Hansard and Journals

Hansard (debates)

Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading, In Committee

[Volume:650;Page:18910]

Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. I am grateful to the Māori Affairs Committee for its work in considering the bill, for its report on the bill, and particularly for the speed with which it achieved that task. I would also like to thank the submitters for taking the time to participate.

The settlement of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū claims has been the subject of an extraordinary level of external scrutiny, right from the beginning of negotiations. No fewer than four Waitangi Tribunal inquiries considered issues of mandate, who was included in the settlement, and how the interests of overlapping claims are protected. These inquiries in turn considered the results of many hui among the iwi and hapū of Te Arawa. The select committee process is the final point at which members of the public can make submissions. This bill now, of course, belongs to the House completely.

Throughout these negotiations the input of the tribunal and others has resulted in significant changes not just to the settlement package that was initially accepted by the affiliates but to the settlement landscape in the central North Island as a whole. Parliament is in the process of considering legislation that implements “on account” settlements of the interests of a number of central North Island iwi in Crown forest land, and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū are party to that agreement. This settlement bill completes the resolution of their historical claims, and provides redress that is outside the scope of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill, which the House will move on to upon the completion of this bill.

The Māori Affairs Committee recommended that the bill be passed, and noted that 18 of the 37 submissions were in support of the bill. It was almost inevitable, of course, that a number of submissions against the bill would be made. Most of the submissions in opposition raised issues that had been resolved or extensively covered in other forums.

I want to address three broad aspects of the settlement that the committee raised in its report. Firstly, I refer to the inclusion and naming of various iwi and hapū. Some submitters raised the concern that their iwi or hapū was inappropriately named or included within the claimant definition. These issues have been addressed at length by the tribunal, Ministers, and now the select committee. We are comfortable that Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa has the support of its people for entering into this settlement. Moreover, it is inappropriate for the Crown to interfere with the internal workings and structures of an iwi organisation at the call of factions within that organisation. The best the Crown can do is ensure that the processes through which an organisation can make its own decisions are sound.

The second key aspect is the settlement of Wai claims through a comprehensive settlement. Some submitters raised the concern that this settlement extinguishes a number of Wai claims, without the direct involvement of the named claimants. The settlement provides redress to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa that the submitters would seek to have returned to them under their own exclusive Treaty settlements. I can appreciate the sense of ownership that many named claimants feel over their Wai claim, but since the inception of the Treaty settlement process it has been clear that if the Crown and iwi want to settle historical grievances within our lifetimes, we cannot afford to settle claim by claim. As of a few months ago the tribunal had over 1,400 registered claims. In the last month it reportedly received some 2,000 more, though it will be some time before we know how many of those will actually be registered. Without some kind of deadline, these historical claims, or more, would have trickled in over an indefinite period.

But even before the recent deluge, the need to group claims together for either inquiry or settlement was apparent. The tribunal deals with a number of historical claims by grouping them into district inquiries and issuing a report that covers the entire district or set of issues. Most inquiries are focused on the generic effects of the Crown’s acts or omissions in respect of any group. The Crown deals with a number of historical claims by negotiating comprehensive settlements at an iwi level, broadly speaking. These settlements, where possible, provide redress to recognised particular interests within the broader grouping. Although there is an air of justice to the idea of insisting that every single Wai claimant must approve a settlement that covers his or her claims, there are insuperable practical complications, not least of which is that it would incentivise the lodging of thousands more Wai claims by individuals seeking veto power over a settlement that they oppose. The mandate and ratification processes ensure that all members of a claimant group, whether or not they have a Wai claim, have the ability to have their say on settlement.

The third key issue is that relating to Ruamatā Marae. This issue was raised before the select committee, and had not been not extensively explored before then, through the negotiations process. Very late in the process, the marae reservation trust contacted the Crown and sought to have its concerns about low-flying planes on their way to the airport flying directly over the marae addressed through the settlement. It was too late to change the terms of the settlement, but there are genuine issues here about noise and disruption to the marae that need to be addressed. It is not clear at this stage whether that disruption constitutes a historical breach of the Treaty, or whether the Treaty settlement process can deliver a solution to that problem. Not every matter discussed between Crown and Māori has its roots in a historical breach, or its solution in a Treaty settlement. But the Crown is working through Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa with Ruamatā Marae, the relevant central government agencies, and the Rotorua District Council to ensure that these issues are addressed outside of the settlement process. I will be moving an amendment to the bill in the Committee stage that will avoid any doubt that this bill will extinguish any specific Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to the airspace and the flight path. It will not, of course, remove the current Wai claim from the Treaty settlement, which the Ruamatā Marae trust does not want to see happen.

At the Committee of the whole House stage, the Government also intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will make the following changes to the bill: to provide for public access consistent with that in the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill; to provide for additional redress as a consequence of facilitative mediation with Ngāti Rangiunuora and Ngāti Tamakari, two hapū of the affiliate Ngāti Pikiao; to refine the definition of an affiliate group, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao; and to clarify and ensure consistency with regard to the treatment of redress involving conservation land.

This is the second reading of this settlement legislation. We will proceed to the Committee stage and the third reading, and then we will go on to consider the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

I thank once again the leadership of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa for its patience and perseverance with the Crown in the long journey towards this settlement, and, particularly, its generosity in holding back on holding the Crown to its previous commitments, to enable the central North Island forests land collective settlement to proceed. At that time I undertook that the final shape of this settlement would be no less, and preferably better, than what it had already agreed with the Crown. I look forward to being able to congratulate Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa on the completion of this settlement process within the near future. It is my intention to try to manage the proceedings of the House—as best as a Leader of the House can—to arrive at the third readings of these bills, and the first readings of other settlement bills, on Thursday morning and early afternoon. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand during the second reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations outline some of the changes that will be made by a Supplementary Order Paper. This is a very important settlement, and that was very clear from the first reading speeches of the members of this House. I remind members that the bill settles the claims of a number of Te Arawa iwi in the Rotorua and Kaingaroa area, representing 24,000 people, and addresses grievances that occurred quite some time ago. The Minister is correct in saying that this settlement has had a very lengthy gestation. Some mention should be made of the generosity, in the end, of Te Pūmautanga in setting to one side temporarily the agreement it had negotiated with the Crown back in 2004. But I would say that neither Te Pūmautanga nor the Crown had any choice, given that the brakes were pulled on this settlement by a quite scathing report from the Waitangi Tribunal, and also by court action by the Federation of Māori Authorities and Tūwharetoa—those who were concerned that this settlement would undermine other interests that traversed the central North Island as well.

But here we are today at the second reading. The Māori Affairs Committee was very pleased to give this matter the urgency it deserved. I make reference to the hearings that we held, one in Taupō and one in Rotorua, and particularly to the iwi representatives who came to the committee and made very forceful, in some cases, and comprehensive, in most cases, submissions. All of that process laid the settlement open to public scrutiny, which was good. In a settlement of this size and nature, that is always desirable. I add my thanks to those of the Minister to those submitters who responded and appeared before the committee.

I will address two or three issues, which have already been addressed by the Minister. On the issue of the flight path over the Ruamatā Marae, the Minister would have heard some signs of agreement on the course that he is taking to address that, so nothing further needs to be said on that. When there is a claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal, and we see that that claim might be of no purpose once this bill is passed, then clearly it is an issue of great importance to those trustees that this matter is being addressed.

The other matter of concern to us as Māori—but to others as well, particularly those of us who are very proud of our own ancestral connections and very territorial about where we come from, and who should represent us and who should not—is those submissions that were raised in relation to the definitions of collective groupings under schedule 1, and, in particular, the submissions presented by Ngāti Wāhiao, in terms of its coupling—as it has been referred to—with Tūhourangi, and those of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa.

I certainly take on board the advice the officials brought to us in the select committee, but I personally also have some anxiety about the way entities that might have thought they were in existence on their own account are now suddenly coupled with another grouping in legislation. Certainly there are whakapapa relationships that bind various tribes, iwi, and hapū together. However, when sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee, we heard heartfelt and passionate submissions, particularly by a grouping of Ngāti Wāhiao. They take umbrage at being coupled with what is obviously seen by some as the senior—Tūhourangi—but none the less for themselves in matters of this nature it is pretty important because this has ramifications for the other bill coming down the line, possibly over the next day or so, which is to do with the Whakarewarewa geothermal valley. I have to say that my colleague Tau Henare and I were at pains to explore this issue, along with Te Ururoa from the Māori Party, because in the end we do not know what ramifications lie down the way, in the future, for couplings of this nature. I do not know whether there is a better word, Parekura, other than couplings—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —I am sorry, I am referring to Minister Horomia—but that is the way we have been describing it at the select committee.

There is the issue of whether Wāhiao, some of whom see themselves as an independent iwi or hapū with their own mana, their own standing, would become subsumed further down the track because they are now coupled with Tūhourangi as simply one of the affiliates of the Te Arawa settlement.

Of course, the other issue is Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa. Ngāti Tahu in particular, in terms of physical proximity, are close to Tūwharetoa, my own tribe, and I have to say that over the years in which I have been involved in some of these matters it seems unusual to me that Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa would be coupled. Again, the submitters who came to the select committee questioned the mandate of Te Pūmautanga to represent their interests in tandem with Ngāti Tahu, and now with Ngāti Whāoa. Those views are passionately held; but it is not only that—for some, it goes to the heart of who they are. Their whakapapa clearly says who they are, and if they are being lumped into a basket with someone else, who they did not necessarily think should be there—and now they feel they ought not to be there—then this is a real issue. As I say, I for one regret that the Minister has not been able to find some way of addressing that issue. I accept what the officials say, but I say to the Minister that in the end everything is possible. None the less, we support the second reading.

  • Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I will just mention a couple of other things before I take my seat. One of them is the issue around Tūkiterangi, the ancestor of Wāhiao. That was one of the other issues brought to us at the hearing. Wāhiao were somewhat aggrieved over the fact that they were being lumped under the one ancestor, Tūhourangi. I understand that the Hon Mita Ririnui went and did some work in this area, as I understand he did on the flight path issue, as well. The Government has acceded to including and recognising the ancestor of Wāhiao and having that inserted into the bill—putting Tūkiterangi into the legislation. I hope that that may go some way to appeasing Wāhiao on the fact that at this point nothing has changed in relation to the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you. I was interrupted by my whanaunga mai i te rohe o te Waiariki. But kei te pai tēnā—kei te pai tēnā. As I said, he whanaunga.

Once again I say that, naturally, I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, which today is having its second reading. But in doing so I think it is important to mention the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill as well, because these two bills are closely linked in terms of the assets involved, in terms of the iwi and hapū involved, and in terms of the business relationships that will develop in the future. I believe that at some time over the next couple of days we will have the opportunity to debate the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

It is important to acknowledge the difficulties that the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū have endured over a number of years to bring this settlement bill to this stage. It has been a combination of a lot of hard work, huge commitments, and, most important, compromise. Many will say that Te Arawa never compromise. Well, this bill states something else. It states very clearly that when it comes to the benefits of the whānau and hapū of Te Arawa, Te Arawa put their interests first and are prepared to compromise where it is in their best interests. Te Arawa has done that.

On a more historical basis, I say that, as we know, in 2002 dialogue was entered into between the Crown and the central North Island claimants—with the assistance of a person we know very well, the Hon David Caygill—on how Treaty claims in the region could move forward. In early discussions, that dialogue reached a stage where mandating and negotiations could begin with the affiliate Te Arawa groups in mid-2003. After many months of intensive discussion and hui, the Kaihautū Executive Council submitted a deed of mandate to the Crown in December 2003. The Crown and the Kaihautū Executive Council signed the terms of negotiations, which set out the objectives of the negotiations, on November 2004. The Crown and the affiliate Te Arawa groups also agreed to sign the deed of settlement on 30 September 2007.

Since then, much has happened. As members know, the central North Island settlement, also known as the “Treelords” deal, was signed only a couple of months ago, and we were graced with the presence of some 700 central North Island iwi members here in this House to witness the historical occasion and to support this Labour-led Government in our first reading of the bill. Much of that momentum and the opportunity was born from the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū, which, having agreed to join the central North Island collective, also chose to make a significant compromise by passing the final decision about most of their forestry redress over to the largest forestry company in the country, for their benefit and for the benefit of other North Island iwi. Through their agreement to allow their forestry assets to be held over for the central North Island collective settlement, they also agreed to hold their own affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū settlement over until the central North Island collective claim had been put to rest. With the progress of the central North Island collective claim, we can now turn our attention to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, to finally resolve their grievances and, in doing so, provide them with the cultural, financial, and commercial redress package that they well deserve.

It is true that, as with other Treaty settlements of the past, we are unable to provide iwi with, or return to them, the equivalent of what has been lost from them. However, I believe that this settlement will provide the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū with enough to put them on the path of reaffirming and maintaining their status and development. The redress package includes the transfer of 19 areas of Crown-owned land of special significance to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū—redress that will enable increased input into management of Crown-owned land and protocols with certain Government agencies. In addition, to reflect the compromise made by the affiliate Te Arawa groups, additional redress has been negotiated. This includes the gifting of land under five Rotorua schools, with lease-back arrangements to the Crown; the gifting of Ngātamariki geothermal assets, based on a value of $5 million; a statement acknowledging the affiliate Te Arawa groups’ interest in the upper reaches of the Waikato River; and the forgiveness of the current Whakarewarewa Village debt.

I pay tribute to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa’s head negotiator, Rāwiri Te Whare—now in Italy—and its chairman, Eru George, for their commitment to reaching a settlement. It is also important that I acknowledge Hēnare Colbert, Ruka Hughes, Kere Cookson-Ua, and Brian Barge—also part of the negotiating team. Their work and dedication in reaching a resolution, despite what may have often felt like impossible odds, have been unwavering, and I commend them all. It is also important that I acknowledge the efforts of my esteemed colleagues the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia.

I cannot stress how important this settlement is to Te Arawa, the Crown, and the whole of the central North Island. We have been experiencing a wave of Treaty settlements, and it is primarily due to this Government’s strong desire to settle historical grievances and to move forward with all Māori as Treaty partners into the future. Also, providing a positive platform for Te Arawa to regain some of the economic status that was taken from them through the acts of the Crown is a way of bridging the historical rift and creating a future of economic growth and development. Therefore, support by the House for this settlement is unanimous, because of the efforts of, particularly, the negotiators for Te Arawa.

I want to comment on the process that was undertaken over the last few years. In particular, I want to comment on the submissions we heard in Rotorua. Some people had longstanding issues with the claim. Some felt that the Crown should listen very carefully to what they had to say, and make genuine attempts to resolve those issues.

I want to speak to one matter in particular, and that is the reference to Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi. It was a very small amendment that was required—a very small addition. There is a history behind this reference. It goes back to the time of the eruption of Tarawera, when Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao became united as iwi and occupied generally a similar area. In their speeches, their whaikōrero, and in a lot of their whakataukī, they are referred to as Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi. There is a group within Te Arawa who wish them to be referred to as Ngāti Wāhiao and Tūhourangi. They say the Crown should listen very carefully to this plea and include the word “and”. But my view is that this reference was a historical decision brought about by the displacement of one particular tribe and the compassion of another tribe in bringing them into the area where they lived, so that they shared a common area. If any changes are to be made in terms of the reference to these two iwi, then it is they that must do it, because it was their tūpuna who, as a result of the eruption of Tarawera, made the decision that from that time they would be referred to as Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi. No one—no one at all—should insist that the Crown be the adjudicator in this case, and that the Crown insert words to separate those two iwi; that is something they have to work on themselves. I am sure there are many in this House who think the Crown should do that; well, I am one who disagrees.

Once again, I thank all my colleagues, including those on the Māori Affairs Committee, for the contribution they have made to bring this important bill to the House today. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I must digress just for a little bit and say how lovely it is to come into the House when you are in the Chair and hear those dulcet tones. Tēnā koe e te Whare. I am glad the member who has resumed his seat, Mita Ririnui, broached the issue of Ngāti Wāhiao and Tūhourangi, because at the Māori Affairs Committee that was one of the more interesting avenues of discussion that we went down. It is all well and good for Māori to say they want to come to an agreement with the Government and want that agreement to be put into legislation, but then on the other hand they are saying it should not be up to the House to be the adjudicator. But I actually think that our job is to be the adjudicator—a sort of benevolent referee—when there is an issue such as this one.

I do not profess to tell Te Arawa what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. I do not think anyone would be brave enough to do that, considering that we all have the same weapons these days. But I think that Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao should be uncoupled. I certainly think that there should be a reference in the bill to Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, but just because of an eruption some 100-odd years ago and the move to somebody else’s area, that does not mean that they should be coupled. They have their own identities and their own ancestral identities. I suppose I can more easily explain the issue if I look at my own whakapapa—my own genealogy in terms of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Hine. I would not like it if I or our people were to be referred to as “Ngāpuhi-Ngāti Hine”. Referring to them as Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Hine is not a problem, and—

Pita Paraone: Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi.

Hon TAU HENARE: —or Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi, as our chairman of the Ngāti Hine rūnanga has said—

Pita Paraone: Former chairman!

Hon TAU HENARE: Absolutely. The former chairman reaffirmed Ngāti Hine’s status as an iwi. But anyway, I digress. Also, it could be said that “Ngāti Hine-Te Rarawa” or “Ngāti Hine-Te Orewai” should be, for example, Ngāti Hine and Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Hine and Te Orewai. I think it is wrong to use the process of the House to give effect to a new group. I have always known Ngāti Wāhiao, and I have always known Tūhourangi; I have never known both to be put together.

The interesting thing is that when we asked a submitter at the select committee—and I will not mention his name—what he thought about the inclusion of the word “and” in between Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, he said it would not be a problem. A week later, because of pressure, I believe, that was brought to bear on that person, he recanted his acquiescence to the inclusion of the word “and”, and I thought to myself that that was wrong. I will not dwell too much on that issue, but I think it is an important issue of principle.

Another interesting fact that we came to hear about in the Māori Affairs Committee is that approximately 24,000 people are affected by the settlement, but that is not how many people there are on the beneficiary roll and that is certainly not how many people took part in the decisions. I always wonder how we are going to get around the issue of the mandate. Who holds the mandate: is it an organisation that the Crown is working with, or is it the number of people who turn up on any given Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday? I am not trying to cast any aspersions on the mandate process here, but we always have to ask how the decisions were arrived at.

I also raise a concern that I was not aware of, even as a former Minister of Māori Affairs, and if the subject of that concern happened in my time I now want to publicly apologise for not keeping my eye on the ball. The concern is that in the settlement process, the schedule of the settlement bill has all those other Wai numbers attached to it; basically it is the extinguishment of all those Treaty claims. I have a big worry that in the process we go through, although we are all above board in terms of trying to sort out the bigger claim—the wider claim—there are always the little ones, or maybe not so little ones, that are lost in the negotiating and in the clamour to make an agreement. I specifically want to mention Ruamatā. For the Ruamatā people at the marae, the airport is an issue, and I am glad to hear through the grapevine that the Minister is going to move a Supplementary Order Paper that addresses that. But I think we should be very, very mindful of extinguishing claims to the tribunal without going through a process of negotiation, talking, or getting the bigger claimant to speak with the other claimants whose claims have merit. I do not think we should extinguish those claims willy-nilly.

