to be done. I would like to acknowledge the work and the strong leadership of Laly Haddon and his team—so kia ora and good luck. New Zealand First supports this bill, and we look forward to the third reading. Kia ora.