Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of Te Arawa and acknowledge, especially, those in the galleries of the House who have travelled here to join us. Sadly, some of those who began the long task of negotiating a settlement for Te Arawa’s claims in relation to the lakes are no longer with us. I take this opportunity to acknowledge their contribution now. E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere.

When Te Arawa sought to have their mandate recognised by the Crown they quoted a proverb: “Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini.”, which means: “My strength is not my own, rather it is the strength of many.” This proverb appropriately describes the determination of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board to see this settlement through to completion. Over the past 8 years, since their mandate was recognised, the trust board has steadfastly represented the interests of Te Arawa as a whole in relation to their lakes. The trust board has withstood challenges from a few of their own people, but today they still stand strong as representatives of Te Arawa. As I noted during the Committee stage, few will ever know or understand the huge personal cost incurred—and I mean cost in every sense of the word—by those who have carried the responsibility of leadership throughout this long process.

This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Te Arawa in relation to the Te Arawa Lakes, and settles all their historical Treaty claims in relation to their lakes. This bill contains a formal apology to Te Arawa for the breaches of the Treaty acknowledged by the Crown and provides both financial and cultural redress. Importantly, the ownership of 13 of the Te Arawa lakebeds is transferred and the opportunity is provided to actively participate in the lakes’ management.

Te Arawa began negotiations with the Crown in 1999. The main components of the settlement package were agreed in December 2003 and a deed of settlement initialled by negotiators—as members know—in October 2004. A significant majority of Te Arawa who were eligible to vote participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly, representatives of the Crown and Te Arawa signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 18 December 2004. The passage of this bill is the final step that will enable the Crown to provide the settlement redress to Te Arawa.

The historic Treaty claims of Te Arawa concerning the lakes relate mainly to Crown actions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi. These included the Crown’s failure to legislate for a sufficient number of fishing licences for Te Arawa in 1908, when it promoted legislation to address the problem of hardship, and the Crown’s failure to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as part of the 1922 Te Arawa Lakes agreement, when it materially lost value as a result of inflation.

Through this bill, Te Arawa will relinquish the ability to lodge further historic claims, in relation to the lakes, in the Waitangi Tribunal or the courts. They will join Waikato Tainui in respect of their raupatu claims, Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Tūrangitukua, Pouakani, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Awa, and Ngāti Tūwhareatoa Bay of Plenty in this respect. These groups have all negotiated full and final settlements in relation to historic claims.

At the same time, others have been exercising their rights as Māori to register historic claims in the Waitangi Tribunal. The tribunal has already produced a large number of reports on many of these claims, behind which sits a huge body of research. I do not believe, 20 years after historic claims were first allowed, that there are many remaining issues still to be brought forward to the Crown’s notice through the tribunal process. This Government is strongly committed to the resolution of all historic claims and the passage of this bill is, I suggest to members, a particularly important step towards that goal.

As Te Arawa knows so well, lodging a claim in the Waitangi Tribunal is only the beginning of the process. Long years of work have been put in by the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, Ministers, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and many other agencies and departments to reach this settlement. This bill marks the final chapter in the long and proud history of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board. As agreed by Te Arawa, the trust board will cease to exist after settlement date and the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will become the new governance entity for Te Arawa in relation to their lakes.

I acknowledge the past and present members of the trust board for their dedication and determination on behalf of their people to seek a resolution of their grievances, and for the myriad of other achievements. I acknowledge all of those from Te Arawa who have worked tirelessly towards making this day possible. I take the opportunity, in particular, to acknowledge Ānaru Rangiheuea, the chairman of Te Arawa Maori Trust Board who has led this claim. Rangatira mā, tēnā koutou. Also David Tapsell, the chief negotiator for the settlement and Roku Mihinui, the general manager of the trust board. They have provided leadership and determination over the years that has resulted in the settlement package we have before us today.

I acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of Te Arawa’s claims in relation to the lakes. I acknowledge my colleagues, the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minster of Conservation, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister for the Environment. I particularly acknowledge the valuable support and contribution made by the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mita Ririnui, and, of course, all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement. In particular, I note the excellent work of claim managers Ben White and Tania Gerrard, which has been an important factor in helping us to reach today’s outcome. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the contributions of the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the early stages of the negotiations, the Hon Sir Douglas Graham.

In closing, I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Te Arawa Lakes deed of settlement. Stories such as these are important episodes in our history but remembering them is vital to understanding the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those of us whose ancestors arrived here later. We must know our history if we are to learn and benefit from its lessons. I wish in particular all the best for the future to Te Arawa, their elders, descendants and their negotiating team. They will shortly begin the task of managing their settlement assets. I am certain that they will do so with the tenacity, commitment, and sound judgment that they have showed throughout the settlement process. I look forward to witnessing their endeavours into the future. I commend this bill to the House.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I begin my comments by acknowledging the presence in the precincts of Parliament of the leaders of Te Arawa and the many people who have, over a long number of years, kept this claim alive and who have, as the Minister, the Hon Mark Burton, said, gone through considerable personal difficulty, or without concern for that difficulty have carried on the work that they felt they needed to do.

The Crown’s role in settling Treaty grievance is somewhat central, because the Crown accepts the negative side of all the dealings that might have gone on around any particular set of issues that are being settled. It is right and proper that such settlements are done here in Parliament. I know that Te Arawa have had difficulties with the lakes issue since the early part of the 1900s and quite probably prior to that. But the one thing that a Parliament should do is make sure that when there is a full and final settlement, it is just that. It should make sure that those people on whose behalf an issue is being settled are properly represented in the final accepted agreement. Our concern is that that may not be the case here.

When we first looked at this bill some time back, we were given any amount of information that over a period of time proved to be quite spurious. But it did cause us to look at the history of the previous settlement in 1922. What was interesting to me was that arrangements were concluded between a lawyer from Auckland, a lawyer from Wellington, and the Government represented by Sir Apirana Ngata. Effectively, no Te Arawa were involved. It is not surprising, then, that 80-odd years later we are back here looking at it all again.

I will separate out a couple of things. We have no objection to the capitalising of the annuity. That is only reasonable; we have no objection to that at all. And we have no problem with the fishing-licence issue. It is appalling that the agreement was not honoured throughout all those years. But we do have a difficulty with the rest of the bill. It is not meant to be a difficulty that conveys ill will. I want to make it clear that it is our view that although this bill will be passed today, and that Te Arawa—without our vote—will leave here with our best wishes for the future, there will be a need to come back here at another time, and we will be prepared to hear that case.

The number of people who were involved in the mandate on this was extremely low. I asked, during the select committee process, how many people called themselves Te Arawa, and the number I was given was around 40,000. So we asked how many people had participated in the mandating exercise, and we were told some 8,000-odd. How many people went for it—said “Yes, do this!”? The figure was less than half that again. That figure is too small, and if Te Arawa had not had the exercise done properly by the Office of Treaty Settlements, we should have been told. Just as there were clearly a number of people in 1922 who were happy with the arrangements, there were many, many more who were not. Therefore the legislation was carried, imposed, and ultimately put in front of us again.

We have heard stories from the various people who came along to the select committee and said: “This is not us, because we’re not part of the trust board structure, and various other things—but we are Te Arawa, and we do have connections to a particular lake in the set of lakes we are talking about here.” I do not think it is fair that those people are just cast aside. People may say: “Well, you don’t know enough about it; you haven’t talked to the right people; you haven’t got yourself into a position where you can make this statement.” But the sad thing is that the history is on my side—the very short history.

So I want to conclude my remarks by saying to Te Arawa: “Accept the settlement—sure—and take the annuity. Get involved in the organisations that will do good things for the lakes, and for this country, in effect. That is fine. But accept that we know that the legislation is not perfect, we know that it will come back, and we know that we will have to do something on behalf of the many—the many—who are not saying yes to this agreement.” I say those words deliberately, because it may not be in my time in this House, it may not be in a generation’s time in this House, but as recent history shows us, it will happen. In that event, there will be no one who can make a claim that this is full and final—therefore, we are unable to vote for it.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I would like to share the comments of the Minister, and I acknowledge the presence of Te Arawa here today. As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I will follow that up with a few other comments, as we witnessed the process. To do that, I want to share with the House the outline of the submission from the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board.

The submission is headed: “Is it the best offer that we can negotiate?”. It reads as follows: “The trust board strongly believes that the Crown’s settlement offer represents the best outcomes that Te Arawa can achieve in all aspects of this settlement. The trust board believes that the Crown’s settlement offer will enable Te Arawa to develop and maintain effective and meaningful relationships with the lakes. Among other things, that will increase our ability to participate in a positive manner in both the local and national community. Therefore, the trust board strongly believes that accepting the Crown’s settlement offer is in the best interests of Te Arawa. It is important to understand that Treaty settlements occur in a political setting and so are governed by a number of political constraints. Further, the trust board is aware that the current political climate is somewhat different from the political climate in which the trust board began these negotiations. For that reason, the trust board believes that it is now even less likely that a more appropriate settlement package could be negotiated for Te Arawa. In respect of the lakes in future, the trust board is aware that the Crown’s settlement offer may not please everyone. However, the trust board strongly believes that the Crown’s settlement offer is the best that Te Arawa can negotiate. Given this, the trust board believes that now is the best time to settle the lakes claims, so that Te Arawa may use the benefits of the settlement to strengthen and rebuild Te Arawa’s relationship with the lakes.”