I commend the select committee and its chair, Mr Dave Hereora, for a sterling job in getting this bill before it, asking for submissions, and listening to some quite detailed and intense submissions, both in Rotorua and in Taupō. So I commend my colleagues who acted on the select committee.

All in all, we can say that the outcome of this bill will be good for Te Arawa. It will be good for the majority of Te Arawa, but there will be some unfortunate claims that are lost in the clamour and in the backslapping, as well. That is unfortunate, and it is something that maybe the next administration—whoever is in it—needs to look at. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou o te Whare nei. Engari, i mua i te haere tonu o ēnei o āku kōrero, hiahia ana au kia mihi ki a koutou ngā iwi, ngā hapū o Te Arawa. Koutou tēnā pea e mātakitaki mai, e are taringa mai hoki ki ēnei kōrero i puta mai i te Whare i te pō nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us of this House. But before I continue with my address, I want to acknowledge the people and subtribes of Te Arawa as well, those of you who might be listening in or watching these proceedings in the House tonight. So greetings to you.]

I acknowledge the Te Arawa iwi and hapū who may be watching or listening to this debate on their bill, the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I am pleased to stand in this debate on behalf of New Zealand First to support much of the sentiment that has been expressed already.

Of course, we all know that this bill follows many years of groundwork and several months of intensive negotiations between the negotiators, Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa and its team, and representatives of the Crown. To that extent, I acknowledge the team that made up Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. It was led by Rāwiri Te Whare of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa, and included Henry Colbert of Ngāti Ngāraranui, Ruka Hughes of Ngāti Rongomai, and Brian Barge of Ngāti Kearoa Ngāti Tuarā. I think it is to their credit that, having taken up the cudgels from the group known as Ngā Kaihautū o Te Arawa, under the chairmanship of Eru George, they have got to the stage where we are now debating the second reading of this bill.

The bill has returned to the House after the Māori Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, received and heard submissions on it. I was very proud to be part of the committee that considered the bill. It affects approximately 24,000 members of the affiliate. It follows the process of combining several claims so that they can be dealt with as one group. I ought to say that there has been a long gestation period for this bill, but we are now in what we might consider to be the last lap of the race.

I want to quote something that is attributed to Mr Te Whare of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa: “There is nothing just about a settlement. It is just a settlement.” I think that quote aptly describes not only this settlement but all the settlements that have preceded it. As much as we want to compensate the affected parties to the maximum extent, there will always be some concern about how fair and how just the final settlement is. Bearing that in mind, Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, with the authority given it by its beneficiaries, approved the settlement that is now being considered by this House.

I want to make reference to two things. The first is the issue regarding Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The committee received some submissions stating that they would like to see the separation of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao into two entities, and they merely asked that the word “and” should be included. I suppose it is not very often that I agree with my relative who spoke just before me, the Hon Tau Henare, but I think in this regard he was quite right: this is not a matter for the Crown. This issue is based on tikanga, it is based on history, and therefore it should be left to tikanga and the future to decide whether those two tribes should be identified separately. I know that even today, outside of this whole process, in the kapahaka competitions that Te Arawa ran recently to identify which kapahaka group would represent their region at the forthcoming Te Matatini kapahaka competitions, one of the teams that participated was known as Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao.

I took the opportunity during the hearing process to raise this issue with one of the elders from Tūhourangi, and he was quite clear in his response to my question. He said that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao were essentially one group. He was actually saying that, by virtue of whakapapa, they are quite closely intertwined. I do not believe that it is for this House or for anyone outside of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao to determine whether they should be separated into two separate entities. I can understand the concerns that those submitters raised about this issue, but as much as I might sympathise with their concerns, I do not believe that it is an issue for this House or for the Crown to determine. I am also mindful of the fact that when the House dealt with the Ngāti Awa settlement bill, New Zealand First opposed the stand taken by this House in giving due recognition to what we referred to as a new iwi grouping. New Zealand First continues to maintain that stance.

The other point I want to make is regarding Ruamatā Marae and its claim to the tribunal with regard to airspace. I ought to say that I mistakenly took its claim that is identified in the bill to be a claim about airspace. I was informed by representatives of the marae that that was not the case. I am glad to see that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has proposed an amendment that will reassure the marae that it can make a claim in regard to airspace.

In conclusion, I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I am a stand-in today for our fine, upstanding member on the Māori Affairs Committee, Metiria Turei, who did all the hard work on the bill for the Green Party.

We acknowledge that the Crown and its representatives have breached, and continue to breach, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We support the resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches. There needs to be ongoing dialogue on the application of te Tiriti to the settlement process.

We understand that, on one side, there are still many hapū and iwi who are unhappy about this bill, just as, on the other side, there are many people who worked very hard to negotiate a settlement through a policy minefield, to deliver to their people. Although the bill will deliver to many of the hapū and iwi, it will also extinguish some claims, and without the consent of the people concerned. The Green Party, and Metiria Turei in particular, have campaigned on an ongoing basis against that practice, because one cannot resolve—particularly in any final form—a matter without the consent of the subgroup that took the claim.

The Greens have been somewhat critical of the overall Government Treaty settlement process, because it is not an optimal or truly just process to restore what Māori lost during the colonisation period. Like the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, we support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper relating to Rotorua airport. It is good that it excludes from this bill any idea that local people cannot continue their historical claim concerning airspace issues around Rotorua airport. Metiria fought very hard on this issue at the select committee, and was disappointed when she did not appear to be succeeding. It is good that people gained a greater understanding, and that—as Pita Paraone has just explained—the Government has come round to her position and will table a Supplementary Order Paper.

The select committee heard submitters from Ruamatā Marae talk about the impacts of the airport on them, including cultural degradation, and hazardous health and safety issues stemming from the emission of noise, fuel residue, acoustic vibrations, and backdraught from aircraft. Some of the aircraft are quite low-flying. The Ruamatā Marae sits at the end of the Rotorua airport runway, and the effects on it are serious. In the period before 1992, the ancestral meeting house and associated buildings were relocated only metres away, on lower ground, as a result of the flight path being designated. The meeting house was deemed by the airport authority to be an obstruction to the flight path. The bodies and bones of the dead were violated as a result of the airport authority ordering earthworks to be done to lower the hill on which the urupā was located. The marae committee went into debt as a result of the Crown taking more than 10 years to reimburse the marae for relocating costs. So it was a rather sorry story that was told to the select committee.

The marae was particularly concerned about the effects of incoming aircraft, which often come in to the runway at no more than 50 feet in the air. People are getting whipped by the backdraught. Even in very important situations where people are burying their dead, the backdraught of descending aircraft is hitting them. Having the flight path very close to the marae affects a whole lot of its traditional ceremonies. Karanga, whaikōrero, waiata, and wānanga are all disrupted by aircraft noise emissions. Because of those things, people are deterred from booking the marae for important occasions—birthdays, weddings, etc.—and that makes it harder for the marae committee to generate an adequate income. There is even talk that the acoustic vibrations tend to loosen the nails on the roof; the people have to knock the nails back in every now and again. The effect is quite significant. Fuel residues from the aircraft are spread on the marae and on the kura grounds; kids use the swimming pool and the kura. The hāngi pits at the marae are also affected.

The situation could become worse if international flights start coming into the airport. The sound levels could go up to 60 decibels. That would be very disruptive to the domestic activities of the marae. If the situation became impossible and the marae were forced out—hopefully, it will not be, if it pursues its claim—there is apparently no legal obligation on the Crown, the airlines, or the airport authority to contribute to the cost of relocation.

It is a rather sad situation. The Supplementary Order Paper is very much warranted, and the Greens will strongly support it. Although Metiria Turei is quite proud that, after all her pushing, the change is being made and a Supplementary Order Paper will be brought in, she is somewhat saddened that more could not have been done to improve the bill. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tēnei pō.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us seated here in the House tonight.]

In the first reading debate, I took the opportunity to outline the experience of my own iwi in, amongst, and at the side of, this bill. I recall that Mr Shane Jones raised the issues that I was raising for the marae. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, i kōrerohia ērā take i runga i te marae, ā, i te kāinga i mua noa atu o te taenga mai ki konei, ā, ka mutu, koinā te take ko pupū ake te taupatupatu o te noho o ētahi o ngā hapū, tētahi ki tētahi, ngā iwi, tētahi ki tētahi. Hoi anō, he whakamārama noa ake tēnā ki a koe e te mema o te Nōta i ngā uauatanga e pā ana ki a tātou.

[Let me put it this way: those matters were debated on the marae and in the home, long before they came here, and as a consequence conflict welled up that caused friction between subtribes and people. However, that is a mere explanation to you, the Northland member, in regard to the difficulties that relate to us.]

I was saying to Mr Jones that the issues he raised in respect of the discussion on the marae did take place prior to the arrival of the first reading of the bill and probably continued to take place. Those issues have been a sore point in the past on various marae, and, although I did not like the comment at the time, I appreciate the sentiment about those issues. I wanted to make it clear to him that putting that kōrero on the record, as I have done, is something I needed to do to make sure that it is on the record, and to that end I leave the matter; it goes no further. It is time to focus on the future.

