|Adobe's web site.|
Volume 678, Week 7 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) : When the House resumes on Tuesday, 3 April the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper, including the first reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill and the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill. Wednesday, of course, is a members’ day.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Can I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether it is the Government’s intention to table next week the delegations resulting from the resignation of Nick Smith, or whether it will wait until the inquiries into Judith Collins are completed before they do that.
Questions to Ministers
1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for ACC?
Grant Robertson: What occurred after the ACC Minister’s first denial that she was behind the leak of the email sent by Michelle Boag that prompted him to ask her a second time, as he told the media he had done?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is making a mountain out of a molehill. The fact is that these matters were serious matters of public interest, and as the story unfolded the Prime Minister simply checked his understanding of what had occurred.
Grant Robertson: Did someone from his office ask blogger Cameron Slater whether he received the email from Ms Collins’ office, and if so, what was the reply?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not know the answer to that question.
Grant Robertson: Who else has he or his office spoken to about whether they were part of or behind the leaking of the Michelle Boag email?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: What happened with the email is a matter for the Minister and a matter for the ACC board. The Prime Minister does not regard it as his—
Hon Member: Why did he ask her then?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is not involved with managing ACC cases. He has asked the Minister for an assurance and he has received it, and he has confidence in that Minister.
Grant Robertson: Does he agree with Bill English’s assessment of Judith Collins as being “pushed beyond her capacity”, with an “unfortunately high estimate of her own competence.”, and that she “spent too much time cultivating the media herself, and believing the resulting publicity.”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think those comments were made some 7 or 8 years ago. The Prime Minister understands that Mr English has changed his views on all of those matters.
State-owned Assets, Sales—Fiscal and Economic Benefits
2. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: What are the fiscal and economic benefits of selling minority shareholdings in four State-owned energy companies and Air New Zealand?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The rationale is quite simple. The sale of Government shares would free up $5 billion to $7 billion, less than 3 percent of taxpayers’ total assets of $245 billion, to invest in priority assets like modern schools and hospitals, without having to borrow more money on volatile world markets from overseas lenders. The Government is still spending and borrowing more than it can afford, so it makes sense to reorganise the Government’s assets and redeploy capital to higher-priority areas so that we do not have to borrow more.
Maggie Barry: What other benefits will the Government’s mixed-ownership programme deliver?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Under the mixed-ownership programme New Zealanders would have an opportunity to diversify their increasing savings away from property and from bank deposits, which are growing quite rapidly at the moment, and also the public listing of these companies will increase scrutiny of their decisions, and encourage better business disciplines, as well as deepening capital markets.
Maggie Barry: What have recent profit and dividend payments been from the four State-owned energy companies?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the 6 years to 2011, ordinary dividends—that is, dividends that exclude one-off sales of Government assets by these companies—have totalled $356 million. That is a 2.4 percent annual return to the taxpayer, on the most recent commercial valuations of these companies. The Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit advises that the average cost of Crown borrowing over the last year is 4.5 percent; that is, these companies are returning ordinary dividends of 2.4 percent per annum. The average cost of Crown borrowing is 4.5 percent. Estimates of 18.5 percent returns are quite misleading because they include major revaluations and changes in accounting methodology, and also one-off large asset sales by these Government companies.
Maggie Barry: Under the mixed-ownership programme, what do comparisons of forecast loss of profits with expected savings on interest costs tell us?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: On its own, comparing lost profits with reduced interest payments tells us nothing. As any owner of an asset will tell you, it is not just what you forgo in profits that matters; it is the price received up front in the sale. If investors believed there would be strong profits from these companies, then that would be reflected in a higher sale price. If they believe the profits will be weaker, that will be reflected in a lower sale price.
Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information
3. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: When was the email she received between 12 March 2012 and 18 March 2012 from Michelle Boag concerning Bronwyn Pullar and the involvement of both in a meeting over a mass privacy breach first printed by her or a staff member in her office?
Andrew Little: Does she stand by her statement in an interview on Radio Live this morning, commencing at 8.22 a.m., that “I know exactly what has happened in terms of my office and myself.”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I stand by all my statements.