I see that last sentence as very important because it talks about arriving at a place, at a point, to make a decision. Having read that, I point out that it shows that the decision Te Arawa had to make was not an easy one. It was a very difficult decision, and it was a hard one, but it is a decision that they made, and their decision, obviously, was to seek agreement through this deed and through this legislation. I want to acknowledge that because it is about leadership. It is about an iwi taking on board its responsibilities and being aware of what it takes to move on. It is hard and it is difficult.

I want to comment that when we come into this House as members of Parliament we also have to make difficult decisions—very difficult decisions. Sometimes they are decisions that we do not like, but we are here to make those decisions, and they are based on a vote. They are based on a “Yes” vote or a “No” vote. If it is a “Yes” vote, we stand up and we support that conviction. Equally, everybody knows that if it is a “No” vote, we do the same. But to abstain on a vote is, I think, a cop-out. Abstaining on a vote is not saying: “Yes, we agree.”, or: “No, we do not agree.” It does not give us a platform to stand up and support a conviction, at all. So I urge members, when it comes to vote on this bill today, to vote either for or against it. Members should state their conviction by voting appropriately. I think that that is important.

I think it is equally important to mention the piece from the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board’s submission, because it smacks heavily of having to make those hard decisions—about having the responsibility, and nurturing that responsibility for the future. I congratulate Te Arawa on giving us that foresight.

I thank the members of the select committee who participated throughout the process, the clerks, and you, Madam Speaker, as I understand that you were part of setting up the process, as well. I thank my colleagues on the committee and, finally, I congratulate Te Arawa. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : E Te Arawa, tēnā koutou. E aku rangatira, e aku kuia, haere mai nei i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kaua e pāpōuri ki ahau mō tā mātou whakahē i tēnei pire. Nō reira, e aroha ahau ki a koutou.

[Greetings to you, Te Arawa, and my chiefs and elderly ladies who have come here today; greetings to you, greetings, greetings. Do not be disappointed with us opposing this bill. You have my sympathy.]

I ask Te Arawa not to criticise National members for what we are about to do. We have the best interests of people at heart, and I, for one, am not ashamed of what I am going to do—that is, vote against this bill. I intend to tell not the House, but Te Arawa, my convictions as to why I should oppose this bill.

Sometimes when people are forced into things, it is not a settlement at all. When one is walked to the aisle with one’s wife, spouse, or partner, with a shotgun at one’s back—knowingly or not—it is not a settlement. In 1922, when this issue was first “settled”, it came after some 15 years of Te Arawa wanting to take the Crown to court. It was only because Te Arawa then did not have the money to pursue their court case that the Crown came up with an agreement to provide an annuity of £6,000—a fait accompli, absolutely.

I do not blame the Government for the template; I blame the Office of Treaty Settlements. I think the Office of Treaty Settlements has become a power unto itself. It is a law unto itself. The template being used now for the settlement of the Te Arawa lakes claim is exactly the same as the template being foisted on to a whole lot of other people—namely, Tainui, over the river claim. I have issues with the mandate but there is an old saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” I congratulate Te Arawa on their job in trying to bring the horse to the water. Unfortunately, the powers of Te Arawa are not great enough to make all of them drink from the same trough.

I also want to have a word about the jurisdiction and liability issues. I am the owner of my quarter acre section in the lovely metropolis of the Te Atatū peninsula. If somebody comes on to my property and has an accident, I am liable because I own the property, and I have a duty of care to make sure that he or she is safe and sound. I am not sure whether people realise the implications of that in terms of Treaty settlements. Who is setting up whom for a big fall, in terms of not putting in mechanisms to protect the ones at the end of the settlement?

I am not sure about the power of veto that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust has in terms of any new structures or enterprises, because that adds another set of bureaucracy on the community. God knows, we have bureaucracy coming out of our ears. Whether people want to make a buck, to make a living, or whether people want just to build a house, they have to jump through umpteen-dozen hoops just to get there. This bill adds another layer of bureaucracy and, most probably, heartache down the road.

Is the bill in the best interests of Te Arawa? Only Te Arawa can answer that question. I can pontificate about whether it is in the best interests of Te Arawa, but, at the end of the day, they have signed the deal and I have not. I have some reservations that people simply are at the end of their tether in terms of the Treaty settlement process and are feeling—excuse my language—“Oh, bugger it, let’s get it over and done with before the whole iwi passes away, or we’ll never get anything done.” That is a feeling amongst people. All we need to do is to look at the time that has been spent on this, from day one to now. Ten years—at least 10 years. In a 10-year period people will get highly sick and tired of trundling back to the Crown. Even the Crown gets a bit sick and tired of it.

There must be a better, faster way. There must be—and this is in no way a criticism of people in this House—a way that ensures a settlement will last. I say to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that I have my doubts that this settlement will last. Again, only time will tell whether, in 50 or 100 years, somebody from Te Arawa who feels disgruntled about what happened today, or what happened in the signing, asks the Prime Minister or the Government of that day to have another look at it.

My colleague, boss, and deputy leader, Gerry Brownlee, said he had no problem with the annuity. Well, I do. The problem is how the capitalisation was worked out. In the Māori Affairs Committee I wrote down—it is all here in my little book—“How is the process of capitalisation worked out?”. I could never work it out. Even the Office of Treaty Settlements and Te Puni Kōkiri could not really tell me what formula was used to come up with the annuity. I have figured out that the Government came up with $10 million, and it had to split it up, so it decided that $7.3 million was for the annuity and $2.7 million was for cultural redress. That is the only way I can explain it. A tidy sum of $10 million to settle this? Why was it not $10,127,000? Where are the cents? Where are the other dollars? It is a convenient $10 million. I still cannot work out how the capitalisation came about; whether someone pulled a figure out of the air and said: “These fellas will be happy with this.”, or whether it was actually done in terms of a formula. Te Puni Kōkiri says there was no formula.

I am sad that the National Party will not vote in favour of this bill, but that must not hold Te Arawa back. I do not think anything will hold Te Arawa back. In the past—and it will certainly be the case in the future—they have never been backward in coming forward.

I commend Te Arawa for the job they have done. I commend them on a rugged passage. But the people of New Zealand need to take note that this process is soul-destroying. This process is not the best process in the world. One day we may actually get the process right—one that allows a quick, decent, and everlasting settlement.

Hoi anō, anō te mihi, anō te aroha ki a koutou, ngā rangatira, ngā tūpuna, e aku kaumātua, e aku kuia; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[So, my greetings and sympathy once again to you chiefs, ancestors, my elderly men and womenfolk; greetings, greetings, and greetings to us all as well.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Ā, tēnā koe e te Kaikōrero. Tihei mauri ora! Tupu mauri ora ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama. Ā, te Arawa waka, te Arawa tangata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ngā mema o Te Poari Māori o Te Arawa, ngā rangatira, koutou hoki i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa i roto i ngā piki me ngā heke, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei te koa, kei te hari ka tae tēnei pire, arā, ki te pānuitanga tuatoru nā te mea, kei te roa rawa atu tēnei kaupapa e haere ana. Kei te tata ake i a tātou kia tae atu ki te mutunga o ngā mahi o tēnei Whare e pā ana ki te pire nei.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Behold the sneeze of life that comes from within, and out into the world of light, the world of enlightenment. Greetings to you, the canoe and people of Te Arawa, greetings, greetings. To you, the members of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, the chiefs, and to those of you responsible for bringing this matter here through all its trials and tribulations, greetings to you all. I am pleased and happy that this bill has reached its third reading, because the process has been a very, very long one. In respect of this bill, we are nearly at its final stages where this House is concerned.]

Madam Speaker, I preface my contribution to this debate by acknowledging your own input into the whole process that pertains to this particular claim. Today marks another milestone in the history of our country, and that is the formal recognition, by way of this legislation, of Te Arawa’s claim to the ownership of the lakes covered in this bill. The fact that it has taken almost a century since Te Arawa’s original claim to clarify their ownership of these lakes is a testament to the long and difficult journey they have had to travel to get to this point. The part of the journey that saw the initiation of this particular claim began in 1987.