The essence of this bill, as with any other settlement bill, comes in the text of the apology. In this case it goes something like this: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologies for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations, which have undermined tribal structures and had a damaging impact on the landholdings and development of the Affiliate.” That one sentence, I would suggest, has enormous relevance for the iwi and hapū of Te Arawa affiliated to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust, and, indeed, almost every iwi throughout the motu.

Within that one sentence is a history dating back, as other members have said, to the first pre-colonial contact in the 1830s, a history in which contemporary title was converted into title derived from the Crown, and a history in which the Crown acquired Māori land to facilitate Pākehā settlement—land compulsorily acquired for public works purposes and land taken for roading, railways, internal communications, electricity generation, scenic reserves, forest plantation, and an aerodrome. Land was taken and, with it, went the subsequent loss of control and responsibility for our ancestral lands, our taonga, our wāhi tapu. E kī ana te kōrero, there is a saying: “Toitū te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata.”—land is permanent, but people pass on.

The apology for the theft of land and the compensation for the illegal acquisition of it is important. For some of the Te Arawa people, this bill has been an opportunity for celebration and joy that at last grievances have been heard and the story told. It is also time to reflect on the long, frustrating, and emotional journey to this point that will come to an end—I think—this week, with many of the original Te Arawa kōeke claimants now having passed on. Many of those I mentioned at the first reading. E moe koutou whakangaro atu. [Sleep on and away from view.] Farewell.

I will signal one or two matters that came up, and other members of the select committee have moved into this area ahead of me. I wanted to focus a little more on these issues at the Committee stage, but I will start by heading to the issue raised with regard to Ngāti Whāoa. There was a call from some submitters for a full Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into Ngāti Whāoa claims, even though there are at least two or three Waitangi Tribunal reports instructing the Crown to deal with the uncoupling of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa. The focus from submitters was that such a move would reflect the separate status of each group more accurately. The argument came back to us from officials that such a change should be resisted because the coupling of iwi and hapū was the way it had always been, at least in instances dating back to 1990.

At the heart of the matter was the conflict of definition between Te Pūmautanga and some members of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa, and we could not say that it was resolved in this bill. But this is a significant matter, because the definition is relevant in the central North Island discussions and, indeed, in any future directions from Ngāti Whāoa. To that end I have been asked to present an amendment to this bill, and I intend to do so at the Committee stage. In essence, it is a request from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa.

The second matter is with regard to Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, a matter that other members have raised. A coupling concern that some submitters talked about was to do with requesting that the designation Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao be changed to Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, but there was also a recommendation that the tūpuna Ngāti Tūkitirangi be added to the definition, and hopefully we will hear about that when we get to the Committee stage.

Again, I have to say that the advice from officials did not inspire too much confidence. The comment provided by the Office of Treaty Settlements was that this was a relatively new issue and that the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao was well established and accepted by the Crown. Neither of these responses was compelling, in our view, so we look forward to at least placing this matter in front of the Committee by way of a Supplementary Order Paper at the request of the representatives of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao, which will at least address their concerns and interests.

The Hon Tau Henare raised the issues of Waitangi Tribunal claims. The Māori Party was extremely concerned to learn that during the settlement process the Crown had extinguished a number of Waitangi Tribunal claims without either the claimants’ knowledge or the claimants’ consent. The explanation put forward was that this was a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. How can it be that the Crown can extinguish Waitangi Tribunal claims through the settlement process without the express knowledge and permission of the specific claimants? That just seems so unjust to me. Surely the people who placed the claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal have the right to be formally advised that their claim is being settled and to seek their buy-in, as they have been the ones who have given the time, the energy, and even possibly the money in pursuit of the settlement of the grievance. Our comment in the select committee report expresses our concerns.

Other members who spoke before me have talked about Ruamatā Marae. We need to talk about the story of Ruamatā Marae, although other members have already broached some of the issues. Since the 1960s this marae has been continually hammered by way of the Crown allowing the use of the flight path over the top of the Ngāti Uenukukōpako people. I have used the word “hammered” quite deliberately. In the 1960s Ruamatā’s ancestral meeting house was hammered down to lower ground after it was declared by the authorities to be an obstruction in the way of the flight path. At the same time the hill on which the marae burial ground, the urupā, was located was hammered down by machinery, as it too was declared to be an obstruction to the flight path. All of this was despite the marae being in the area long before any airport was contemplated in Rotorua.

However, it is not just the marae tūpuna whare, the hill, and the urupā—the cemetery—that have taken a hammering. So too has the ability to develop homes on the ancestral land due to height restrictions imposed because of the flight path. Today the people of the marae continue to face many other impacts, and these were mentioned by Mr Keith Locke this evening when he talked about the aircraft noise, the deposits of aviation fuel, and so on. This is a real concern. However, one thing the authorities do not seem to want to hammer down are the nails that Mr Locke talked about that are popping out of the marae buildings. This is possibly caused by the acoustic vibrations from the low-flying aircraft—and I have been at a hui when those aeroplanes were going over the top.

Given all of this, it would be no surprise for members to hear that just over a month ago a historical claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of the people of the marae. Their claim is that they have been prejudiced by the creation of this flight path. Having said that, I was pleased to hear from the Minister earlier today that this issue has been looked at and considered. I appreciate it very much that that has been taken care of.

At this second reading I will just acknowledge that considerable progress has been made in seeking to improve the processes that govern the way in which mana whenua entitlement and determination is arrived at, and I acknowledge the work that Dr Cullen has done in respect of moving these settlements along. I also recognise the importance of the meetings held between the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the Waitangi Tribunal to better coordinate resources and improve the models used. The perfect science is still a long way off, and although we commend the new approach—the emphasis on rangatira ki te rangatira, chief to chief—it is an approach that must continue to ensure that the success of settlements continues to move forward. We must do better, and we can do better, and hopefully in the next 7 or 8 weeks or so we will have the opportunity to add to the process that has been developed up to this point in time.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. The bill gives effect to the settlement reached between the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū, represented by Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, and the Crown.

I would certainly like to acknowledge at the outset the far-sighted decision of Rāwiri Te Whare and other Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa negotiators to bring the affiliate Te Arawa settlement into the central North Island collective settlement. Alongside them was the Crown side, ably led by Dr Cullen and supported by the Associate Minister Mita Ririnui. The decision was subsequently ratified by Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa beneficiaries, and it has paved the way for the finalisation of the affiliate Te Arawa settlement. The decision to come into the central North Island collective will allow Te Arawa and other central North Island iwi to determine amongst themselves the allocation of commercial and mana whenua interests within Crown-licensed forests. This bill shows the advantages of allowing Māori to resolve their own issues amongst themselves and of not trying to impose solutions from the outside. The fact that iwi leaders have been allowed to take control of the process is the reason we have made so much progress towards settling the claims of Te Arawa and the other central North Island iwi.

I note that several submitters to the Māori Affairs Committee have raised the issues of the coupling of Ngāti Whāoa - Ngāti Tahu and of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao together as affiliates of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. It is important that iwi and hapū be allowed to define themselves for the purposes of Treaty settlements. Following exhaustive mandate processes—and they were exhaustive—the Crown was convinced that Ngāti Whāoa - Ngāti Tahu, and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, wanted to be coupled together as affiliates and be party to the affiliate Te Arawa settlement. The couplings reflect the historic, geographic, and whakapapa ties of the groups. Nobody should undo those accountable and representative entities. This measure will ensure that the whole Te Arawa waka benefits from the settlement.

The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill also provides for significant cultural redress. Twenty-four culturally significant sites, including ones at Whakarewarewa, Te Ariki, Lake Rotokawa, and Lake Rotomahana, will transfer under this bill. Some of these proposed cultural redress transfers have generated debate within other iwi, but, again, iwi leaders have taken the lead in finding ways to resolve these differences, and by and large they have been resolved.

I again acknowledge the Te Arawa leadership. It was bold enough and generous enough to step back twice so that other people could come to the fore. That is something rarely seen in this country, but it most certainly is recognised. To Rāwiri Te Whare and the other leadership group, I say it was indeed an honour, a privilege, and a pleasure to work with them.

I commend the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill to the House for its second reading.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : As previous National speakers have said, we will support the second reading of this bill. We will also support the Government’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper 250 and its amendment to clause 12. I am particularly pleased that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has tabled an amendment to clause 5, which we can deal with when the Committee discusses Part 1.

I would like to begin this speech by congratulating the Government on the accelerated pace of Treaty settlements in recent times. The last few months stand in stark contrast to the previous 8 years of abject failure and mismanagement. Indeed, this bill, when passed later this week, will double the number of Treaty settlements that Labour has taken from start to finish in 9 years. The central North Island iwi forests settlement, which the National Party enthusiastically supports and which, hopefully, will be passed later this week will triple that number. That in 1 year the Minister can match and exceed the total accomplishments of Mr Burton and Margaret Wilson in 8 years goes some way to showing how poor Labour’s record is in this area. It is only when Labour members are facing defeat at the polls—staring at complete defeat in the Māori seats at the hands of a capable, hard-working Māori Party—that they are bothered to put much energy at all into an area that is so important to Māori and so important to the country.

Let me turn to the bill currently before the House. I was most interested in the contribution of the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mita Ririnui shortly after the dinner break, because one could be forgiven for thinking that in his speech he attempted to pass over the history of this settlement. That is probably not surprising, given the shameful attempts by both the Prime Minister and him to rewrite history. Both have claimed this year—only by coincidence an election year, I am sure—that National has not supported a single Treaty settlement negotiated by this Government. That is an especially glaring lapse by the Associate Minister, who seems to have forgotten his own membership of the Māori Affairs Committee when National supported many settlements, including those of Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Mutunga, and others. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that either the Associate Minister’s memory is so faulty that he is not up to the job, or he has deliberately misled the public. Such representations and selective memory are all too common these days amongst Labour members. They are desperate, and, indeed, they will say anything—including on Willie Jackson’s television programme—in a vain effort to cling to power.

