Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika comprises people from Taranaki iwi, including Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Ruanui who descend from signatories of the 27 September 1839 Port Nicholson Block purchase, ancestors listed in the schedule to the declaration of the Native Land Court in Wellington dated 11 April 1888, and/or ancestors who exercised customary rights in the Port Nicholson Block on or after 6 February 1840 by virtue of being descended from one or more of the named iwi in this settlement. This settlement covers the area of the Port Nicholson Block, which is an area of approximately 271,000 hectares spanning the Wellington, Lower Hutt, and Upper Hutt areas. The claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika were lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal from 1987 onwards, and the district report was presented in 2003. The Crown recognised the mandate of the negotiating team that settled the claims in January 2004. The terms of the negotiation were signed in mid-2004, the agreement in principle was signed in December 2007, and an initial deed of settlement was signed in June 2008. During June and July the post-settlement ratification process occurred, which demonstrated sufficient support to proceed to the final deed of settlement in August 2008.

The grievances to which this settlement relate stem largely, but not solely, from the Crown’s role in the sale of land within the Port Nicholson Block. In September 1839 the New Zealand Company, a private land settlement company, sought to purchase land in Wellington Harbour and its environs from Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Before the arrival of its representatives in New Zealand, the company had already sold nearly 100,000 hectares in the Port Nicholson area to prospective settlers and had held a lottery in London to allocate land to them. The company’s representatives negotiated the Port Nicholson deed, which was signed on 27 September 1839 with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in an attempt to purchase a large district of Port Nicholson and its environs that was subsequently known as the Port Nicholson Block. That deed was later found to be seriously flawed by a Crown-appointed land claims commissioner. In 1841 the Crown assumed ownership of the harbour islands, despite the deed’s flaws, and it also proclaimed the Wellington town belt to be a public reserve without offering compensation.

The 1839 deed provided that a tenth portion of the land conveyed by it would be reserved for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. The company intended that some of these tenths reserves would be occupation reserves, while the remaining tenths reserves would provide an endowment fund. Despite the initial findings of the land claims commissioner, the Crown established a process by which the company could validate its 1839 purchase. In return for £1,500, which was negotiated between the company and a Crown representative, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika signed several deeds of release in early 1844, so that the company could complete its purchase. But it was always uncertain how much land had been purchased by these deeds of release. The Crown subsequently treated all of the land in the district covered by the 1839 deed as if Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s title to it had been fully extinguished.

In 1846, in order to finally secure the lands to the company, the Crown instructed the appropriately named Lieutenant Colonel McCleverty to find Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika alternative lands in exchange for their reserve lands around Wellington Harbour. As a result of these exchanges the iwi were pressured to move from their traditional lands to lands that proved inadequate to sustain their way of life. The Taranaki whānui grouping had no role in the administration of the remaining tenths reserves until 1985. There were long delays in establishing proper administration, including delays in the passing of legislation. The Crown-appointed trustee also appropriated tenths reserves land for public purposes, and much of this was alienated under the Crown-appointed trustee’s administration. In order to generate income from the reserves, the Crown-appointed trustee established a regime of perpetual leases, and over time the effects of inflation, of course, reduced rental returns. As a historian, I should note at this point that such leases at the time did not seem to have the same disadvantage as they do these days, because, if anything, prices were either stable or, in the later 19th century, actually declining, so a guaranteed return seemed quite a good bet from the perspective of those who owned the land. As another consequence of settlement, Wellington Harbour, an important food and trade resource for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, was adversely affected by the pollution and sewage generated by urban and industrial development, as well as by reclamations around the harbour.