Andrew Little: In whose custody and control was the copy or copies of the email that was made in her office placed?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That matter is before the Privacy Commissioner, and it is not in the public interest for me to answer that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Andrew Little’s question.
Andrew Little: What instructions did she give to any staff in her office, or any ACC staff member, in relation to the Michelle Boag email or any copy of it?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Since that matter is before the Privacy Commissioner, it is not in the public interest for me to answer that.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has been in the media discussing this issue, and now she is using a public interest defence in the House. How can you accept that she can use a public interest defence here, when she is in the media discussing this issue?
Mr SPEAKER: As I have said to the House before, it is not the Speaker’s decision whether or not a matter is in the public interest. As Speaker I would certainly intervene were I to see that such a claim was outrageous. But on this occasion the Minister has indicated that the matter is being inquired into by an independent authority—the Privacy Commissioner—and it is not uncommon for Ministers to declare, in their answer to such questions on matters that are being examined by an independent authority, that it is not in the public interest to answer them. So, in my view, it is not outrageous for the Minister to be making that claim. It seems reasonable, given the fact that an independent authority is conducting an investigation.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to reflect upon an earlier series of difficult questions for a Government, which were questions by the then Hon—still honourable—Lockwood Smith in respect of Taito Philip Field. There were inquiries in respect of Taito Philip Field that were under way, and yet the Government was still required to answer questions in respect of its conduct where Ministers had ministerial responsibility. I suggest to you that that shows that we cannot have Ministers just avoiding answering questions by claiming public interest when, patently, it is a matter of ministerial responsibility.
Mr SPEAKER: I would be very happy to look back over that Hansard. If I could refresh the member’s memory somewhat, the bulk of those questions all occurred after the publication of the Ingram report, if I remember correctly. Questions prior to that time were usually met with an answer that there was an inquiry under way. I think it is pretty standard practice. What I would, I think, make clear to the House, because this—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. This is a serious issue. Were the inquiry to be an internal inquiry by the Government, I think that would be a different matter. That would be a different matter, but where we have an independent authority conducting an inquiry or an investigation, that can be compromised by the matter being questioned in this House. I think that is not in our interests. I make that distinction. Were it to be simply an internal Government inquiry, I think the matter would be different, but this is an independent authority.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an inquiry being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner. It is not a commission of inquiry; it is not a judicial inquiry. The Minister has raised no issues of there being a sub judice rule preventing her from answering a question. It is not a matter of law; it is a matter of evidence. “When was that email reproduced?” is what she is being asked, and to get up and fob the House off by saying it is not in the public interest is a decision that you have got to make, not her. She is the Minister; she is being held accountable. Whether it is a matter of public interest or not is over to you to make, and my submission is that I would like to hear from her why she thinks—
Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —based on the law or Speakers’ rulings—
Mr SPEAKER: No, no, the member has gone far enough now. The member has been here long enough to know the Speaker does not, according to the traditions of this House, decide whether matters are in the public interest or not. That is a decision of Ministers, and the member knows that full well. As I have said before, I would be prepared to depart from the tradition if I were to see a situation that was clearly outrageous. However, the Privacy Commissioner has very significant powers of inquiry, and it is an independent authority set up by statute. The Privacy Commissioner operates under statute. It is therefore, I think, not unreasonable for a Minister to claim that it is not in the public interest, given that an inquiry by such an independent authority is under way, to answer detailed questions on the matter. That is my ruling on the matter. If the member wants a ruling from the Speaker, that is my ruling.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I seek a clarification? You mentioned that if you saw an instance of—I think the word you used was “outrageous”, or “outrageous conduct”. Can I just ask you this: in terms of definition, are you saying that if a Minister was to wax eloquent in the media about an issue and then come into this House and claim public interest to shut it down, you would look at that issue? I just seek your clarification.