In 1922, 13 years after the initial court application to clarify Te Arawa’s claim to ownership, Te Arawa and the Crown agreed to an out-of-court settlement that essentially sought that Te Arawa concede the vesting of the fee simple in the Crown in exchange for the Crown admitting the rights of Te Arawa to their ancient fisheries, burial reserves, and all of the lakes. This agreement also included the granting of a number of licences to fish for trout at a nominal fee, and an annuity of £6,000. This agreement did not provide for a review of this annuity. The agreement thus declared the lakes to be the property of the Crown and extinguished any customary title that Te Arawa had to the lakes. It is important to note that this was not a Treaty settlement, unlike this bill; it was an out-of-court agreement concerning ownership litigation.

This is a settlement that is aimed at bringing finality to Treaty grievances from 1840 to 1992, as far as grievances relative to these lakes. This includes breaches associated with insufficient fishing licences and the Crown’s failure to review the annuity when it lost value due to inflation. It is to their credit—and I think it is important for the people of New Zealand to note—that during the Depression and the Second World War, Te Arawa, through its Māori trust board, actually gifted a proportion of its annuity to the Crown. I suppose, given recent comments on this particular issue of gifts, that could have been described as a koha from Te Arawa to the nation. Again, I think it is important to note also that Te Arawa’s goodwill continues in the form of continued access by the public. That is being protected under this settlement.

I think it is important to recognise the role that Te Arawa Māori Trust Board has played in reaching this settlement, particularly in view of the strong criticism expressed during the earlier stages of this bill towards its roll, and I suspect that that criticism continues up to this moment. Much of this criticism is centred on the issue of mandate, and therefore its right to enter into negotiations on behalf of Te Arawa—an issue that is becoming a common concern with many, if not all, settlements to date. I know that in earlier debates on this bill, reference was made to the fact that Te Arawa number at least 40,000 and that only 9,000 are registered on the board’s beneficiary roll. Of that number, only 4,000 participated in the process regarding mandate and acceptance of the settlement. Although it can be argued that this is a rather small number of the overall Te Arawa membership—that is, 10 percent—what has been overlooked is that at best only 26,000 would be eligible to vote.

I cannot recall, during the process of this bill to this stage, being categorically informed as to the reason for the low turn-out in voter participation. It had been suggested that this may have been due to dissatisfaction towards the mandated body, with the process and the negotiated settlement. Although this is disappointing I must accept that if people choose not to participate, then they have very little comeback on what is ultimately decided on their behalf. Similarly, if there are members in this House who will choose to abstain from casting a vote one way or the other, then I say to them that they are either for this bill or they are not. This is not a fence-sitting matter.

What are the key elements of this bill? I will list them. First of all, there are the acknowledgments and the apology by the Crown. There is the settlement of this claim. There is also cultural redress that includes vesting of lake beds—described in the bill as Te Arawa stratum—entrusted in the trustees of Te Arawa Lakes Trust. The water and the air directly above the lakebed are vested in the Crown and are described in the bill as the Crown stratum—and we did hear that that was the first time it had been described in these terms. Other elements include the limiting of liability of the trustees for contamination of the lakes; the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group for the purpose of contributing to the promotion of the sustainable management of the lakes and their catchment for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations, while recognising and providing for the traditional relationship of Te Arawa and their ancestral lakes; the issue of protocols between Te Arawa and various ministries of the Crown; statutory acknowledgments; traditional provisions that allow for the dissolution of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board; and, of course, $10.4 million, of which $400,000 is for the provision of fishing licences.

Whatever criticism the opponents may have about the amount of this settlement, the point that needs to be noted is that the duly mandated negotiators have negotiated in good faith, and can I say that although it may not be perfect, it is their settlement. It is probably not an appropriate time to make reference to the issue surrounding the claim on Lake Ngāpōuri by Ngāti Whāoa. Athough the settlement has not actually delivered the outcome they desired, it is hoped that they will—as will, I hope, other hapū and iwi groups who feel similarly aggrieved—feel some solace in the intention, as advised to me, of the trustees to allow for local input into the management of the respective lakes.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the disquiet that I and my colleagues in New Zealand First have about this bill, and this is in respect of the inclusion of the ill-defined—in fact, undefined—references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. To say that we are disappointed at the inclusion of these references would be an understatement. We are reluctant to accept their inclusion, particularly in clauses 13 and 14—they being part of the substance of the bill. Their earlier inclusion in the bill I can understand, as this makes reference to their inclusion in the deed of settlement. I can only suppose that it is for this same reason that reference to the principles is included later in the bill. Because we support the process and the outcome, we therefore support the legislation. This will not, however, detract from the intent of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill being sponsored by my colleague Doug Woolerton and already referred to a select committee of this Parliament. Instead of 33 pieces of legislation that have references to these undefined principles, this number will be added to by the passing of this bill today. I reaffirm the support of New Zealand First for the passage of this bill.

Waku kōrero mutunga, he mihi tonu ki a koutou o Te Arawa. Kei roto i a koutou ringa ināianei nā ki te whakahaere o ngā roto o Te Arawa. Nā reira, ngā manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa kei runga i a koutou, i tēnei wā me ngā tau kei te heke. Kia ora anō tātou.

[In closing, I acknowledge you, Te Arawa. The administration of the Te Arawa lakes is in your hands now. May the blessings of the Almighty Above be upon you at this time, and in the years ahead. Greetings to us all.]

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : Tēnā koe. Every settlement that has come to Parliament has been difficult and controversial. The Green Party has supported all the settlement legislation to date because it has a huge respect for those who have worked to achieve those settlements. But our view of the Government process remains a highly critical one. We have long advocated for the development of a diversity of models for restitution and nationally sustainable compensation over time. We are entirely opposed to a unilaterally imposed final date for the lodging of claims, as this only perpetuates the inequalities of the settlement process and fails to give the wronged party opportunities to have their wrongs properly rectified.

This settlement took nearly 10 years to complete. It has cost the iwi thousands of dollars, and the process for devising the settlement has caused serious internal issues that will take some time to resolve. We think that the costs are too high and are borne entirely by the iwi, and that this clearly demonstrates how unfair the settlement process is. That said, we have enormous respect for Te Arawa and its persistence in finding a way through.

We fully support the return of the lakes to Te Arawa, and we expect that the rightful owners will be able to provide the necessary will that should see the eventual cleaning-up and restoration of these lakes. The lakes are incredibly precious, beautiful, and of extraordinary ecological and spiritual importance to New Zealand. But they are dying, and they are dying as a result of the pollution caused by human activity over the last 80 years, when they have been out of the hands of the hapū. Leakage from septic tanks remains a serious problem. The deforestation of the surrounding areas, which are pumice soils, has also impacted on the lakes, and there remains the very serious issue of pollution from farm runoff, which is causing nutrient loading in the lakes. Much of the soil water contributes to nutrient loading, and it can take, as we know, up to 30 years for the nutrients on the land to make their way down into the water itself, which means that it will take many, many more years before the damage from 30 years ago comes to fruition. It also means that there is an absolutely desperate need for urgent action now to clean up these lakes.

We are very pleased about the iwi plans to restore the wetlands around the lakes. Wetlands are magnificent ecosystems. Many, of course, have been lost to New Zealand because they were drained for farmland, and that has gone on to produce nutrient problems. Wetlands are highly sensitive. They are key indicators of the health of an area, as well as key indicators of climate change. They can operate as a critical mechanism for lakes and other waterways, so the restoration of wetlands will go a long way towards the cleaning-up of the lakes themselves.

We recognise that the return of the lakes to Te Arawa does not include the provision of resources to enable their clean-up, and we recognise that Te Arawa will be working jointly with local authorities and central government to clean up these lakes. It is now incumbent on these, predominantly Pākehā, institutions to take urgent and well-resourced action—to do anything less would undermine the point of the settlement.

We are pleased that the settlement has proceeded and is almost complete. We are pleased that Te Arawa, in terms of the return of the lakes, will no longer be dependent on Government largesse. We hope that Te Arawa will no longer be used as a weapon in National’s attacks on Māori, as was evident in Don Brash’s comment that the return of the lakes would “open the way to all kinds of blackmail and extortion.” That sort of ignorance and prejudice flies in the face of the commitment of Te Arawa to the preservation and protection of the lakes as a national treasure to be respected and enjoyed by all New Zealanders. The Green Party thanks Te Arawa for this commitment and wishes it the best for the future. We support the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. Tēnā koe.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i te Whare nei. Kei ngā uri o Ngāti Ohomairangi, koutou o te poari kua haramai, tēnā koutou katoa.

He aha tā tātou i te rā nei? Kua hara mai tātou o Te Arawa ki tēnei wāhi ki te whakatikatika i tētahi nawe kua roa e noho ana i roto i te ngākau, i te wairua o te iwi, arā, ko te mana o ngā roto o te kāinga. E te iwi nau mai, hara mai.

Kei waenganui ngā roto nei i te hōhonutanga o te ngākau, i ngā waiata, ngā pepehā, ngā hītori, me kī kua whakairohia i te ngākau o ngā uri whakatupu. Nā runga i tērā whakaaro, arā anō ētahi e kī ana, kāore tērā mana i ngaro i a tātou. Ā, tērā kōrero tērā.