There is much, given even that brief recitation of the history, for the Crown to apologise for. The Crown’s apology recognises that the Crown breached its obligations under the Treaty and its principles. This breach includes the Crown’s failure to consistently protect Taranaki whānui’s interests during the process by which the Crown and its agents acquired Taranaki whānui’s interest in the Port Nicholson Block, the compulsory acquisition and endowment of their lands for public purposes, and various acts and omissions in relation to delays in the implementing of legislation and administration of the reserves. This significantly undermined the tino rangatiratanga of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, and this impacted upon their economic and social development. As part of the settlement and in response to the Crown apology, Taranaki whānui have very generously provided a statement of forgiveness to the Crown. The Crown, of course, is forgiven for those matters for which the Crown is apologising, and this is a unique feature in a Treaty settlement. The Crown will recognise the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual association of Taranaki whānui with a vesting of 18 sites, including three Wellington Harbour islands, the beds of the Pencarrow lakes and two associated esplanade reserves, three other sites in Upper Hutt, the Pētone foreshore, and Seatoun. The bill provides that the existing reserve status will be maintained except for Pencarrow lake beds and esplanade reserves, which will instead have a conservation covenant on their title. The sites’ natural values will be protected and public access will be provided for.

In addition, the bill provides for the establishment of a Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Board to administer the harbour islands, with an equal number of representatives from the Department of Conservation and from Taranaki whānui. Other sites to be invested in Taranaki whānui include the land under Pipitea Marae, subject to the final conclusion of an arrangement with the existing lessees, the Ngati Poneke Māori Association; two Crown-owned properties in central Wellington and one in Waiwhetū; the former Wainuiomata College site; the former Wainuiomata Intermediate School site; and the former Waiwhetu School site; an urupā site at Mākara; and two dendroglyph areas near the Pencarrow lakes. There are to be statutory acknowledgments over 13 sites in the Port Nicholson area that register the special cultural association that Taranaki whānui have with those areas, and those will require therefore consent authorities to provide Taranaki whānui with all resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act that may affect the areas named in the acknowledgments. A deed of recognition will cover the Rimutaka Forest Park, Wainuiomata Scenic Reserve, and the Turakirae Head Scientific Reserve. The deed of recognition will oblige the Crown to consult with Taranaki whānui and have regard to their views regarding the special association they have with such a site. These are a form of non-exclusive redress, meaning that more than one iwi can have a deed of recognition over the same site. Eight place names in the Wellington area will be changed by the bill, subject to approval by the New Zealand Geographic Board.

In the spirit of partnership and in recognition of the social and economic advances that Taranaki Wwānui have mapped out for themselves, the deed of settlement provides for a number of relationship instruments, including a whole-of-Government relationship with the Crown, which will assist Taranaki whānui to reach social, economic, and cultural goals. There is, of course, financial and commercial redress. There is a financial settlement of just over $25 million, minus money previously paid on account; the right to purchase specific properties, including the former naval station at Shelly Bay; the opportunity to purchase land under certain properties in Wellington City and Lower Hutt; and a 100-year period of right of first refusal over specific properties.

Finally, may I pay tribute to the Port Nicholson Block Claims Team, led by Professor Ngātata Love, who have brought to the table a collective representing more than 16,000 members whose affiliations span at least four iwi. This is a massive achievement on the part of that negotiating team. The bill, of course, will proceed to a select committee. I am sure there will be very widespread support. I know that this bill is particularly supported by the mayor and the council of the city of Wellington, who see this as a great platform on which to move forward together in the Wellington region.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : The National Party will support the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill through all its stages. As a lifelong Wellingtonian, born and bred here—

Hon Members: Oh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Ā Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I am very pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Like other bills that come before us this bill has also had a long gestation, and it is very fortunate that it now presents itself in the environment of the renewed energy and vigour of the Government, under Dr Cullen. Dr Cullen seems to have been able to motivate several iwi to get some steam into settlements or claims that might have been lax or lying by the wayside, or at a stage where iwi might have been thinking: “Well, if nothing happens here, we’re going to move to the next step.” So it is a very, very fine thing that this bill now comes into the House.