Mr SPEAKER: No, no. By way of clarification, what I want to make clear is that it is where a Minister claims that it is not in the public interest to answer a question, and clearly the claim has no merit at all that it is not in the public interest. I mean, here we have an inquiry being conducted by a statutory authority, and it is not unreasonable, in my view, for a Minister to claim it is not in the public interest to answer detailed questions, just as a Minister not long ago asserted in the House here, quite reasonably, it was not in the public interest to answer detailed questions about the Pike River tragedy while that was under investigation. But I will be watching the issue quite carefully. I will be taking advice on the matter, because it has cropped up in recent days more than once. I accept the concern of Opposition members that it is unacceptable for Ministers to use the claim that it is not in the public interest unless it is genuinely not in the public interest. But on this occasion I believe that it is a reasonable claim for the Minister to make that that is not in the public interest, given the independent authority is conducting the inquiry.
Grant Robertson: Did she make the comments on Radio Live this morning that the member mentioned in an earlier supplementary question after the inquiry of the Privacy Commissioner was announced, and if so, why are those comments able to be made, and ones in the House not able to be made because of the public interest?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because they are quite different, and also the Privacy Commissioner has emailed me today and advised me of the extent of her inquiry.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether, in fact, she has that with her. I have an email—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. That was totally outside the Standing Orders of the House. It was not a point of order, at all. I do not know what rush of blood caused that, and there will be no repeat of that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker—
Dr Russel Norman: Point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order to the Hon Trevor Mallard. Since I have admonished him, I will consider his point of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table an email to Judith Collins and me from the Privacy Commissioner this morning.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
- Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we accept that the Privacy Commissioner’s announcement of the investigation was yesterday—and the tabling was to establish that—and then the Minister went on radio and talked about exactly this issue, she cannot come into the House and claim a public interest defence. I believe that you should label that outrageous. I think that does step over the boundary of “outrageous”—where the Minister spoke about this issue on radio this morning, after the announcement of the inquiry, and then claims public interest. How can it be that to speak about this topic on radio is in the public interest, but not to speak about it in this House?
Mr SPEAKER: To me the difference that we have seen in the House today was that there was a question relating to the Minister’s comments on the radio this morning. The Minister answered that question. It was other matters that the Minister has asserted as not being in the public interest to answer. But I recollect a question from Andrew Little about whether the Minister stood by her comments on a radio programme this morning, and the Minister answered that question. So I have not seen anything outrageous so far, and I assure members that I will watch this issue carefully, because I accept the concern that it is not acceptable for a Minister to assert that it is not in the public interest to answer just to avoid being held to account. That would not be acceptable. Speakers have to be careful, because they are normally guided by Ministers on their judgment, but I am prepared, as Speaker, if I see something that is to me outrageous in that regard, to overrule the Minister if I see that to be the case.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is it about the date of the reprint of the email referred to in the primary question that is not in the public interest, and yet her comments to the public via the media are apparently in the public interest?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That matter goes to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What goes to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry? I asked her a question about why she is giving that answer—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Indeed, the member asked his question. He is just trying to ask it again by way of a point of order. The Minister answered it. I accept that the member is not particularly satisfied with the answer, but that is the answer and the member cannot ask his question again by way of a point of order. I will hear the member further on the matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am not asking my question again, at all. But surely the answer “that goes to the heart of the inquiry” begs the conclusion that there has to be more than that, because I am asking about the issue of public interest and she has not answered that at all. Maybe the Privacy Commissioner is; I do not know that. But I did not ask her what is going to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry; I am asking her what is different about these two different occasions—in this House, and this morning on radio.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I might be able to assist. The member asked for my opinion. I have given it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is outrageous.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. It is not outrageous. The Minister raises a fair point that she was asked what the difference was, which is seeking her opinion on a matter. She gave her opinion, and that is an answer to that question. There is nothing I can do about that.
Andrew Little: What inquiries has she made about how the email, or a copy of it, made it into the hands of the media, including social media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That matter is a matter for the Privacy Commissioner, and it goes to the heart of the inquiry.
Dr Russel Norman:I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question about—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this point of order.
Dr Russel Norman: That was a question about what inquiries she had made. It was not about what the Privacy Commissioner was up to; it was about her responsibility as a Minister. It was about what inquiries she had made. I would also draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 173/1, which says that a Minister must answer a question “ ‘if it can be given consistently with public interest’.” That was Speaker Wilson’s ruling. If an answer can be given consistent with the public interest, the Minister must give it. This was about her inquiry. She has a responsibility for that.