Let us look briefly at the history of this settlement, which is not contained in the text of the apologies—and I see the Minister of Māori Affairs looking guilty, and he should look guilty. I have to congratulate Te Arawa on the patience they have shown towards the Crown, and on their commitment to the settlement process, which I truly believe to be commendable. Few claimant groups have had to suffer the poor standard of behaviour that this group has had to suffer under this Government. The Minister attempted to gloss over earlier tribunal reports, rewriting history so as to deflect attention from the shameful failings of his Government. We are supposed to forget that the tribunal said it could not support the settlement progressing in its earlier form, due to the lamentable behaviour of this Government. Not content with such a finding, the tribunal also found that Labour had usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū, had failed to act fairly and impartially towards all the claimants, had acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty, had committed grave breaches of the Treaty, had failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiations, had failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Māori, and did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith. What an appalling performance!

Anyway, the select committee received 37 submissions. Eighteen of them supported the bill in its entirety, and 26 were heard in Rotorua. I join with Mr Henare in commending the chair for the way he dealt with the bill, and also the committee for the way it dealt with the submissions.

As the select committee report states, a number of issues emerged. The first set of issues concerned clause 11, which covers the meaning of “affiliate” and “affiliate ancestor”. Submissions were directed toward subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a). I must say that Mr Henare dealt with those issues very well in his second reading speech, and I will not attempt to repeat those comments here.

Secondly, a number of mandate concerns were raised, although the officials told us that it was the wrong time to be raising mandate questions, and the committee could not take up that issue during the hearing of submissions.

The third issue—and it has been referred to on a number of occasions tonight—related to the deletion of a number of Wai claims without the claimants’ knowledge, or as a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. The committee was told by officials that although individual redress elements may relate closely to particular Wai claims, the redress need not be specific to individual Wai claims, and this approach has apparently been recognised by the tribunal. I must say I share Mr Henare’s concerns about the extinguishment of Wai claims, and I think there is an argument that they should be formally dismissed on notice by the tribunal.

Finally, a question was raised about Ruamatā Marae, which has also been dealt with by a number of members tonight. The marae trust told the committee that the Crown breached the Treaty by designating a flight path immediately over the marae, which is near Rotorua airport, in the 1960s. It was said that this allegation had been made in a claim to the tribunal—Wai 918. The committee was advised, however, that the Wai 918 claim itself does not relate to that issue; it relates to the taking of land for the airport. The report of the select committee records an understanding by the Māori Party that a Government Supplementary Order Paper could include specific reference to the exclusion of an historical claim concerning airspace over the marae. That is dealt with in the amendment that was tabled this afternoon that adds to clause 12 a new subclause (5), which puts that issue beyond doubt, and that is a good thing.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on Part 4, which concerns commercial redress and is the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 250 of 23 September. Subpart 2 of Part 4 deals with licensed land and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry forest land. I will deal with this issue more closely in the Committee stage. Suffice it to say at this stage that clause 130 deals with the effect of transferred land. The Supplementary Order Paper proposes to add in two new clauses immediately after it: the first, clause 130A, provides that public access is to continue, and clause 130B provides that public right of way easements may be granted. As I said, National members will support that Supplementary Order Paper in its entirety.

So this bill, apart from the minor changes set out on the Supplementary Order Paper, comes back to the House for its second reading. We support the second reading of the bill.

  • Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Preamble

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Basically, the whole purpose of Part 1 is—if I might read out clause 3—“(a) to record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to the Affiliate in the deed of settlement …”. The interesting thing is that the purpose of this bill is to settle a grievance, but what it does not do, as we said in the second reading debate, is take cognisance of the Ngāti Whāoa, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao issues. The major issue that came up in the select committee process was the coupling of iwi and hapū under their own steam. The purpose clause should read that this bill is about Te Arawa and its affiliates, and it should include those issues that were brought up at the select committee. I think that is where we—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member, but I think he is debating the first part of Part 1. We are on the preamble, which outlines the historical background.

Hon TAU HENARE: OK, we will skip that and get to Part 1.

  • Preamble agreed to.

Part 1 Purpose of Act, acknowledgements and apology, interpretation provisions, settlement of claims, and miscellaneous matters

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Let me start again. My humble thanks to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations; the whip put me wrong, but I will not say which one.

It is quite important that this issue is sorted out. I would like to hear the Minister give his dissertation on why we cannot do it. I have heard other speeches made by other members in the House as to why the uncoupling cannot happen. I think Part 1 would be the most appropriate part in which to insert some acknowledgment that there is an issue in terms of why Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao should not be uncoupled. Part 1 is headed “Purpose of Act, acknowledgements and apology, interpretation provisions, settlement of claims, and miscellaneous matters”. There should be some recognition, at least, in Part 1 of the issue, because if there is not, then the issue will keep on going and going, and, whoever is in Government in, say, even 10 years’ time, people from Ngāti Wāhiao, from Ngāti Whāoa, and from Tūhourangi will be back here to try to sort out that issue. I can put a ring round it.

I think it is important to acknowledge that there is an issue. I think it is important to see whether there is a way that we could get through the issue. I would have thought that a Supplementary Order Paper along the lines of the uncoupling of Tūhourangi—[Interruption] I know that the Minister says no, and I know the reasons why. The Minister does not want to create another affiliate and therefore upset the quantum. But if we uncoupled the groups and said that it did not mean that there would be an extra affiliate, and that it would have no effect on the quantum, then we might be able to get round it.

I am interested in what the Minister has to say, and whether we could do it through Part 1, considering that it includes the purpose of the Act.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I am advised that there is actually no practical way of achieving what Mr Henare wants. I think it is very dangerous to legislate on the floor of the House to change negotiated agreements, because it reopens the whole process of negotiation of Treaty settlements. It would be an endless process and quite a dangerous process. I was quite concerned about what happened in the case of Te Rōroa. Although there were some issues there, it seemed to mean that we were getting ourselves into potentially dangerous territory in revisiting details of a grievance by means of the parliamentary process.

This settlement is the clear expression of the process that occurred. Obviously, if at some future point there is a determination by those involved that they wish to separate, that could be relatively easily done within the confines of this legislation. They could separate into two groups within the affiliate structure. The structure is essentially the total settlement; the component parts can be revisited in that regard.

While I am on my feet I will mention again my amendment to clause 12 in relation to Rotorua airport. The amendment is specifically drafted in terms of “To avoid doubt,”. All the legal advice I have is that any claims in relation to the airport are not affected by the bill as originally drafted, anyway, and, indeed, the people from Raumatā Marae themselves are quite satisfied about that. But I am aware that at least two parties in this House do not entirely share that view. Again, I have some reluctance to intervene by way of an amendment on the floor of the House that runs against where the negotiators themselves have got to. The amendment expresses avoidance of doubt, to make it clear, in case anybody has any concerns about this matter, that claims in relation to the approach to, and airspace over, the airport are not included in this settlement. But I would emphasise again that the bill in its current form, before that amendment is passed, does not affect that claim, because the Wai 918 claim does not cover the issue of airspace over, and a flight path to, Rotorua airport.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I guess we can be grateful to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for that explanation. I just hope his not having done something about that issue during the negotiations will not result in problems further down the line. But I certainly appreciate the situation that, a deed having been negotiated, legislators can get themselves into a bit of a pickle trying to do something about it on the floor of the House. I guess that is why the purpose of this bill is so important and is clearly set out. Clause 3 states that the bill gives effect to a deed of settlement that has been negotiated by the Crown and certain representatives of the Te Arawa affiliates. Clause 4 states that the Act binds the Crown. That is a small provision but very important.

Part 1 also sets out the acknowledgments and the apology. Those, too, are extremely important. I have always thought it is important that a claimant iwi that is settling can see in legislation the things that are part of the settlement—the things that the Crown acknowledges date back to when breaches first occurred. Someone mentioned in an earlier speech that these breaches had occurred a long time ago. Yes, they did, but let us not forget that some breaches occurred recently as well—in the 1960s and the 1970s. In this case, some quite significant breaches occurred in respect of Māori Land Court title rearrangement and so on.

Then we come to the apology, which is hugely important. I am sure all members of the House understand by now, after the many apologies given by the Crown in this place, how important an apology is to the claimant group—the iwi or hapū in question. One can never underestimate the power of the Crown apologising to iwi. It is the Crown’s chance on behalf of New Zealanders to say sorry and also to restore to itself some of the honour that it lost when it breached the Treaty—in this case, in relation to the affiliates of Te Arawa.

Then we come to clause 11, which is what my colleague was talking about earlier—the designation of the affiliates and the affiliate ancestors. Given that we had submissions from Ngāti Wāhiao in respect of their designation alongside Tūhourangi as Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and also from Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa about their designation, I wonder whether the Minister might explain why clause 11(1)(a)(vii) reads quite simply and directly “Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao”, and clause 11(1)(a)(viii) states “Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa”. I wonder why that difference is there. Does it mean something? Perhaps Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa—[Interruption] I see that Te Ururoa Flavell is giving me some advice on it, but I think I will get the Minister to enlighten me. The difference seems odd, given that those two designations sit one above the other in the text of the bill. The issue for the iwi involved seems to be the same, yet in the bill they are not described in quite the same way. It is amazing how that little hyphen has really excited my brain as to why that might be.