I feel I have a little bit of a connection with the settlement, in as much as I suppose if one was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal, which I was for 10 years, then it is not surprising there may have been a connection to a settlement of an iwi I am not a part of. But I started sitting on the tribunal when it was hearing this claim. Obviously, when I became a parliamentary candidate I had to step down from the tribunal, but that, for me, gives an idea of the time of the claim. This is my twelfth year in Parliament and we started hearing the claim in the early 1990s. I remember going on a site visit with lawyers and other tribunal members—including Gordon Orr, and Bill Wilson, who has now been appointed to a higher bench—and having a look at the sites that once belonged to Taranaki whānui, but of course up until a settlement started to be negotiated with the Crown, that had not been theirs for some generations. So I congratulate the Taranaki families that have worked for so long and so assiduously to bring their claim to this point, and to conclude a settlement.

These settlements are difficult, they are complex, and they take time. Of course, these families will know as well as anybody that at the time when their claim got off the ground and the hearings started, the environment within which we were all operating was not necessarily conducive to Treaty settlements. As an example of how time has moved on, and of how our nation has matured in relation to the responsibilities of a Government and its citizens to address longstanding injustice—which is what these claims are about—I tell the House that I recall seeing, when the deed of settlement was signed some months ago, an editorial in the Dominion Post that basically praised the iwi and the Government for reaching a settlement. I do not think we saw that sort of editorial 15 years ago, which of course makes the activities of that time all the more significant. But these days, and particularly in relation to this claim and this area, the leading newspaper of this city has shown an obvious maturing and a clear appreciation of the importance of these settlements—that they are not just about Māori wanting things for themselves; they are about Māori wanting to feel a sense of justice, and a sense that the laws of this country can protect their rights, as well, and can bring redress for the things done to them in the past that constituted a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. So, yes, when I opened the newspaper a few months ago and saw the editorial exhorting Wellingtonians and the people of this area to see this settlement as nothing but positive for this area and this economy, I smiled and I thought “Wonderful—things have definitely moved on.”

We come to the bill. My colleague Chris Finlayson gave a very good review, I thought, of the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. They show, in essence, that the Port Nicholson deed was a sham, because within a very short time of its being signed, the Crown—the Government of the day—started to breach those very things that it had promised to the iwi of this region. That was a bit of a shameful time but nothing that we need to feel guilty for, because those breaches were made by our forbears, in the wisdom of their ways. But here today we have the privilege and the pleasure of moving to put right some of the hurt and the tragedy that befell Taranaki whānui when quite quickly they found themselves being dispossessed of their lands, contrary to what they had expected when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Congratulations to Taranaki whānui! In the scope of this settlement, Taranaki whānui define their rohe as conforming to the boundaries of the Port Nicholson Block. There are 17,183 registered members, comprising people from Taranaki iwi: Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Ruanui; and other people from Taranaki, including Ngāti Mutunga. And for those people who do not have the advantage of being here in this Chamber this afternoon, but who may be listening or watching, I say that representatives from all those tribes are here today. We greet them; I greet them.

According to the explanatory note of the bill, “The settlement settles all of the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Those claims include all claims that are, or are founded on, a right arising—from the Treaty of Waitangi … or under legislation; or at common law … or from fiduciary duty; or otherwise.” But it must always be made clear, and there is no harm in reminding ourselves, that Taranaki whānui, like other tribes, claim only what they see as their rights in the law—their rights in the law—and that is the beauty of these settlements. They are founded on rights that flow either from legislation or from the common law of England. They are not some fanciful notions of what people think they should have; they are seriously founded in the law of this land. Therefore, it is only right and proper that this Parliament, some 160 years on, is moving to address the longstanding injustice done to these people.

Just briefly in closing, I tell members that with my colleague Chris Finlayson, I was privy to some plans that have been put forward for the Shelley Bay property. The plans look very, very exciting, and they underpin the importance of these Treaty settlements to the regions in which they are founded. These settlements are not just for Māori; they are for the areas and the regions from which they come, and for all the people of those communities. They will be a benefit to all, and ultimately they will be a benefit to all of us as New Zealanders, in this great little country of ours.