Mr SPEAKER: What I will do, because I want to make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to pursue a serious matter like this, is let the member repeat his question, so that everyone can hear exactly what he is asking.
Andrew Little: What inquiries has she made about how the email, or a copy of it, made it into the hands of the media, including social media?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Since the Privacy Commissioner is looking into how this email document ended up in the media, I think this goes to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry, and I do not believe it is in the public interest for me to answer that.
Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about the actions of the Minister and the inquiries she made. The responsibility of the Privacy Commissioner is whether or not a complaining individual’s privacy was breached. It has nothing to do with the actions that this Minister has taken with a publicly acknowledged action she has taken in copying this email.
Mr SPEAKER: Clearly, the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation will investigate the actions of the Minister. I have to be careful; I am presuming. But it would be extraordinary if the investigation by the Privacy Commissioner did not investigate the actions of the Minister, and therefore, again, it is not unreasonable for the Minister to claim that to talk about her actions while that investigation is under way is not in the public interest. Again, I am concerned that I do not want to see this argument of it not being in the public interest used to block this House’s ability to hold members of the executive to account. But, at the same time, I think that where we do have an independent inquiry by a statutory authority, I do have to respect that assertion of it not being in the public interest to comment while that inquiry is under way. Once that report is out, members will have a lot of opportunity to ask questions, and questions can be just as effective. One of the member’s colleagues referred to the Ingram report. Most of the questioning happened after that report came out. It was pretty effective.
Charles Chauvel: To which Minister does the Privacy Commissioner report, and to whom is she accountable; and how can this Minister possibly expect the House to believe or accept that the Privacy Commissioner can conduct an independent inquiry into her own Minister’s actions?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Privacy Commissioner reports and is responsible to the Minister of Justice. She has independence under the Privacy Act. I say that it is an extraordinary statement and comment by that member that the Privacy Commissioner cannot be independent. I have to say that is one of the most extraordinary statements, and I suggest he might want to apologise to the commissioner.
Oil and Gas Extraction—Hydraulic Fracturing
4. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will he implement a nationwide moratorium on new fracking wells until the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment can assure the public it is safe?
Gareth Hughes: Would it not make sense to wait for the results of the investigation before allowing new fracking wells to go ahead, given the Minister has said in the media that the investigation “will answer some questions that have been unanswered,”?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It did not make sense to stop using 1080 when the commissioner was looking into the use of 1080. Subsequently, the commissioner found that the use of 1080 was probably sensible. In the same way, it is a bit silly to stop everything just because the Greens want to stop everything. Inquiries are going on.
Gareth Hughes: Why will the Minister not wait for the questions to be answered when the East Coast, Hawke’s Bay, and Horizons regions will be considering their first fracking wells in those regions shortly?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Hydraulic fracturing has been used in New Zealand for well over two decades and appears to have been well managed. That is what I have been advised. We did not stop the use of 1080 when the commissioner was looking at that, so I think the member is getting ahead of himself, in my view, by asking for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, which has been going on for a long time as well.
Gareth Hughes: Given that the Gisborne District Council has admitted it does not have the expertise to regulate fracking, and TAG Oil is pursuing what it itself describes as an aggressive programme there, why will he not implement a nationwide moratorium on new fracking wells until the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment can assure Kiwis it is safe?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Because hydraulic fracturing has been undertaken for well over two decades in Taranaki, successfully, on the face of it, all the information that is put towards me and the expertise in Taranaki from both industry and the regulators, such as the Taranaki Regional Council, and from my officials can certainly be transferred to Gisborne, should that be necessary.
Gareth Hughes: Is the fracking issue different from the 1080 issue, and was there a cusp of a massive expansion of 1080 use at the time of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report into that? Given that we have seen a 170 percent increase in new fracking wells in just the last year alone in New Zealand compared with the last 18 years, and that this Government has permitted 4 million hectares of New Zealand land to be used for fracking, why will he not wait until the results are in?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Hydraulic fracturing is different from the use of 1080. I hope the House understands that. But also hydraulic fracturing—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The man’s a genius!