I te tau 1922, kāore e kore, arā noa atu ngā tūmanako o ngā koroua i haina i tētahi whakaaetanga i waenganui i a tātou o Te Arawa me te Karauna. He aha te pūtake o taua whakaaetanga? Ko te mana o ngā roto.

I tīmata mai ai tēnei take i te tau 1909. I taua wā, i haere a Te Arawa ki te kooti, kia riro mana mā te kooti te take o te mana o ngā roto e whakatau. Ā, nāwai rā, nāwai rā, i whakataruna te Karauna i ngā hiahia o Te Arawa. He mahi huna te mahi, kia kore o tātou tūpuna e whiwhi i ngā mahere ā-rohe hei āwhina i a rātou i ngā kooti. I te tau 1920, i tono te Karauna ki a Te Arawa me tōna hiahia ki te whakatau i ngā take o Te Arawa.

Kātahi ka whānau mai ko te whakaaetanga i waenga i a tātou ko te Karauna i te tau 1922, pēnei anō i te mahi i te rā nei. Ko tōna tikanga, i whai hua a Te Arawa i taua wā. Ko te mate, kāore anō kia tutuki, ā, tae rā nō ki tēnei rangi. Heoi anō, waru tekau, iwa tekau tau i muri mai, he hokinga tuarua mai tēnei—kei te hoki tātou ki te puehu i tutū ai i ngā tau kua hipa.

Nā te Karauna tēnei kōrero e hoa mā, ehara nā Te Ururoa. Ko tā te Kāwanatanga i hara a ia. Hei tāna: āe, i whakakohatuhia te nui o te pūtea ki te 6 mano pauna mō ake tonu atu; āe, kāore a ia i arotake i te nui o te pūtea ā-tau, nō reira i whakakorehia te wāriu o taua pūtea i ngā tau; āe, nāna anō ngā ika hōu i tuku mai. Ka mutu kua ngaro ngā momo ika e mōhiotia ana e tātou; āe, nā rāua ko te kaunihera ā-rohe i whakariterite ngā āhuatanga ā-tiaki o ngā roto me tōna mutunga ake, i paru katoa ngā roto; āe, i hāmenehia ngā uri o Te Arawa mō te hī ika kore raihana i raro i ngā ture o te Kāwanatanga; āe, ahakoa ngā petihana, ngā tira haere o Te Arawa ki te kuaha o nga Kāwanatanga, ki ngā kooti, ki ngā taraipiunara, kāore ia i aro mai ki te whakatikatika i ōna hara.

Koi rā tā te Karauna e kī nei. Ko tāku, ko te tautoko. Me tuohu te māhunga ka tika. Hoi anō, kei konei tātou i te rā nei. Tērā pea, me harikoa tātou! He kupu pōuri tā te Kāwanatanga. Me whakatika te tangata i tāna hara, me muru i ōna hara. Hā! Ko te kupu tuatahi ko te muru i te hara, ko te kupu tuarua, ka mahi anō hoki ia i te mahi huna. E kī ana te kōrero, he kōrero tonu tā te pō, he kōrero anō tā te ata.

He pūtea kua tukuna mai ki a Te Arawa. Tekau miriona taara te nui. Ā, ka pai, ka pai! Engari, i here tērā nui ki te kōpaki o te Karauna i kawe haerehia e ia i ngā tau kua hipa, arā, te kōpaki i kaha whakahēngia e te motu.

Ko tā ngā mea e matatau ana ki ēnei take, he kotahi ō-rau noa iho te nui o te pūtea ko te tikanga ka whiwhi i a tātou. He kongakonga noa iho mēnā ka titiro tātou ki te nui o ngā mea kua ngaro nei i a tātou. Kei hea te painga? Kei te Karauna, kei te kaunihera, kei te hapori, ehara i a Te Arawa. Koi rā te take o te hara mai i te rā nei. Me harikoa? Kāo.

Me whakamoemiti tātou kei te hoki mai ngā roto. Ka pai hoki! Ā, taihoa. Ko tā te Kāwanatanga, ko ngā roto kei te hoki mai engari kaua ko te wai. Ko ētahi o koutou o te kāinga hoki, i pātai te pātai: “Hā! He aha tēnei mea o te roto mēnā kārekau he wai o roto?”. Kātahi te mahi rorirori ko tērā!

Engari kāore i mutu i reira. Kua puta te kōrero, nōna te wai, nōna te rangi i runga ake i te whenua. Nāku tonu i whakatakoto te pātai: “ E kī, e kī, nā wai i kī nōu tēnei mea ko te ‘Crown stratum’ e kōrerohia ake nei?”. Ko tā te Minita, nō mua noa atu, nō te Land Act 1948. E hoa mā, kārekau he kōrero i reira. Ko tēnei te wā tuatahi kua puta tēnei kōrero ki te motu.

Ko ētahi ka kī, ā, “He aha te raru o tērā?”. Me kī mēnā ka whakaaetia mai ai i konei, kua mana tērā kōrero, ā, ka pā anō te hōhonutanga o tērā kōrero ki ngā iwi, hapū e whai pānga ana ki tēnei mea ko te wai.

Me kī kei te whakaae tātou ki tā te Kāwanatanga kōrero nōna ērā āhuatanga katoa ahakoa kāore anō tērā whakaaro kia whakamātauria i ngā kooti, i hea rānei. He mahi raupatu te mahi, ko Te Arawa te utu nā tō tātou whakaaetanga noa atu. Tērā kōrero tērā.

Nā, kua kī mai te Kāwanatanga, he rōpū whāiti ka whakatūria hei whakapaipai ake i ngā roto. Hei tā te pire nei, ko ngā mea o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe, ko ngā mea o Environment Bay of Plenty, ā, ko te tokorua o tātou o Te Arawa. E kī, e kī, tokorua noa iho ngā mea o Te Arawa engari kārekau he kōrero mō te tokomaha o aua rōpū e rua, ka tahi, ka rua, mēnā ka riro ki a tātou te mana o ngā roto, ko tōna tikanga, kei a tātou te kupu whakamutunga?

Ko tōna tikanga, kia ōrite te tokomaha o Te Arawa ki te kotahitanga o ngā rōpū e rua? Kāo, kaua i tēnei pira. Ko te kupu whakamutunga kei tangata kē, kei a rātou te hunga i tuku i te pirau ki ngā roto i te tuatahi. Ehara i te mea kei te kī au, me pana atu. Kāo. Me noho atu engari me waiho ki a tātou te kōrero whakamutunga.

Āe, ko ngā roto kei te hoki mai, me kī ko te whenua i raro i te wai. Me harikoa anō tātou kua whiwhi i a tātou ko ngā pirau, ko ngā paru, ko ngā tūtae, ko ngā hamuti i waihotia mai e te Kāwanatanga, e te kaunihera? Koia nei te tūtae i kitea mai ai, i kōrerohia mai ai e ētahi o te kāinga. Ko te tūtae te hoa haere i a rātou e kaukau ana i te awa o Utuhina.

Me harikoa i te mea hei tā te Karauna, ehara nō Te Arawa te hē mō te āhuatanga o te paru o ngā roto? Nā, ka pātaia te pātai: “Mā wai te hē e whakatika?”. Mā wai ngā roto e whakatika? Ko tōna tikanga mā te Karauna, mā te Kaunihera ā-Rohe me Environment Bay of Plenty.

Ka pēhea te nui o te pūtea hei whakatika i ngā roto? Ko te nuinga kei te kī, rahi ake i te 200 miriona. Kāore anō au kia rongo i te nui o te koha o tēnā, o tēnā o ngā rōpū nei. Me mataara tātou.

Nā kāti. E te iwi, nāku ēnei kōrero i whakatakoto ki mua i te Pāremata i tēnei wiki tonu nei. I te mōhio tonu ahau, ahakoa pēhea aku kōrero, he turi te Kāwanatanga, e kore a ia e aro mai. He hiahia nōku ki te whakatikatika i ngā mea huna. Ko ngā kōrero katoa i hinga. Engari i tōna mutunga i whai au i te kōrero, “Kei mate wheke, me mate ururoa.”

Koi nei te āhuatanga o ēnei mea. Ko te kupu pōuri o te Kāwanatanga kei te kī, āe, kua whai a Te Arawa i ngā herenga me ngā kawenga o te Tiriti o Waitangi; āe, i kaha tautoko nei a Te Arawa i te haerenga ki tāwāhi. Ko Te Hokowhitu a Tū tērā; āe, i koha a Te Arawa i ētahi wāhanga o te pūtea i tukuna mai i te 1922, ki te motu i ngā tau toru tekau, whā tekau; āe, i nganga a Te Arawa ki te mahitahi me te Karauna; āe, i kaha anō nō Te Arawa ki te tautoko i ngā mahi tūruhi mō te painga o te motu. Nā, he aha te hokinga mai? He paku kongakonga.