We will have more to say as this bill proceeds through its various stages, but for today I want to say again “Congratulations! Ngā mihi ki ngā whānau, ngā iwi o Taranaki”, and we will see members of the iwi as we proceed with this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā hoki koe ngā uri o Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, koutou ngā iwi mai i te rohe o Taranaki, arā, ko Ngāti Mutunga, koutou katoa i hakatau mai ki tēnei Whare i runga i te kaupapa a hakahuihui mai i a tātou, arā, ko te pire e kī nei, Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Engari, i mua i te haerenga o tōku kōrero, e hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki ngā rangatira i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa mō ngā iwi i hakahuangia e au i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e Tā Paora, Ahorangi Ngātata Love, Kara Puketapu, Neville Baker, Mark Te One, June Jackson, Liz Mellish, Dawn McConnell, Spencer Carr, me Kevin Amohia, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to you the descendants of Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and those of you also of Ngāti Mutunga of the Taranaki region, all of you who have gathered together in this House as well as us, in regard to the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. But before I continue with my address, I want to acknowledge the leaders, Sir Paul, Professor Ngātata Love, Kara Puketapu, Neville Baker, Mark Te One, June Jackson, Liz Mellish, Dawn McConnell, Spencer Carr, and Kevin Amohia, who brought this matter before us on behalf of the iwi groups whom I mentioned earlier. Congratulations to you all.]

As is my practice, particularly with regard to Treaty settlements such as the one the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill relates to, I declare a vested interest by way of both whakapapa and an association with some of the principals involved in the negotiations with the Crown. I know that it

probably causes some alarm when I make mention of whakapapa. Well, I say I have a niece who descends from Hineamaru, the eponymous ancestress of Ngāti Hine. She will certainly be a beneficiary of the settlement, by virtue of her birthright within Taranaki whānui. So I declare that relationship by way of whakapapa.

In terms of association, I will list a number of names of people in the group that is responsible for bringing this bill to the stage that it is at today. I particularly make reference to Kara Puketapu, Ngātata Love, and Neville Baker, because prior to coming here to this House I was an employee of the Department of Māori Affairs, and both Kara Puketapu and Ngātata Love were chief executive officers of that department during that time. Also, a senior manager, Neville Baker, was one of my senior officers. In fact, all three, I would suggest, have contributed to my development in terms of an involvement in Māori development. So I just acknowledge that association.

This bill follows a number of milestones that have led to this settlement, which have included the recognition by the Crown of the mandate of the Port Nicholson Block claims team to negotiate the historical claims of the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in January 2004. In July 2004 terms of negotiation were signed, and an agreement in principle was subsequently signed in December 2007, leading to the signing of the deed of settlement that took place last month at Pipitea Marae. I had the pleasure of being in attendance to witness that important occasion. As was pointed out on that occasion, the signing of the deed of settlement was a critical point in the journey toward cultural, social, and economic rejuvenation for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, and this bill is further progress in that journey. It should be noted that it has taken 21 years to settle what has essentially been 168 years of grievance for this iwi group.

When making reference to the time that has been taken to complete settlements, reference is often made to the number of iwi members who have passed on since claims were first lodged. E kī nei te kōrero, ahakoa kei te ngaro rātou ki te tirohanga kanohi, kei konei wā rātou wairua i waenganui i tātou i te rā nei. It is said that although they are lost to our sight, they are present in spirit. Of course, this settlement is no different from others in that regard. However, it has been pointed out as an alternative observation that the progress of this settlement has seen seven elections, seven Governments, six different Prime Ministers, a number of Ministers responsible for Treaty negotiations, and “a parade of officials too numerous to count.” For me what has tremendous relevance, when compared with other settlements, is that the parties to this bill—that is, the Crown and the mandated representatives—are actually based in the same town over which the settlement traverses, yet it has taken as long as this to reach this point.