Lastly, I go to clause 12, which excludes all claims connected with the claims that are being settled here. I guess that, in a sense, although the iwi concerned often find that to be a very hard provision to accept, on the other hand I guess the Crown has to give some certainty to the public at large about what is being settled here.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I will briefly respond to the last part of Georgina te Heuheu’s speech. Of course, full and final settlements can scarcely be full or final if the claims remain active subsequent to the legislation. It is important that the extinguishment occurs at that point. Of course, it is part of the actual deed of settlement that it is accepted that that is going to take place.

On the other matter, I might say as someone who has been around here for a while that I am so pleased when, in the Committee stage, we get back to being able to discuss a hyphen, instead of our simply having a great long second reading speech all over again, which has become the practice. I am advised that, in that particular case, that is how the groups choose to describe themselves. The bill is simply following their self-description in that regard.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Ki te Minita, tēnā koe. I will just say a couple of things, by way of introduction. I have put a paper on the Table with some amendments that basically deal with some of the issues that have been spoken about today.

I will just concentrate in the first part on the issue around Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Mr Pita Paraone explained that at the Māori Affairs Committee hearing we heard that, yes, there is an association, obviously, between Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, and during the select committee process we heard that Ngāti Wāhiao has mana whenua over the particular area of land around the tupuna whare that the Minister has been to. I tell the Minister that I think the issue here is that shortly, in the next day or two, we will be discussing the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, and that the definition that is being sought here—and I have a letter on behalf of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao—may well, I suppose, diminish, or, in fact, take away, what Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao believes are mana whenua rights in the Whakarewarewa Village. It was keen at the select committee to try to clarify the issue of the coupling, or at least the uncoupling, so that when we get to the Whakarewarewa legislation its mana whenua rights within the Whakarewarewa legislation will be protected, and that is why the issue has come almost backwards, if one likes, to this particular bill.

So at the hearing, as Pita Paraone and Tau Henare mentioned, the question was asked of one Rangipuawhe Maika as to whether, as a senior koeke of Tūhourangi, he would be amicable to the notion of the word “and” being inserted between the two tūpuna, Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. At that hearing, as Mr Henare said, there was agreement to that, and he was quite happy with that. Then Rangipuawhe Maika went off, and after a week or so he came back and said that Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa was not agreeable to that. At the heart of the issue is how it is possible for everybody else to make a decision in respect of the mana whenua that Ngāti Wāhiao believes that it may have. How is it possible that Ngāti Wāhiao has mana whenua for the particular lands that it has, yet a bigger group that does not have interests in those lands—except for Tūhourangi, which may well cross over those boundaries—makes a decision on the outcome?

The real fear from the submitters during the select committee process was basically about the loss of Ngāti Wāhiao as a tupuna, and, of course, Wāhiao is a tupuna. So I have put an amendment on the Table in respect of the addition of the word “and” between the two. Obviously we would have to vote on it, but it sets the scene for the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, which is coming up, because mana whenua is a clear issue in that particular bill. There was a real desire on the part of Ngāti Wāhiao to protect its interest. We heard the story, and clearly, yes, Ngāti Wāhiao and Tūhourangi have for all intents and purposes come together over time, but there was no debate, certainly from those who presented to the select committee, over the fact that Ngāti Wāhiao is, in fact, an iwi in its own right, and it wanted to maintain that view.

The second point that I raise is in respect of the issue around Ngāti Whāoa. I do not think it is too much news that Ngāti Whāoa has attempted, over a number of years, to try to find its distinct place, separate from Ngāti Tahu. Now I speak specifically around Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, which is an entity in its own right and has attempted to find its space. It has been through two or three Waitangi Tribunal hearings and ended up in front of Judge Carrie Wainwright to try to facilitate the process. I say to the Minister that we heard at the select committee that from the perspective of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, it did not quite complete the facilitation process needed to allow it to move off in its own way. The fact of the matter is that one of the members of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa advised that he or she would wait until after the bill passed and then decide to separate out.

In representing the interests of the constituents—at least the group called Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa—I was asked to place in front of the Committee an amendment to take out from the bill any reference to Ngāti Whāoa. In doing so, I am representing at least that rūnanga, and, of course, the Committee will make a decision on that amendment. I say to the Minister that I accept there are some complications regarding this matter, but I can say that the issue of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi was definitely placed on the agenda at the select committee process, and we hoped that it would be dealt with. Unfortunately, of course, it came back from Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa and it did not quite pan out, so I am obviously following a duty to place this issue in front of the Committee.

The other issue I raise is in respect of Ngāti Tūkiterangi. Again, I thought this issue had been dealt with relatively easily, because there was a select committee process and an agreement by those concerned and those at the hui that Ngāti Tūkiterangi is a part of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi—it is a hapū. There was an agreement to that effect, and we thought Ngāti Tūkiterangi would take that away. I thought there was a clear agreement—and the Hon Tau Henare is nodding, too—that that could be added to the bill with not too much hassle.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It has been.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am sorry, I did not hear that. I am sorry about that. If that has been dealt with, I am pleased. I heard from the Associate Minister, and I thought that matter had not been dealt with, so that is why I raised it. I am happy with that, if it has been dealt with.

Those are three of the issues I wanted to raise in Part 1. As I say, I have some amendments. I know they will go through the process, but at least I can say I raised those issues in the Committee. A real concern, as I say, particularly in respect of Ngāti Wāhiao, is its belief in wanting to maintain and set the scene for the Whakarewarewa bill, with a mandate from its organisation. Similarly, the concern of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa is that the iwi be taken out of the bill. I have the minutes of meetings that Te Puni Kōkiri officials have been at where there was a desire on the part of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa to be pulled right out of this agreement, for better or for worse. The rūnanga made that decision, and I place that in front of the Committee for consideration. I think at this point in time that those are the two or three issues that I wanted to raise. I will leave it there, maybe for a response from the Minister. Kia ora tātou.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I will take just a brief call on Part 1. It contains the usual clauses one expects to find in Part 1 of a settlement bill. It sets out the purpose, makes certain acknowledgments, contains the apology, and then has various interpretation and jurisdictional provisions. It may be thought that these are really boilerplate provisions, but those who think that would be wrong, because clauses 7 and 8 are at the heart of the bill. As Mrs te Heuheu mentioned, those clauses are very, very significant. Clause 7 sets out the text of the acknowledgments. I am intrigued that the New Zealand First Party, which earlier this year introduced legislation complaining about principles of the Treaty—

Pita Paraone: It’s coming.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —oh, I see, it is coming, is it—is quite happy to support the legislation. I was going to praise New Zealand First for its sensible attitude. To say that one could remove all references in this legislation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles would be absurd, because that is at the very heart of it. But I had better withhold my praise until the member has made his contribution. I will be interested to hear what he says about clauses 7, 8, and 12.

The acknowledgments are there for all members to read, and they should be read very carefully because they outline a litany of woe on the part of the Crown, a litany of failings, which, as clause 7(5) records, results in a sense of grievance that exists even today. Clause 8 is an extremely important clause, and it should never be regarded as nothing more than a boilerplate clause, because it sets out the apology. It is all very well for the Crown to recognise the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of the affiliate in pursuing their claims for redress, and it is all very well for the Crown to profoundly regret and apologise for breaches of the Treaty in its principles, but, importantly, the Crown goes further than that. I refer to clause 8(4), which states that “the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and assist the process of healing with this settlement, and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with the Affiliate.”

So often in these settlements the Crown has apologised, has said it is going to atone, and then moves on to something else and promptly forgets that, once the bill is enacted, the relationship between the Crown and the affiliate has undergone a fundamental change. The Crown has obligations under this legislation that it must not ignore or forget. So often, in my experience, the Crown gets into trouble as it has no institutional memory, and therefore moves on to the next issue of the day and forgets that the relationship has indeed changed. It behoves this place to make sure that that never happens.

Next I refer to clause 12, which deals with the meaning of affiliate historical claims. The Minister’s amendment, which was tabled today, proposes an amendment by adding a new subclause (5). I must say I think that amendment is sensible, even though I share the view of the Minister that it is probably legally, or strictly, unnecessary and is there, as he says, to avoid doubt.

Subpart 3 deals with the mechanics of settlement—settlement of affiliate historical claims is final—and there is the consequential amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. In particular, schedule 3 is amended by including this legislation once it is enacted. Subpart 4 deals with miscellaneous matters such as perpetuities, access to the deed of settlement, and the date on which actions or matters must occur. There is no real magic in that, and I need not detain the Committee by dwelling on Subpart 4. National will support the passage of Part 1.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that it would be very remiss of New Zealand First not to once again make a comment, in respect of treaty settlements, about the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which are articulated in Part 1, and, in particular, in clause 7, “Text of acknowledgements”, and in clause 8(2). I can understand why those references are put there; without reference to the Treaty the whole settlement process could not proceed. But that does not diminish the concern of New Zealand First that those same principles, which are often referred to in legislation, do not have a clear definition set by this House. I know that other members of my caucus have often asked for those principles to be articulated by this House, and we have never received any response.

Christopher Finlayson: That’s not right.

PITA PARAONE: Oh, so that member will articulate—

Christopher Finlayson: No, I’ve already done so.

PITA PARAONE: Oh, OK. The other point I want to make about Part 1 is that I am glad that it actually identifies by name the parties to this settlement. When this settlement becomes history, the people who have expressed concerns, particularly concerns about the identity of their hapū—and there was discussion about whether groups should be identified separately—can point to the very people who signed up to the settlement. I refer specifically to those who expressed some concern during the select committee process regarding Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and who also made references to Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa. I totally support the response that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made in regard to Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa. If that is what those iwi want to be described as, who are we to change that? I think any departure from that would almost see this whole process go back to the drawing board.