I tēnei rā, kia mōhio mai koutou, tokorua o mātou kei te tautoko i te pire nei, ko te tokorua kāore i te whakaae, kāore i te whakahē. Kei te mārama tonu tātou ki te hiahia o ētahi o te kainga, o ētahi o te iwi. Engari, e kore rawa au whakaae ki nga mahi a te Karauna me āna mahi whakaiti, kore, kore, kore rawa! Ko aku raru ki ngā kōrero a wētahi i whakahē nei i tēnei tū. Koi nei te hunga i whakaae kia taka mai, ko te takutai moana ki raro i te mana o te Karauna, arā, ko te hunga mahi muru whenua. Me whakairi taku ingoa ki te taha o tērā hunga, kore rawa!

E te iwi, kia ora mai tātou. He rā anō āpōpō, ka whiti mai te rā. Kua ea te wāhanga ki a au.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to all of us in this House. Welcome to the descendants of Ngāti Ohomarangi, and to you, the board. Greetings to you all.

What is our purpose for this day? We of Te Arawa have come to this place to remedy a pain that has long lingered in the hearts and souls of our people; that is, the ownership of our lakes. Welcome to you the people, welcome.

Our lakes are deeply embedded in our tribal spirit through our songs, our proverbs, and our history. Let us say that the issue is carved in the very souls of the descendants of Te Arawa. Because of that, many would suggest that the ownership was never relinquished. Let that statement stand.

In 1922, with a vision for a better future, in an honourable gesture, our elders signed an agreement between Te Arawa and the Crown. What was the basis for that honourable act? It was the ownership of the lakes.

This issue had its genesis in 1909. At that time, Te Arawa turned to the court, for a ruling to determine ownership of the lakes. Over time, the Crown used stalling tactics to delay the process, and, in doing so, stifle the desires of Te Arawa. Our ancestors were denied access, particularly to maps and survey plans that could assist in the just settlement of the issue. In 1920 the Crown approached Te Arawa to negotiate a settlement of claims.

From there was born an agreement between us and the Crown, in 1922, just as we are concluding today. It was thought that benefits would flow to Te Arawa following that agreement, but the problem is that justice has not been done. Justice has not been done, right through to the present day. So here we are, 80 or 90 years on, returning a second time—it is a return to the sands that were disturbed at that time.

This is what the Crown had to say, friends, not I, Te Ururoa. The Crown confessed to its sins. They say, yes, they set the annuity at ₤6,000, in perpetuity; yes, they did not review the yearly annuity, and therefore acknowledge a depreciation of the value of the annuity; yes; they also introduced a new species of fish, and the end result was the destruction of indigenous species; yes, along with the council they determined the nature of the care of the lakes, resulting in severe pollution of all the lakes; yes, the descendants of Te Arawa were prosecuted for fishing without licences, according to the law of the Government; yes, despite petitions and delegations by Te Arawa to the Government, to the court, to the tribunal, the Government has refused to remedy that which it has despoiled.

This is what the Crown says. For my part, I agree. It is right and proper that they should bow their heads in shame. And here we are today. Perhaps we should be happy! The Crown has offered an apology. It is only right that he who has erred should repent. But hold it! On the one hand, they utter remorse; on the other, they repeat their offence. It is said that the words of the night differ from the murmurings of the dawn.

We have got some money—$10 million. Awesome! Hear, hear! However, the amount is bound to the fiscal envelope of the Crown, taken by it in years past, and vigorously rejected by Māori.

According to those who are knowledgable on these issues, we will only ever get 1 percent of the real value of that which was illegally taken. These are mere crumbs when compared with what was lost. Who benefits? It is the Crown, the district council, and the community. Not Te Arawa! That is the reason for this journey today. Should we rejoice? No!

We should also give thanks for the return of the lakes. That is great. Wait up—according to the Government, the lakes are indeed going to return, but not the water. Some of you, and those from home, have posed the question: “Heck! So, what is this thing called a lake if it does not contain any water?”. What a stupid thought that is!

But the stupidity did not stop there. The statement has been made that the Crown owns the water, and the sky above the land. I asked the question: “So, who said you owned this thing called the Crown stratum?”. The Minister’s response was that that thought had always been there, right from the Land Act 1948. Members need to know that there is no statement about that, and that this is the first; this is the first time this statement has been made public.

Some would say: “What’s the problem?”. Let me put it this way. If it is agreed to here, and becomes law, the implications will be profound, and felt by those other iwi and hapū whose claims will follow ours.

So if we agree to what the Crown says, that those aspects belong to it—even though it has never been tested in court, or anywhere else—that is confiscation. As a result of our acquiescence, we will become implicated along with the Crown. Leave that thought there.

The Crown has said that a working-group has been established to revitalise the lakes. According to this bill, the committee will consist of members of the district council and Environment Bay of Plenty—and only a mere two from Te Arawa. What arrogance! Firstly, only two from Te Arawa and not a mention of the number from those other two groups! Secondly, if we are the owners, then surely we must be the decision makers.

Should it not be that the numbers for Te Arawa are equal to the collective numbers of the other two groups? No, not in this bill. A final word rests with people other than those who allowed the pollution of the lakes in the first place. It is not as if I am saying to get rid of them. No, they should stay, but the mana should be with us.

The Minister said it is not possible for anyone to own water. But, according to him, the Crown has the authority to determine the usage. Yes, the lakes are returned—well, at least the land below the water. We should rejoice that we now possess the filth, the pollution, the excrement, left by the Government and the council! This is the excrement that was seen, and spoken about, by some from home. Faeces became the swimming companion for those bathing in the waters of the Utuhina Stream.

We should be happy because it was the Crown, not Te Arawa, that abdicated responsibilities for the pollution of the lakes. So one has to ask the question: “Who will fix it?”. Who will clean up the lakes? It would be appropriate for the Crown and the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty to do that.

How much would it cost to remedy the situation? Many would say that it is in excess of $200 million, but I have not heard about the contribution of these respective groups. Let us be aware.

Enough! People, I set out these concerns in Parliament, just this week, with the full knowledge that the Government would not listen to or take notice of what I had to say. It was my desire to correct those things that were not nakedly apparent. All that I put forward was voted down, but I thought it best to be defeated, fighting like a shark, rather than to limply surrender like an octopus.

This is how these things are done. The Crown apology says: yes, Te Arawa has honoured its responsibilities and obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi; yes, we have contributed to the war efforts overseas; yes, we contributed gifts as portions of the annuity for the national good, in the 1930s and 1940s; yes, we demonstrated a record of cooperation with the Crown; and, yes, we made a significant contribution to tourism and the wealth of New Zealand. What is the return? Breadcrumbs!

Today, members need to know that two of us will support this bill, and two are neither for nor against. We know what some at home, some of the people, want. But I will never agree to the processes of the Crown, and its behaviour of belittling us—never, never, never. I have no issue with those who may disagree with me and the position I am taking. They are probably the ones who agreed that the foreshore and seabed should come under the Crown—that act of land confiscation. Will I hang my name beside them? No way!

And so, greetings to you, the people. Tomorrow is another day, and the sun will rise, for sure. My part has been done. ]

RON MARK (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for taking a point of order at this point in time and on such an important bill, but I think that the Standing Orders require me to raise and bring in issues that we feel need to be brought to your immediate attention.

Standing Order 104 makes it possible for people to deliver their speech in te reo Māori. What I am not sure about—and I seek the opportunity for you to deliberate and to give us an opinion, a view, or a ruling at a later stage—is this concern. We have just seen a member take the opportunity, as is his right under the Standing Orders, to deliver his entire speech of 10 minutes in te reo Māori, and then to have that entire speech interpreted. One of the problems that creates is that members are trying to understand the debate and gauge whether the speech in itself, throughout its content, is in compliance with Standing Orders 110, 111, 112, 113, and 114, and especially with Standing Orders 115 and 116, which are frequently where breaches are. For members to know that, they need to know, in a more timely manner, precisely what is being said.

Madam Speaker, my question is whether you can give the House some guidance to ensure that we are all able to understand such a speech in a more timely manner—in order to ensure that we may have an opportunity to interject where we believe that the speech is not relevant, is offensive or insulting, or contains unparliamentary language—and that we may have a more timely interpretation.

Madam SPEAKER: I think you have made your point. I made the judgment that on this occasion Māori Party members should be given the opportunity to give their entire speech within te reo, so that the full understanding of it could be given.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I am pleased to have the honour of taking a call on the third reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill on behalf of United Future. We are, of course, at the third reading and this is the last time this matter will be debated in Parliament. Therefore, it is right to begin by saying that I am sure this will be an occasion of great joy for the majority of the large confederation of the iwi and hapū of Te Arawa. The return of these 13 lakes will restore the traditional relationship between Te Arawa and its lakes. It will also ensure that this relationship will continue for all of the generations to come. It puts right a wrong. It signals on behalf of all New Zealanders our goodwill towards Te Arawa—our aroha—and our best wishes for their future in peace and prosperity. United Future wishes all of those involved in the Te Arawa confederation all the very best for the future.