This bill is not only significant for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika but also for the wider Wellington community. The previous speaker from National, Georgina te Heuheu, articulated that importance for the local economy. The bill also has a uniqueness about it that I believe sets it apart from other Treaty settlements, in that a sense of divine influence is intrinsic to the bill. I refer, of course, to the statement of forgiveness from Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika to the Crown for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi incurred by the Crown. The adage “To err is human, to forgive divine” is certainly exemplified in that statement.

The settlement includes a cultural redress package that features the transfer of a number of sites of cultural significance to the iwi, some of which will retain the access rights presently enjoyed by the general public. I know that the previous speaker made reference to being privy to some proposed plans for Shelly Bay. I cannot comment on that; unfortunately New Zealand First has not been privy to those plans. But suffice it to say it indicates the commitment that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika has made in terms of its contribution to the development and the well-being of the local community.

I understand that a number of hui involving iwi members were held to consider this settlement package, and that there was support to accept the settlement. There were 7,120 registered adult members eligible to vote, of whom 2,634 cast valid votes. Of that number, approximately 2,597 voted in favour of accepting the terms of the deed of settlement. That shows just how effective the negotiating team has been in terms of articulating the details of the settlement, but it also affirms the acceptance of the people of Taranaki of the quantum of this settlement. For whatever reason, it can be seen that a number of eligible iwi members did not vote. The select committee process will afford them a further opportunity to have a say, and I hope they will avail themselves of it and express their views. Again, I acknowledge the leadership that has been exercised by iwi representatives in this process.

New Zealand First supports the first reading of this bill. Kia ora.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : As a Wellington-based MP and a Wellingtonian born and bred, I am delighted to support the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill on behalf of the Green Party.

The grievances of the Taranaki whānui are so stark and so long-lasting—168 years—and the breaches of the Treaty are so extreme that it is extraordinary that this bill has taken so long. I am a little bit sad that the bill has been introduced only in the very last days of this Parliament, but we look forward to its very speedy progression through the next Parliament.

I recall being briefed on the settlement many, many years ago when I was a Wellington city councillor, and I understood then its significance not just for the Taranaki whānui but also for all the people of the Wellington region. Perhaps it is partly because the bill has taken so long and there has been such wide consultation that there is a sense of real anticipation and very positive enthusiasm for the settlement on the part of the people of Wellington. I agree with previous speakers that the settlement will have tremendous significance for the Wellington economy. I think we understand that, which is why it is so eagerly anticipated.

Like the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, I have not had the opportunity to see the plans for Shelly Bay. They have been discussed for many, many years, and I am delighted to hear that they are as exciting as the previous speakers have said. I congratulate all of those who have taken part in negotiating this settlement. It really has been a marathon. I think this bill is justly deserved, long overdue, and much supported by the people of Wellington. There is tremendous enthusiasm and support across all parties, across all of our region, and, indeed, across all of our nation for the bill.

For the sake of iwi and hapū, we wish very speedy progress in the second and third readings of this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Koutou, nō koutou tēnei whenua, kāre e tika ana mā te manuhiri te tangata whenua e mihi. Hoi anō ko tāku, he whaiwhai haere i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero a ērā i tū i mua i a au. Whakatau mai ki roto i te Whare nei, tēnā koutou katoa. Otirā, ka huri atu ki a koutou o te Kāhui Ariki, ka rere tonu ngā whakaaro ki Waikato, he piko he taniwha, he piko he taniwha te kōrero, nau mai, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us all. This land belongs to you, the people of the land, and it is not for the visitor to welcome to what is yours. Mine is merely to follow up on what others before me have advocated. But do make yourselves at home in this House. I turn now to acknowledge you, the King movement; to Waikato, and that adage: at every bend of the river is a chief. Welcome, greetings to you, and to us all.]