I just wanted to make those comments, and also to say that the descriptions of the affiliates are very important for the future of this particular settlement. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I want to make it clear to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, that National members will not be supporting any amendments or Supplementary Order Papers to uncouple Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. I understand perfectly well the constraints on the Minister. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill involves a negotiated settlement between the Crown, the Government, and those people, so any change would have to have the acquiescence of both parties. I thought I would make that quite plain. I wanted to raise the specific issue of the coupling of Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. As for the coupling of Ngāti Tāhu and Ngāti Whāoa, I absolutely agree that if that is their decision, it is their ball game. However, I believe there is enough talk around the traps to show that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao will become a problem later on—but that is for the future to decide. I just wanted to make it clear to the Minister that we will not be supporting any amendments about uncoupling.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Every time the honourable member Pita Paraone feels he has to raise the issue of the principles of the Treaty, I feel bound to take a call to say my piece about them. Although I have said it before, I think it is worth repeating that reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi first appeared in our legislation in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1974, I think—

Pita Paraone: 1975.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —1975! Of course, that was a bill in the name of Matiu Rata, who might even be the member’s whanaunga. There is a good reason why that reference was put into the legislation, and not “the terms” of the Treaty. Part of the reason is that Māori mostly signed the Māori version of the Treaty, but also some signed the English version, so we have a Māori version and an English version in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. If we were to say “the terms” or “the provisions” of the Treaty, we would have to ask which Treaty, because there are, in essence, two Treaties, if we take the Māori and English versions side by side. Over the last 20 years, the task undertaken by the Waitangi Tribunal, which was given the job of measuring the Crown’s conduct against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, has been to discern from the two versions the underlying essence, the underlying principles, of those versions. In a way, it is very apt. I think the process we have followed to settle historic injustice has been served very well by that statement. One day, I am sure, our friend Pita Paraone will discover those principles for himself. They are easily found in various judgments and reports.

Pita Paraone: But the laws are made here.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The laws are certainly made here, and they are made in the courts as well, I say to my friend Pita Paraone. Although we say Parliament is the highest court in the land, laws are being made daily in our courts as well. So there you go.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendments in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a) and to paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 11(2) are out of order because they are inconsistent with the deed of settlement.

  • The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 5, and the following amendment in his name to clause 12, be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(5) To avoid doubt, Affiliate historical claims does not include any claim submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 in respect of the airspace over, or the flight paths to, Rotorua airport.

  • Amendments agreed to.
  • Part 1 as amended agreed to.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to take up too much time, Mr Chairperson, but could you give me some clarification in respect of my amendments to clause 11 being out of order. Is there some rule or explanation in respect of the amendments I placed before the Committee being automatically ruled out of order? Was it solely because they relate to a settlement that has been negotiated? I am seeking some clarification.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. These issues are pretty clear, especially when we are dealing with a deed of settlement that has already been signed. It is rare to accept amendments to it. I do not think I can be much clearer than that. It is a deed of settlement; it is different from normal legislation. It is a matter that has been agreed to. On that basis, the amendments were inconsistent with the deed itself. Thank you.

Part 2 Cultural redress

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The debate on Part 2 includes clauses 21 to 87 and schedules 4 and 5.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I will take a brief call, and it is about clause 21, “Authority to issue, amend, or cancel protocols”. Clause 21(1) states: “Each responsible Minister may—(a) issue a protocol to the trustees in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the deed of settlement;”. My issue is that if we want to find out a wee bit more about the form of a protocol, we have to try to find a copy of the deed of settlement. There is no explanation in the bill of the form of a protocol. I wonder whether Part 2 should have a form—it could even be a schedule to the bill—that sets outs the hows, the whys, and the why-nots of a protocol. My main concern about the protocols is that if somebody picks up the bill, looks at it, and says “OK, what is this protocol business?”, that person then has to try to get a copy of the deed of settlement. I wonder why we cannot have a form as a schedule to the bill.

That is all—a very quick speech.

  • Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Cultural redress properties and other properties

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : Part 3 deals with “Cultural redress properties and other properties”, and that is of course a very important part of a settlement. As all members of the House will understand, as we have been on this Treaty settlement process for a number of years now, iwi like many others have close associations with various landscapes in the area, and Te Arawa no less. I see some very important sites in the bill, and I guess those have all been worked out—obviously they have to be. The Minister might like to take a call and let the listeners know how they were worked out.

For instance, Te Koutu Pa is very ancient in Te Arawa history. Clause 90 states: “(1) The reservation of Te Koutu Pa under the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked. (2) The fee simple estate in Te Koutu Pa vests in the trustees.”, who become the trustees of the settlement itself. Others are listed as I look down clause 88: “(h) site adjacent to Orakei Korako:”, “(j) Te Wairoa:”. They are all important sites and it is clearly important to have them returned as part of this settlement. Clause 96 states: “The site on Horohoro Bluff ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.”, and “(2) The fee simple estate in the site on Horohoro Bluff”—once the law goes through—“vests in the trustees.”, as well.

As I say, it is a very important part of the settlement, and it is very important that Te Arawa is recognised for its ancient history and for its history in the areas that are deemed to be theirs, and that in the modern day there are sites that can be returned to them—properly returned. My colleague, in referring to Part 2 of the bill, also previewed some of the deeds of recognition that give voice to Te Arawa’s association with their land, their landscapes, and their important places. It is quite in order that this settlement follows the way of other settlements and recognises their history, their traditions, and their associations.

  • The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to.
  • Amendments agreed to.
  • Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Commercial redress

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The debate on Part 4 includes schedule 7.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I will take a brief call on Part 4. I do not intend to say much about Subpart 1, which deals with the “Transfer of commercial redress properties”. These properties are defined by clause 10 as meaning “the licensed land” and “a deferred selection property”. That is all in order and can be supported.

Subpart 2 deals with “Licensed land and MAF forest land”, and a couple of amendments are proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 250. I referred to these in my second reading speech. The first of these, which the National Party supports, is the proposal to include a new clause 130A, so that where land has been transferred, public access will continue. This issue arose a couple of times, both in relation to this bill and the bill we will shortly debate. It simply states that “Clause 6.2 of the Crown forestry licence (which relates to public entry for recreational purposes) continues to apply even though the Crown is no longer the licensor under the licence …”. Clause 130B will be inserted by the same Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that public right of way easements may be granted. There is a reference to various provisions of the Crown Forest Assets Act and there is nothing in there that I need detain the Committee on. We are happy with Subpart 2.

Subpart 3 deals with the “Right of access to protected sites”, which are also defined, and that is all as it should be. The National Party supports those provisions, as well.

  • The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 4 be agreed to.
  • Amendments agreed to.
  • Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendments in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 1 are out of order as they are inconsistent with a deed of settlement.

  • The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to.
  • Amendment agreed to.
  • Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

  • The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 3 be agreed to.
  • Amendment agreed to.
  • Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

  • The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6 be agreed to.
  • Amendment agreed to.
  • Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : “The Parliament of New Zealand therefore enacts as follows: … This Act is the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2008.” I again impress on people that I have huge difficulty with the coupling of what I think are two different entities—Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhaio. Either one is Te Arawa iwi, or both are Te Arawa iwi, or both are hapū. As far as I am concerned, they are separate entities. Their whakapapa is separate, they live in separate areas, and just because an act of God led to one group moving to live somewhere else does not mean they are one and the same. Although National members did not support the amendments, and I understand clearly the reasons that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations moved them, I think that what we are doing here is an injustice to Ngāti Wāhiao—and I say that with all due respect to Te Arawa.

I must declare a bit of a conflict of interest in terms of my children. Their mother is of Te Arawa descent. I had better declare that conflict quick smart.

This is the first time that I have seen two different entities specifically put together in settlement legislation. We have done the Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau settlement; that group is specific to one area, and does not include the whole of Tūwharetoa. I have never seen a coupling of what I consider to be two different pods of—

Hon Member: Wakas.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, not two different wakas, because they came off the same one. But members get my gist.

I think it is quite telling that the title is “Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill”. The way I see it through my urban Māori eyes, if Tūhourangi is an iwi under the Te Arawa affiliate and Ngāti Wāhiao is a hapū, then they have to be separate—they have to be. They cannot be together. They have never been together. If Ngāti Wāhiao is an iwi, then surely they must be separate from Tūhourangi. To my way of thinking, the title gives the game away. I have been known to refer to it before as mana-munching and some not-so-kind terms, but I really do think that somebody is being hard done by through this process. I do not for 1 minute think it is the Government’s fault, or that the Government set out to do it.

I stand to air my concerns arising from the select committee hearings in Rotorua. I have some major concerns. Maybe we will be lucky and this matter will not come back to bite us on the proverbial; maybe my concerns are just a figment of my imagination. Let us hope so.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : This is just a short call to follow on from Mr Tau Henare and to say that I agree, in this instance, with his kōrero, which is the reason why we put up the amendment in the first place. I reflect back, firstly, on the note that I have received from Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao. Here we have a legal entity that has been established. It has a track record, and there is a desire on its part to ensure that the issue of mana whenua for Ngāti Wāhiao, not only around this issue but, as I said earlier, around the Whakarewarewa Village issue, is maintained.