This bill contains reference to the Crown apology. Although it is a very good thing, and technically correct, for the Crown to tender an apology for the past wrongs, there is also—as I have mentioned once before in this House—a slight fiction involved in taking that action. In truth, it was not the monarch 12,000 miles away who wronged Te Arawa by taking ownership of these lakes in controversial circumstances and then putting in place an annuity system with no adjustment, even for inflation, for all those years. Those actions were actually taken by the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Parliament. I look forward to the day when we can recognise that and find a way of apologising as a Parliament for the wrongs of the past. This highlights, of course, an issue that has caused a lot of undue aggression in our nation for some time—that is, the position of the Crown in relation to settlements in general.

In particular, this issue came up in the context of the foreshore and seabed debate, which was mentioned by Te Ururoa Flavell in his speech a few minutes ago. It is well known that United Future would have liked to see the foreshore and seabed vested not in the Crown but in the public domain. There is an important difference between those two things, because “the public domain” suggests that the ownership lies with all of the people of New Zealand, whereas “the Crown”, in its historical context of being the other party to the Treaty, always carries with it the kind of logic that somehow this means removing something from Māori in order to assign it to something that is not Māori.

But, of course, in our constitutional arrangements the Crown is simply the symbol of the unity that we all have as New Zealanders. Another way of expressing that notion in the American constitution is the phrase “We the people”, and here in New Zealand it could well have been in “the public domain”. I look forward to ongoing constitutional development around that issue, because I hope that once all the historical grievances arising out of the Treaty have been settled, we can move on to think about the language that we use in this country. In some ways I think we need to put the concept of the Crown behind us, and to move forward into a new concept whereby all of us actually feel we are involved in these matters.

I will give members the example that came out of the previous member’s speech—and this is not a criticism; it is just an illustration of the point I am making. He spoke about Environment Bay of Plenty and the local council that will be involved in the clean-up of the lake. Those organisations are referred to as if they are completely separate from Māori. But, of course, those organisations are called on to represent all of the people in that district, including all Māori. So we always have a perpetuation of this “them and us” language, and we have to figure out as a nation, I believe, a way of getting past that point, so that we can build a future of unity together.

I also express the hope today that Te Arawa can extend its forgiveness to the New Zealand Government. We have offered an apology, in a roundabout way, through the Crown for the wrongs of the past. I believe that Te Arawa would do well to extend that forgiveness to our nation, because the alternative—that is, to refuse forgiveness—can block the ability to bring closure, and open the door to the future. It is so important, when we get to this point of a settlement, that we do start to open the door to a different future as a nation and as a people.

We human beings cannot advance into a bright future together, if we take into that future the wrongs of the past. It does not work that way. That is not human reality; that is not human psychology. We have to be able to say, yes, we are prepared to put this matter to rest and to let it be in the past. It is reality, but it is now a historical reality. When this bill is passed today in this Parliament, it should become a historical reality, so that we can go forward together. I want, therefore, to suggest to Te Arawa that their response today should be, to lay this matter down. They should straighten their backs and embrace the future in optimism and in hope, because if we do not have hope and optimism going into the future, then, indeed, we will have a dismal future.

I will just comment on the position of the National Party in relation to this bill. I am advised that National intends to vote against this bill on its third reading. I express the thought that National has its own reasons for voting against the bill. United Future, on the other hand, has been prepared to trust the process that has brought us to this point. A huge amount of research has gone into the bill. It has been looked at from the point of view of fairness and justice, and we have worked through that process, to this point. At this stage, if we were to say no, that we would override all of that and vote against the bill, on the basis of what I desperately hope would not simply be hair-splitting legalities, it would be wrong, because there is no future in going forward on that basis. There is no future, in my view, in respect of even talking about a 1c in the dollar settlement, for example, on the other side of the argument. We have to embrace the realities we have.

Let me express this thought to the House. If, indeed, this settlement bill has been overgenerous towards Te Arawa, which is presumably what National is saying—and, of course, the Māori Party is saying it is not generous enough—and let us suppose that is the assumption that this is not a right thing to do and is overgenerous, would it be so difficult, so wrong, if just for once we were overgenerous to Māori in settling these matters? Would that be a problem for New Zealand’s future? I do not think so.

I think that we should look at the big picture of where we are going as a nation and at our ability to try to build a strong nation for the future of all New Zealanders. Quite frankly, hair-splitting legalities will not get us there. We have to go beyond that; we have to go into goodwill, into hope, and into optimism. We must have a vision for the future, because, as you all know, one of the Scriptures says that without a progressive vision, a nation perishes. We need that progressive vision. I hope that these occasions can become a source of vision for the future, so that we can bring closure and go into a good future together. Thank you.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I am privileged today to welcome Te Arawa here and to take a very short call on what is a very important bill to those in our region. I defer to the strength and wisdom of my colleagues who are going to take calls after me today. They have achieved an astonishing result.

Today settles a longstanding grievance. The historical account is now on the record and an apology has been made. This should be a really fulsome and happy day, but the actions of other parties have granted us only a certain, deep sense of satisfaction of a job completed. National has not helped this process. It has left a legacy of bitter division in our community, simply for political gain. National members sloganised this issue, and our people were hurt. They came to the shores of Lake Rotorua, with one banner saying: “We are one people”.

Hon Tau Henare: “Our people”? How can you say that?

STEVE CHADWICK: Well, uncle Manu Bennett told us that we are two people walking one pathway, and that is the future that this Government epitomises. National members have also impugned the intelligence and dignity of both the negotiators and the Crown, and that is a sad legacy of their contribution to this bill.

The Māori Party too has sought political leverage over issues like the size of the settlement package, the mandating process, and now this new issue of the “Crown stratum” definition. This activism has left a people deeply divided and has added another grievance that now requires steadfast leadership. That legacy will be sorted out only by the people of Te Arawa and how they vote in the future.

I acknowledge my colleagues Margaret Wilson, who got new energy into this bill, and Mark Burton, who picked it up. I acknowledge my Māori colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, who took the response from all the work the committee did out in the community, and quietly and steadfastly carried on with the job. I wish the newly formed Te Arawa Lakes Trust all the best in rebuilding these rifts that have been left behind by Opposition parties. I give assurance to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust that this Government, with my support as the electorate MP, will work on the signing of a memorandum of understanding to make sure that those bodies on the trust do clean up the waters of our beautiful lakes.

Justice today has been done. Te Arawa’s dignity remains intact, and the tribe lives on. Kia kaha.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : National opposes the third reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill for reasons already advanced by my friends the deputy leader and Mr Henare. We say this bill is a very poor piece of work, and we have done our level best to address some of the concerns that we had with the bill, particularly in the Committee stage, and I will come back to that in a few minutes.

It is an important debate and it deserves more than some of the vulgar and crass contributions we have heard from various members this afternoon, such as Sue Kedgley, the “Empress of Oriental Bay”, who accused the National Party of racism, which I think is pretty unfair and totally contrary to the facts, but the facts never really worry Mrs Kedgley very much. Then we had the contribution from the member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, who has just sat down. When she is sitting in the Chamber, she has that beatific smile and looks so sweet and angelic, but when she opens her mouth the poison comes vomiting out. We had that from her this afternoon when she accused National members of negativism.

Perhaps worst of all in the context of what we have just heard was the parsonic contribution made by Mr Copeland. He did not bother to come down to listen to the contributions made by Mr Brownlee and Mr Henare—and very good contributions they were—but simply popped in like the Archangel Gabriel descending into the Chamber and then proceeded to tell us that we were hair-splitting.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is in his first term, but I think he should have read the Standing Orders a bit. References to the absence or presence of individual members of Parliament is contrary to the Standing Orders. I ask that that be drawn to his attention and that he desist from such comments.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right. He cannot make reference to the absence of members.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am most grateful to the member for his guidance.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I do not think that was called for. The member can stand, withdraw, and apologise for making that remark.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I withdraw and apologise and will continue on—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise most sincerely to the member for interrupting his speech, but the interplay that you have just seen and administered over is precisely the point I was making in my point of order. If we are to allow a speech in te reo to be given fully without interpretation at the moment, it is not known if a person has caused offence or is speaking outside of the Standing Orders, and therefore the speech is permitted to continue. There seems now to be one standard for debate in English and another standard for debate in te reo Māori; that surely is wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Mark, I heard the point of order—[Interruption] There is to be silence during points of order. I heard the point that you made to the Speaker, and the Speaker made a decision. We have had this issue raised before and the presiding officers have made various rulings. We have had a previous dispute about exactly what you are saying. But the member had made prior arrangements and he wanted the speech to flow. I can assure you, Mr Mark, that we have dealt with that matter and we will continue to deal with it. I emphasise again that the Speaker made a very clear ruling and she had dealt with it.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Obviously I am not commenting on your ruling, because it is made, but I was going to say in the course of my speech that I really enjoy the contributions of Mr Flavell. It really would be good if we could get simultaneous translation of speeches in this House. The Standing Orders Committee has been dealing with this issue and I know that Mr Tanczos raised it months ago. This debate this afternoon illustrates why we have the issue.