It is a rare day when every member of this House can acknowledge a special association to a Treaty settlement. Today is that day, when all of us honour the descendants of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika for their generosity in allowing us to work in their rohe. We honour the presence of the uri of Taranaki iwi who migrated here to Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara in the 1820s, establishing settlements around the harbour, Kaiwharawhara, Waiwhetū, and Te Aro Pā. We acknowledge them all: Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Ruanui, and Ngāti Mutunga, who descend from the ancestors of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.

For the uninformed, some might ask how the heck the name “Taranaki” ends up in a bill about Wellington land. Similarly, many would not know that Taranaki tūturu is actually one of the many tribes of Taranaki. This is the history, a Māori history of migration. So to my in-laws and kōeke of my Pūniho and Parihaka children, I say tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

The Māori Party, as we say, is unique in this Parliament for having kaupapa Māori drive us as our philosophical base. So it is with much pleasure that we note that the Port Nicholson Block claims also live by kaupapa that has paved the way for this significant day. I want to share with this House the kaupapa that they adhere to in their commitment to ensure that the settlement benefits are shared by all who are entitled to them. That kaupapa is:

Together we arrived

Together we lived

Together we survived

Together we go forward

And together we will succeed.

We believe that this kaupapa provides an impressive foundation for a future, a foundation that validates the history passed down through the generations, a foundation for success.

Today is a critical point in the lives of generations to come. Taranaki whānui have mobilised all of their people to rebuild. These are people who have suffered the loss of connections to their harbour, forests, waterways, and natural resources within the Port Nicholson Block.

The ultimate offence had its beginnings in the 1839 deed of purchase, the document that the Waitangi Tribunal later found to be invalid. It is somewhat overwhelming to think that we are doing what we are doing today in an attempt to make right the wrong committed almost 169 years ago to the day. The 1839 deed, written in draft form and signed on 27 September 1839, but written only in English, assumed ownership of the Wellington Harbour and its environs, without even including a map of the boundaries. Before the New Zealand Company had even set foot in Aotearoa, it had sold nearly 100,000 acres of the Port Nicholson area to prospective settlers, through a grand lottery in London, for goodness’ sake! The 1839 deed of purchase re-appropriated the whole of Wellington city and its suburbs, including Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt, and Wainuiōmata.

Wellington city is of course the seat of Government, an area of major population, the site of one of our most important ports, and a business hub. The rugged hills and the lack of flat land mark out this space as one in which the whenua has acquired great financial value.

I understand that it was 21 years ago that two men submitted a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal: Mākere Rangiātea Ralph Love and Ralph Herberley Ngātata Love. Ka mihi ki a rāua. That claim was on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Taranaki Māori Trust Board, the Wellington Tenths Trust, and the Palmerston North Māori Reserve Trust, together with ngā iwi o Taranaki. The claim was made on the following grounds: the Crown’s failure to ensure that one-tenth of the Port Nicholson Block was reserved as provided for in the 1839 deed of purchase for Port Nicholson; the exchange of reserve land in Port Nicholson for land of a lesser value in Palmerston North; the taking of Wellington Tenths reserve land for endowments; and the leasing in perpetuity of Wellington Tenths and Palmerston North reserve land.

And so today we honour all those of Taranaki whānui for their perseverance in putting on the table claims relating to the action of the New Zealand Company, the theft by the Crown of Māori reserved lands, and the failure of the Crown to provide an adequate land base for Māori. They have also put on the table the impact of the regime of perpetual leases, the damage and devastation caused by pollution and sewage arising from urban development, and the reclamations around the harbour to provide land for public purposes.