No one denies that at home, at home base, there is reference to Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Other members talked about that before—the kapahaka and so on. I have no issue with that. But the real fear that was presented on the part of the submitters to the Māori Affairs Committee was that by coupling them up, the distinct entity called Ngāti Wāhiao would be basically wiped off the earth. That is how Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao viewed the situation. Whether that is true is not for me to say, but in representing the interests of the constituents that I represent, I say it was very clear that Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao felt that this legislation set up the fact that in time the iwi would basically be subsumed by Tūhourangi. The question would be whether it could live with that. I think the best perspective I got on that was that a number of the people who came to the select committee hearing said that their whakapapa is Ngāti Wāhiao tūturu. They said their mother was Ngāti Wāhiao and to all intents and purposes the other side of the bridge, the southern side of the bridge, was Ngāti Wāhiao land.

Mr Henare talked about the eruption of Tarawera and said Ngāti Wāhiao, out of aroha, gave some land interests to Tūhourangi to come and live on. Naturally, in living close to one another, they formed relationships and intermarried, and over time—and I have asked questions about intermarriage of a number of people—yes, there has been intermarriage almost to the point that some say it is the natural kōrero that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are as one. But clearly, when a legal entity tells us straight up and down that it wants to ensure that its interests are protected in light of mana whenua issues, then we have to sit up and take some notice of that. More to the point, that was endorsed by a kaumātua, a senior kaumātua, of Tūhourangi, who said he had no problem with the notion of separating them out, yet lo and behold, as Tau Henare reflected, the pressure has come on regarding the issue of uncoupling.

I also respect the issues the Minister has to face around this issue, but I think it is important to note in Hansard, for the record, that at the heart of this is a serious issue for those associated with Ngāti Wāhiao, and it is not to diminish the relationship with Tūhourangi—not at all. There is, however, a concern to protect Ngāti Wāhiao’s mana whenua interests, particularly—this is what I got—in respect of the Whakerewarewa Village. Why? Because Ngāti Wāhiao has huge mana whenua interests there; it is mana whenua. It is set out in the Māori Land Court records that Ngāti Wāhiao holds mana whenua interests, and, because it has been coupled with Tūhourangi in this bill, it fears that when we get to the next bill—and we have had the signing and a number of statements in respect of that one, and no doubt we will debate this issue again when that bill comes to its first reading in the House—it wants to make its issues really well known and clear.

I just ask the Minister where he goes and what we do as members of Parliament when a legal entity that represents those people, in this case Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao, makes a statement and basically because of the time limits—Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa has been carrying this particular settlement for some 5 or 7 years or so now—it has been caught up in the cogs and left to the side. I hope that we can look at some mechanism that will be able to address this particular issue. I recognise that that will probably not happen, but it is still important to at least look at doing that when the Whakarewarewa Village bill comes up. In fact, there is a desire on the part of those of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao to meet with politicians and put their issues to them—at least to have the opportunity to do that. We cannot do much more than that. I stand to support—in some ways very much—the sentiments expressed by the Hon Tau Henare. I hope that in the future some way may be found of looking at this issue, in particular if there is a legal entity that is willing to put the issues on the floor.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I want to make a very brief call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. Because there is a lot of interest in seeing this bill pass into law before Parliament rises, perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, might indicate when the bill would be endorsed by the Governor-General.

The discussion still centres on the inclusion in the affiliate of tribes that are coupled. Some representatives of those tribes or hapū do not want to be coupled in the way that they are. We have to remember, of course, that although some stand in this Chamber and say that Ngāti Wāhiao do not want to be coupled with Tūhourangi, in reality some of Wāhiao—presumably, a greater number—are already part of the affiliate. Yes, the Māori Affairs Committee heard some very passionate pleas for that uncoupling to take place. Again, those pleas were from only some of the Wāhiao tribe. That does not make the issue any less important, but as my colleague has said and as has been obvious, we have not supported that uncoupling in this place.

It is interesting that, with the long gestation of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, it is a big, big achievement that this settlement has been reached. Hopefully, those in the ascendancy have heard sincerely and genuinely the plea of those who worry that they might be subsumed. I hope they at least try to have some appreciation and understanding of the anxiety, of the fears, that some have that their mana, their standing, might become subsumed. That should not happen. Yes, in the end it is an internal issue for those groups.

Hopefully, this affiliate of Te Arawa iwi and hapū, once the bill passes its third reading and goes into law, will use the settlement in the way that one would expect such an affiliate to use it: as a springboard for moving forward, a springboard for embracing all of those who become part of the settlement—every single person, every hapū, every tribe. The settlement should become a springboard for moving forward, for development, for their tamariki, for their mokopuna. I suppose that if we all keep that in mind, then the promise of the settlement, as signified in the title, will become a reality and something that not only those groups are proud of but, indeed, all New Zealanders embrace because it is a good thing for our country.

I want to go through the groups listed in the meaning of “Affiliate”, in clause 11; it is the embodiment of the bill. They include Ngāti Ngāraranui, including Ngāti Tamahika and Ngāti Tūteaiti; Ngāti Kearoa Ngāti Tuarā; Ngāti Tura - Ngāti Te Ngākau; Ngāti Te Roro o Te Rangi; Ngāti Tūteniu; Ngāti Uenukukōpako; Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao; Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa; Ngāti Pikiao, excluding Ngāti Mākino; Ngāti Rongomai; and Ngāti Tarāwhai. This settlement is a big achievement for those affiliate groups. It is a pleasure for me to stand here tonight at the end of the Committee stage, which is the stage before the third reading. I understand that the third reading will proceed on Thursday.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I will respond briefly to the point raised by the member. It is expected that the bulk of this bill—that is, the parts relating to the great part of the settlement—comes into force on 2 July 2009. It may seem a long way away. The reason is that the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act has to comes into force first, on 1 July. The reason for that time-gap is to allow time for the necessary survey work to be done in relation to the Crown forest lands.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : I am taking just a brief call in regard to the title and the commencement. I believe that the title is an apt one, because it gives due regard to all those hapū and iwi who affiliate to this settlement, irrespective of some of the concerns that some of us have expressed in regard to the names of the respective iwi and hapū who are part of this affiliate, and some concerns expressed by submitters that the names should be separated to give separate identities to those respective iwi. As I have mentioned before in this debate, I do not think it is the responsibility of this House to address an issue that clearly should rightly remain with the people who are affiliates of Te Arawa, whether they be hapū or iwi. I feel very strongly about that, notwithstanding that I do appreciate the concerns that submitters raised.

But I think as we have addressed all the settlements, and in particular this one, we have given due recognition to and acknowledged the leadership that has been exercised by those who have led this process with the Crown. I believe that the issues we have been talking about in regard to separate identities of the separation, or uncoupling—which is the word that is commonly used—of particular iwi, are for the leadership of those respective iwi and hapū to deal with.

To that end, I would like to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we certainly support the title. It is an apt title. It recognises all those iwi and hapū who wish to affiliate to this settlement. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : The Hon Georgina te Heuheu has reminded me of one other thing, and I place it before the Minister. As I understand it, Ngāti Wāhiao is not registered with Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa; Tūhourangi has been registered with Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa; thus the importance, I suppose, of raising this issue. I just raise this, because I understood that Ngāti Wāhiao has been separated out; it has not become an affiliate in its own right because of its desire to stand aside. That was a part of the court cases a couple of years ago. The information that I have received is that up until recently, for all intents and purposes, there was a desire to make sure that Ngāti Wāhiao’s interests were set aside, and they have not been brought into the collective.

That position was emphasised in terms of the vote around the participation in the Whakarewarewa thermal village vesting bill where there were two votes: the first was for Tūhourangi, which was affiliated and had a register, and the second was for Ngāti Wāhiao, which did it by attendance at the marae. That is my understanding of the issue, but I seek clarification from the Minister. It certainly places this issue before the Committee, together with the significance of the Supplementary Order Papers that I have tabled. It is easy enough to say that Ngāti Wāhiao can deal with it at some point in time but if, on the face of it, they are not a part of Te Pūmautanga collective, if you like, except by coupling up in this particular way, then for all intents and purposes I understood they had, shall we say, fought it all the way. I am hoping that the advice given by the officials might give me some clarity around that issue.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I am advised that Te Rūnunga o Ngāti Whāoa has affiliated as a single trust to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. In fact, there may be another body. That is not unusual in these matters, as I am sure the member recognises.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have a question about the ruling out of the amendments, and I thought I would bring it up now. I have looked through the Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders, and if you can point me in the direction of either a Speaker’s ruling or Standing Order that deals with that, then that would help me a lot. I know there is ruling about a financial veto, and that is fine—I know where to find that. But I cannot seem to find the Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that rules out an amendment in a Treaty bill. If the Chairperson could help us out, I would be much obliged.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I think if one looks at clause 3(b) of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, one to some extent finds the answer in there, in that it states the purpose of the legislation is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement. Of course, the Crown and the Te Arawa affiliate are the parties to that deed. The Crown certainly does not support the amendments. If the amendments are moved, that would then render the bill inconsistent with the purpose clause, which in fact has already been passed at this point, since it was included in Part 1. So it seems to me that at this point, apart from anything else, the amendments would be ruled out as being inconsistent with the provisions the Committee has already agreed to.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : So by virtue of that, does that mean we have a new ruling, which will end up in Speakers’ Rulings somewhere so that in future people can refer to that ruling? That is just a question; I am not trying to hold things up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is fine. I think what the Minister said was quite clear, and there is also Speaker’s ruling 110/2: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” This is a bill to give effect to an agreement. One of the parties—the Crown—does not agree with the amendments, and that is about as far as we can take it. The Committee is constrained when dealing with settlement bills, as I have explained before. Amendments that affect the terms of the deed have to be ruled out of order, and I have done that. Thank you, Mr Henare.

  • Clause 1 agreed to.
  • Clause 2 agreed to.
  • Bill reported with amendment.
  • Report adopted.