But I want to go on and say something about the huge contribution made by National to Treaty settlements, because while Sue Kedgley talks about justice, we actually achieved it right throughout the 1990s. The first and most outstanding Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was Sir Douglas Graham. His record of achievement was simply outstanding: the fisheries settlement, the Ngāi Tahu settlement, and the Tainui settlement. National is not opposed to Treaty settlements but we are opposed to this bill. I lay down a challenge: let any Labour speaker stand up in this place and challenge the record of the National Party on Treaty settlements vis-à-vis the Labour record, which is poor by comparison.

The Committee stage of this debate was a disappointment and there was no attempt by the Minister to address some very important issues. Mr Henare has dealt very comprehensively and carefully with mandate issues, so I am not going to dwell on those. But I say—and I will be a prophet of doom—that if mandate questions are not got right, there will be no end to strife between the Crown and iwi. I confidently predict—it may not be during my lifetime, it may not be for 50 or 60 years—these issues will come back because there are outstanding mandate questions that were not properly addressed and National had some real concerns about that. That is a justice issue—for the benefit of Mrs Kedgley—if ever there was one.

There were important definitional issues that were not properly addressed. I see my friend Mr Paraone starting to grimace and he is right to grimace because there were those vague references to the Treaty of Waitangi—

Barbara Stewart: It wasn’t a grimace.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It looks like a grimace to me—and there was no attempt, as Mr Flavell said, to explain this new term “Crown stratum” that appears in this kind of settlement legislation for the first time. That grimace is because of New Zealand First’s performance in the Committee and it was repeated in this Chamber this afternoon. They adopted a position that was more like that of Monty Python’s Flying Circus than a rational legislator’s debate. They support the bill, but they are going to seek to delete the Treaty references in it after Mr Woolerton’s legislation comes back to the House after we have dealt with it in the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The third major issue that really troubled me was questions about aspects of Part 2. In the Committee stage discussions on Part 2, National members very carefully went through certain clauses, for example clause 24 about the rights and obligations of ownership, and asked questions. Did we get any answers? Not one—

Brian Connell: No.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, Mr Connell says—

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to upset the flow of the member’s speech, but he must not deviate from the truth and his words are simply not a correct reflection of what happened in this Chamber 2 days ago.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): It is a matter of debate and—[Interruption] I was ruling on the point of order. There will be silence during points of order. Please continue, Mr Finlayson.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Thank you; that was a rather poor attempt to interrupt the flow, because it is a debating point, and it was not properly addressed by the Minister.

There were important questions about this bill—questions that really do address justice issues, at the end of the day, because if you do not dot the i’s and cross the t’s but just glide over those issues as if you are in some kind of comatose state—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Do not bring me into the debate.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON:—Madam Assistant Speaker, of course I am not referring to you, for whom I have enormous respect—these issues will come back to haunt us. But the attitude of the Crown negotiators to Te Arawa, basically, was to take it or leave it. Mr Flavell outlined those issues, and I have to say that on the basis of what he said, serious questions of duress arise. The attitude of Government to Parliament has basically been to take it or leave it, because the Government thinks it can relax as there appears to be an all-encompassing jurisdictional bar—and I refer the House to clauses 15 and 16 of the bill. But as I have said in Committee, and as I have seen many, many times in my career as a barrister, jurisdictional clauses can be avoided quite easily, depending on the circumstances. At the end of the day, it always depends on the facts, and where there is a will there is a way to get around jurisdictional clauses.

So there has been no real attempt to address the issues. The Government took the Office of Treaty Settlements template for settlement legislation and applied it to this settlement without giving any real thought to its appropriateness. My good friend Mr Henare, with whom I hate disagreeing, blames the Office of Treaty Settlements and not the Government, but I blame the Government. This is a paint-by-numbers bill by a paint-by-numbers Minister, and I compare that with the way in which Sir Douglas Graham approached Treaty settlements. He mastered the detail of the negotiation, took part in the negotiation, dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s, and got the job done properly. We can see that, for example, with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998.

So after all the negotiations, this is the end result, and I do consider it to be very disappointing. It is a poor piece of work. Time and time again the Minister has referred us to the preamble, but when we look at the preamble we see that it makes pretty unfortunate reading. This is not the way a Treaty partner should negotiate. I particularly refer the House to clauses 13 to 18 of the preamble, and to the stop-start negotiations because, as has already been observed by Mr Henare, this is a process that has the effect of grinding iwi under. I have seen it before—delay, legal costs, emotional costs, and the passage of time, with senior members of the iwi starting to get sick and tired of it. I have seen that sort of thing in negotiations, and no wonder they say: “Well, it’s the best we can achieve.” I certainly do not criticise Te Arawa for that. So many negotiations after such a long time producing such a poor piece of work!

I end as I began, by saying that this will not be the end of the matter. At some stage in the future, the Crown will have to look at the matter once again. We say that if a bit of effort had been taken, it need not have reached this end. National will be opposing the third reading of the bill.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : Otirā, Te Arawa tangata, Te Arawa waka, nau mai, hara mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i haere tawhiti mai i te hau kāinga i runga i te rangimārie ki te whakatutuki i tēnei tō koutou, tō tātou kerēme. Tēnei te tū ake i roto i tēnei Whare ki te whakamihi ake ki a koutou, nō reira tēnā koutou. Ahakoa rā ngā piki me ngā heke i whakapōrearea nei i a koutou, i a koutou e hīkoi haere ana i tēnei huarahi, kua tae noa koutou ki tēnei hāora hei whakatutukihia i ngā mahi, otirā, i ngā āhuatanga katoa e pā ana ki ngā roto. Nō reirā, tēnā koutou.

Tēnā hoki koutou ngā rōpū tōrangapū i roto i te Whare nei. Tūtū mai koutou ki te whakapāoho atu i wā koutou whakaaro me tēnei kerēme a Te Arawa. Wētahi o ngā kōrero, kai te tautoko. Wētahi atu, kei te āhua pōuri taku ngākau. Kei te āhua pōuri taku ngākau i te mea, kai konei a Te Arawa. Te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero, kāre a Te Arawa i konei. Nō reira, kōrerohia a koutou kōrero i runga i te whakaaro, ā, kai te ngahere tonu a Te Arawa, e noho ana. Kai te hē! Kai te hē! Kai te hē! Nō reira, tāku e tū ake nei ki te whakamihi ake ki a rātou kua haere tawhiti mai.

[To you indeed, the people of Te Arawa and the canoe, welcome, welcome, and greetings, greetings, and greetings to you. Salutations to you who have come from a distance from the home winds in a peaceful frame of mind to complete this claim of yours and ours. I rise in this House to acknowledge you—salutations. Regardless of the trials and tribulations that inconvenienced you as you went down this process, you have reached this hour when the work in respect of everything about the lakes will be completed. And so, greetings to you.

My acknowledgments as well to the political parties in this House. You have stood and expressed your views about this claim of Te Arawa. Some contributions were in support and some were a disappointment to me. I was somewhat disappointed because Te Arawa is present. You went on as though they were still in the bush. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! And that is why I stood up to acknowledge those who came from afar. ]

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence of Te Arawa negotiators in the House today. They have come a long way, on a long journey, to bring to a close this outstanding claim concerning the lakes. They have succeeded many negotiators before them, and whilst many individuals and parties have stood in this House and made comments about the settlement bill, some have spoken about Te Arawa as if they were not here. But they are here, and if it were not for them, we would not be having this debate or discussion today. I want to acknowledge their commitment and everything they have had to endure—the insults, the abuse, the lack of support on occasions, and also the disappointments, particularly when they have had to listen to statements from people who should have been supporting them. So I acknowledge their presence.

I listened to what previous speakers have had to say—and everybody in this House is entitled to express an opinion of one form or another. This is the last opportunity that many of us will have to make comment on this very, very important legislation. I am particularly encouraged by some of the comments in the House, even by comments made by some National members. I am encouraged by comments made by the United Future speaker, by the Greens, and by my Labour colleagues. When I say: “Kei te āhua pōuri taku ngākau.”, I say I am disappointed with the comments by the elected member for Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell. I am disappointed because the voice of Te Arawa has been strong and loud, and anyone who has not heard it has not been listening.

Te Arawa have come on a very, very long journey, and it is nearing its end. It entered these negotiations in good faith, and it has taken total responsibility for their contribution to those negotiations. The outcome of those negotiations is the result of their input and their agreement. I have met with the negotiators, and of course we could all say, as many speakers have said today, we could have done better, but Te Arawa said to me that they did well.