This is a day, too, to acknowledge and congratulate Taranaki whānui and a very impressive claims team. Some of them have been mentioned, but I acknowledge them again: Professor Ngātata Love, Sir Paul Reeves, Neville Baker, Kara Puketapu, June Jackson, Liz Mellish, Mark Te One, Dawn McConnell, Dr Catherine Love, Spencer Carr, and Kevin Amohia. That there is a team! They have told their story, which has been 21 years in the drafting but decades and generations in the creation. It is a story in which many of the main characters have now passed on and are no longer with us. We remember them. E hoa mā, you have done well.

The settlement has a quantum of $25 million, as well as the opportunity to purchase a number of Crown properties in Wellington city and in the region—a portfolio of Crown-owned land estimated to be worth a mere $120 million. There is a significant cultural redress package recognising their key sites of tribal meaning, including the three islands in Wellington Harbour. The lake beds of Kōhangaterā and Kōhangapiripiri at Parangarahu are included, and reserve lands such as Wī Tako Scenic Reserve.

But there are some unique aspects of this settlement I want to bring to the attention of the House. This settlement is unique in that it introduces the concept of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a concept that we as tangata whenua understand. It is an essential component of reciprocity. In the act of forgiveness, there are two players: those who extend the spirit of forgiveness, and those who are forgiven. The difficulty in this case is that although the persons who are doing the forgiving are here in the flesh and form, the Crown is a lifeless object—an entity bereft of emotion. Will it weep? Will it wail? Will it cry? This is a tremendous gesture on the part of Taranaki whānui, who have offered a statement of forgiveness to the Crown. The Māori Party commends Taranaki whānui for an act of honour and great integrity, an act that demonstrates the ultimate expression of manaakitanga.

There are other elements of innovation that I want to note. The initiative of using an e-voting system, including Internet voting, was very impressive. Some 15 percent of the voters chose to vote online, which is something this House may well consider worthy of looking at in depth for other voting processes. There was the commitment to ensuring that the ratification process encompassed not just those living in this rohe but also whānau living across the Tasman in Sydney and Brisbane. There was also the speed of the ratification process. The process of going from a signed agreement in principle to an initialled deed of settlement within 6 months is also, as I understand it, pretty unprecedented. In fact, the rumour is that there are members here today who were hoping that the current urgency sitting might have been extended to allow Taranaki whānui to complete all of the stages of the bill on this great day.

We in the Māori Party recognise the achievements of Taranaki whānui today. Together they have survived; together they will go forward; together they will succeed. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, kai aku rangatira, kua tae mai ki tōu whenua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I am full of admiration for you, my chiefs; the time draws near when it becomes your land. Congratulations, and good wishes to you all.]

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) :Ā, tēnā koe te Wahine o Poupou o te Whare. There are just a few things I need to say to my colleagues. The first is to Pita Paraone: we are very inclusive people. Ahakoa te tika mai o te whakapapa rā ā tō tamāhine i tana hokitanga mai ki te rohe o Taranaki.

[Although the genealogy of your daughter when she came back to the region of Taranaki is accurate.]

I thank my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for such a very historically erudite presentation. I say that without any facetiousness whatsoever. Kua pai te kupu “erudite”!

Ā, tēnā tātau. Ehara tēnei tū e tū mihi atu anō ki a koutou e te iwi, e ngā whanaunga engari, kua noho i te taha o koutou rā a te Whare Āriki, arā, Tainui nui tonu, a Taupiri Maunga, Pirongia, Kakepuku, Tītīraupenga. Tēnā koutou e noho ngāitahi ai i runga me kī, ngā kōrero tawhito o ngā kīwai o te kete. Tēnā koutou, e tukuna atu ngā mihi ki a koutou.

[So greetings to us. I am not actually getting up to formally welcome you, the people and relatives, but merely to acknowledge the times spent with those of you of the household of the King movement and Tainui at large beneath the mantle of Mount Taupiri, Pirongia, Kakepuku, and Tītīraupenga. Greetings to you, living as one, in your ways so steeped in history. My regards to you, and congratulations.]