Te Arawa now are not looking towards the past—they are looking towards the future. They have moved, and they are moving, from grievance mode to development mode. If anybody in this House does not realise it, Te Arawa are a very powerful economic force in the Bay of Plenty and have been for many, many generations, and they are getting stronger. The settlement of the fisheries assets and the distribution to Te Arawa was significant. The lakes settlement, the cash-up of the annuity, and the compensation to Te Arawa is very significant. The detail of the settlement package in terms of new structures on the lake and the obligations to Te Arawa for those structures is significant economically.

Over the next few weeks we will be talking about Te Arawa’s historical claim. We have already signed the draft deed of settlement. There is a lot of fine-tuning to do, but Te Arawa will get there. But people in this House need to listen to what Te Arawa are saying. They should not treat Te Arawa as if they are ignorant. They have been in this game for a very, very long time. They are taken seriously by their people. They are our future—us of Te Arawa. They will construct for us an economic development programme second to none, and I am looking forward to that.

I am committed to ensuring that the next round of negotiations for Te Arawa is enduring, and that the post-settlement governance structures that are established to control Te Arawa’s investments are strong and transparent.

I do not want to talk about the past. The past, in terms of the history of Te Arawa, the history of the confiscation, has been well-traversed throughout this whole process. I say that enough is enough. Te Arawa and the negotiators here today are looking towards the future. I can give members many, many examples of where our young people today are benefiting from the decisions made by our kaumātua in days gone by.

During the negotiations for the cash settlement of Te Arawa’s historical claim I was asked: “What did you do?” in terms of increasing the quantum of Te Arawa. I said: “Well, I was very much a part of it. We took the quantum offer from one point to another.” The person said: “Well, that’s only $2 million. What’s that?”. I said: “Well, let’s put it this way: $2 million for Te Arawa is 400 PhD degrees. You can’t put a value on that.” In terms of Te Arawa going forward, that is significant.

So I say to Te Arawa, because I do not have a lot more to say, that I am looking to the future, as the negotiators here today are doing. We have a powerful history and we live it every day. Everybody who comes into our rohe sees it, feels it, experiences it. In saying that, I want to acknowledge everyone who has played a part in bringing the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill to this point. I acknowledge Sir Douglas Graham, who originally opened the negotiations. In particular I acknowledge the contribution of the Speaker of the House, the Hon Margaret Wilson, who made a decision that we will deal with the lakes settlement as a historical claim. That decision was significant because, without it, we would not be here today.

I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague the Hon Mark Burton. He has kept the momentum up. He has kept the negotiations going. He has kept the door open, and that is another reason why we are here today. I also thank my parliamentary colleague Dave Hereora, the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, for ensuring that we got on with the business and were not distracted by insignificant flip-flop, because there was a lot of it. In fact, I thank and acknowledge all the members of the select committee, including the New Zealand First representative, who did ask some curly questions but he got some straight answers, and I am sure he is reasonably satisfied with that.

I acknowledge the support we have had so far from all the parties who have supported us on this bill. I have nothing more to say except that we of Te Arawa are moving forward. There is a new day coming, and at a date determined by Te Arawa we will celebrate, and we do know how to celebrate.

Nā runga i tēnā kōrero e te Kaihautū, mihi atu ana ki tēnei Whare, otirā, ki a Te Arawa tangata haere tawhiti mai. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

[Upon that statement, Madam Speaker, I extend greetings to this House, and indeed to the people of Te Arawa who came from a distance. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and to all of us.]

PANSY WONG (National) : I congratulate you, Madam Chairperson, on becoming the fourth Assistant Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament. We are making history in New Zealand—this is a very historical moment. Last night I was 25 seconds into my speech, and I invited the listeners to come back this afternoon to continue listening to it. I welcome back the Chairman, who is the properly elected Deputy Speaker of the House. Certainly, the Government is in disarray. Only National’s Deputy Speaker is in the Chamber, and it is not even 6 p.m. So everybody is rushing away. Well, I am glad that National Party members are hard-working and take their part seriously.

National supports the Securities Legislation Bill, which has an aim to increase, inspire, and enhance the confidence of investors in New Zealand’s capital and securities markets. I have one complaint about the time taken to bring the bill to the second reading and Committee stage. It has been sitting on the Order Paper for a whole year after it was reported back from the Commerce Committee. One of the provisions relates to additional disclosure by investment advisers, and, in the light of three very high-profile collapses of financial companies, the public would have benefited if this legislation had been passed earlier. There would have been greater disclosure requirements of investment advisers.

I say that because after Provincial Finance withdrew its prospectus to invite people to invest in that company, $9.5 million was invested in that company. That shows that a lot of investment advisers out there are not properly qualified, or whatever. I hope the Minister will not take as long to introduce the second part of the complementary legislation for registration of those investment advisers.

I also comment that we passed this legislation to inspire confidence in investors to invest in our capital and securities markets, but it will not work. We saw just yesterday the sacking of the electricity commissioner because he stood up to the Government, wanted to do his job independently, and wanted to inspire confidence in the working of the electricity industry. The Minister said: “No way!”. The Government did not know the answer, but it wants to be popular, so if the electricity commissioner wants to do his job independently, objectively, and according to the legislation, well, that is not good enough for the Minister. So the commissioner was sacked.

I doubt, after we pass this legislation and the Securities Commission wants again to adhere to the legislation, whether confidence will be inspired. Once again, I ask how, with political interference, this legislation will be helpful in inspiring confidence.

TIM GROSER (National) : I rise to support the Securities Legislation Bill, and, given that we are looking at the title, I would like to recall the central objective, because I do not think it is contested on this side of the Chamber. The objective is to strengthen our capital markets. We have structurally weak capital markets. Members may recall the Ernst and Young study that put New Zealand 21st out of 22 OECD economies in 2005 in terms of the capital raised through initial public offerings. If we look at the NZX and go back 10 years, we see that market capitalisation was 60 percent of GDP, which was not a stellar result. Today it is a little under 40 percent, and if we compare that with Australia, with a market capital of 150 percent of its much larger GDP, we see the dimension of the problem. So we do have structurally weak capital markets and this bill is an attempt to address some aspects of that problem.

Of course, I have to say in passing that the answers lie in doing more than just talking about economic transformation. But I understand we are at that phase of the electoral cycle where the Government is engaging in a nice little conversation with the electorate about redistribution politics, and not about the next phase of wealth creation. We know where that leads us. It leads us to where we were in the 1960s and 1970s: back towards sclerosis. We have been there before and that is where we are heading.

On this issue, yes, there are some structural weaknesses that this bill is addressing, and on balance National thinks it is a move in the right direction. We all understand that for capital markets to function properly, investors have to have confidence in the integrity of those markets. We understand that confidence is important for the institutional investors right through to the mom and pop investors, and even, perhaps, down to the proverbial bellboy—by legend, when he is in the share market it is time to sell everything.

So the bill takes some steps to strengthen the integrity of our systems and does a number of sensible things; that is why the National Party is supporting it. For example, adoption of the standard of civil liability in this bill has the promise of providing an easier juridical path for pursuing remedies to insider-trading practices. At the same time, we seek to introduce in this bill a penalty regime that is, well, anything but a slap across the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket. Quite severe penalties are introduced by this bill, and we have to be sure that certain other, compensatory changes are taken in the legislation. I think there are some important steps in that respect.

This legislation is about proportionality and it is about fairness; tidying it up so that it applies only to serious offences is one of those steps in the right direction. Equally, the provisions for the three regulatory authorities that have statutory responsibilities for pursuing misleading and deceptive conduct—that is, the Securities Commission, the Takeovers Panel, and the Commerce Commission—are a very sensible change and we welcome that.

I guess my main concern—and it is not original; it is shared by a number of the submitters, many of whom are extremely well informed—relates to the unintended effects of legislation of this nature. We are certainly not helping our weak capital markets if, in adopting this bill, we frighten the horses, if you like. I can see that a lot of considerations have been given to this legislation and some of those considerations move us in the right direction—for example, the improved standards of defence.

If I may just shorten my speech, I think what we need to be sure about here is that we are ready to come back and have another look at this; it is a work in progress. There are still some problems with the legislation but, on balance, the National Party supports it.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : I rise to speak on the title clause of the Securities Legislation Bill. The purpose of the bill is to increase confidence in New Zealand’s capital markets. How can a few words do that? May I suggest phrases like “The buck stops here.”, by Harry Truman, “My word is my bond.”, and “By our work we will be known.” Those undertakings are the sorts of statements that have been used in previous decades by people charged with leading Governments, commercial organisations, and community groups, to provide increased confidence. I would guess that no members in this Parliament—indeed, I would guess that few people listening—are unfamiliar with those phrases. They are phrases that would be nice to hear coming from the Government side of the Chamber.

In company with other members of the 2005 intake, I have been privileged to serve in this Parliament just a few days short of a year. What a journey! [Interruption] My companions over there have made it with me. It has been like a train journey—sometimes going like a goods train, and sometimes going like an express.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.