I am absolutely totally privileged to be standing here today. It is a kind of life cycle. If we live long enough, like Parekura Horomia and me, then in our life cycle we have a variety of experiences. I use that as a kind of exemplar, because my life cycle began by being born, as someone has alluded to, into a legacy of tribal disillusionment, marginalisation, and poverty—socially, culturally, economically, and spiritually. The privilege here is that I am old enough—ehara i te kaumātua tinana [not old physically]—to now participate in an extraordinarily historic day.

I am not the only one who has gone through that kind of experience, debilitating as it was. We are all descendants of that experience. But the test is being able to manage the experience and do more than merely survive. The test is a gruesome test, but it has also, I suppose, set pathways going forward for all of us.

This afternoon I listened to a waiata that was being sung. It went like this: “E toru ngā mea, ngā mea nunui …”. Well, I want to change the words. It reminded me that this is not the only muru raupatu experience that Taranaki whānui is going through. It reminds me of what happened in Taranaki. It is the same as what happened in Tainui, and the same as what happened in Tauranga—absolute and total muru me te raupatu. We have the experience again here in Te Upoko o Te Ika: ko ngā mahi taurekareka, nanakia hoki ō rātau ki te tāhae whenua.[their wretched and scandalous methods of taking land by stealth.]

We can go across the straits of Cook Strait, Te Moana o Raukawakawa, and it is there as well. A tribe—very peaceful, it was—e tipu ake mai raro i te tihi maunga tītōhea Taranaki [that sprang up from beneath the summit of barren Mount Taranaki] has gone through that debilitating process three times; the same people.

In respect of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka, we have a Tainui-Taranaki collective claim there, as well. I ask members what that says about the resilience of our people. At the very least, we can say that it is absolutely extraordinary. There is a whakataukītanga kōrero that I want to refer to here. It is a kind of philosophical message that goes like this: “Whāngai mai tō hoariri.” The literal meaning of this phrase has something to do with “feed thy enemy”. What Taranaki has done here in that regard, as has been referred to, is the extension of a statement of forgiveness. I can understand whence that came. Mehemea kua mau ai koutou i te raukura titiā, te raukura a maunga rongo, [If you have worn the comb-like feather, the feather of amnesty] then it is understood what it means. What an incredibly powerful gesture, the first of its kind in any claim so far.

I pose the question about what this country could have been, were it to have grown from the promises of the Treaty of Waitangi rather than the breaches: “In the Treaty’s words lived the potential to disavow colonisation as previously known, with its dire consequences for native peoples around the world. The parties to the Treaty had an opportunity to show that with goodwill, it was possible for new settlers and indigenous people to gain and learn from each other. But almost immediately, that opportunity slipped away.” In the end, our colonial experience was classic, not unique. The mistakes of other nations, which we had the chance to avoid, we instead repeated.

I think that kind of analysis is huge, because the consequences of this failure are great and multiple. Aotearoa New Zealand is perhaps a lesser nation as a result of the Crown’s failure to uphold its obligations to so many generations of our people, and particularly those who have not survived to see kua whakatutuki mai ngā moemoeā a kui mā, ā, tauheke katoa. [the dreams of all the old folk, men and women, coming to fruition] But all has not been lost. I take great heart and positiveness from what we as a Government have done under the leadership of Tākuta Cullen me ana nei Minita tautoko.

In closing, I also give a little praise to Taranaki whānui up there in the Speaker’s gallery, for their leadership, wisdom, vision, and creative approach to being able to be here and resolve those issues that confronted them as a people. To a great extent that is related to the ability they had and have as leaders in our society today.

Nō reira e te iwi me te Whare, ka nui āku nei mihi, ehara ki a koutou anake engari, ki te katoa e wakakopekope mai nei i raro i te tāhuhu o te pou Whare, tīhei mauri ora ki a tātau.

[So to the people and the House, I am full of admiration not just for you but for everyone assembled here under the ridgepole of this House. The breath of life to us all.]

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

• Waiata