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Well, I could explain the difference, and actually I am happy to give the member a briefing on the difference between the use of 1080 and hydraulic fracturing, should he approach my staff.
Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know I cannot raise a point of order in respect of flippant answers. But the question was not: “What is the difference between fracking and 1080?”. It was about the situations at the points in time when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was investigating both controversial topics.
Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat his question, because the answer did get a fair way away from the member’s question. I invite him to repeat his question.
Gareth Hughes: Is there a difference between the situation where the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment investigated the use of 1080, and were we then on the cusp of a massive expansion in the use of 1080? Given that with fracking we have seen a 170 increase in new wells in the last year, and that this Government has permitted 4 million hectares of new Kiwi land to be used for fracking, will he wait until the results are in on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s investigation?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have made it clear why we are not going to have a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing while the commissioner investigates this. We will be very interested in her findings and certainly we will take them into account. I draw the comparison between the use of 1080 and hydraulic fracturing in the sense that both are claimed to have significant environmental effects. Both might have significant use. But it would be fair to say that although 1080 use was not on the cusp of significant use throughout New Zealand, it is in fact used very, very widely in New Zealand, and it is hard to see how you could actually increase its use. I accept that the comparison is not exactly apples with apples, but I think I have made my point. We cannot stop everything just because an investigation is in place.
Gareth Hughes: Given that we have seen well blowouts, water contamination, and consents being breached right now in Taranaki, is it not prudent to wait until the results are in so we can answer those questions and make sure we have got regulations and practices to protect our water, to protect our communities, and to protect our health?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Unfortunately, whenever the member has put these claims to the media, to my officials, or even to an independent body such as the Taranaki Regional Council, they have come back with substantial science to say that it is not, in fact, the case. In terms of water contamination, the independent body, Taranaki Regional Council, went to Hill Laboratories, which is independent too, did water testing, and found no effects on water quality. This is the point of the commissioner’s inquiry, and that is why I welcome it. She will be able to determine the difference between fact and science, and fiction and the Green Party.
Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table the Shell Todd Oil Kapuni study from 2007, jointly published by the Taranaki Regional Council and Shell Todd Oil, which showed water contamination from the Kapuni wells.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
- Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table the Cheal Petroleum report from 2011, also jointly published with the Taranaki Regional Council, which showed water contamination from those wells as well.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
- Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Gareth Hughes: Given that the hydrocarbons are not going anywhere, what is the rush to frack them?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member may not have walked along Lambton Quay this morning, but actually there are cars and trucks there and all over the world that are using oil and gas reserves. I believe that the member has used such transport facilities. The reality is there is a world demand for oil and gas. If we can access that oil and gas in New Zealand, sell it, get the royalties and the tax income, build better schools and hospitals, and create jobs, I think we should.
Benefits and Superannuation—2012 Annual General Adjustment
5. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: How will this year’s annual general adjustment provide greater certainty to those receiving benefits and New Zealand Superannuation?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) : This will give greater certainty to more than 1 million New Zealanders who will benefit from this year’s annual general adjustment rate increases on 1 April. This adjustment increases rates of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension; rates and thresholds for main benefits, student allowances, student loan living costs, and the foster care allowance; rates and thresholds for some supplementary assistance; and thresholds for the community services card.
Alfred Ngaro: What effect will this adjustment have on the amount paid to superannuitants?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: From 1 April the married rate of New Zealand superannuation after tax will increase by 2.65 percent, from just over $1,045 per couple per fortnight to $1,073.60. That is an increase of $27.68 per fortnight. It will also mean that over the last 4 years since 1 April 2008 the married rate will have increased by $194 per couple per fortnight. That is an increase of over 22 percent.
Alfred Ngaro: How does this adjustment support those receiving benefits and student allowances?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: As part of our 2008 campaign commitments, National locked in this adjustment into legislation, ensuring it happens every year to give certainty to those who rely on benefits. This means that payments match the increases to that of inflation.
Question No. 6 to Minister
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Does the member wish to ask his question?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.
Mr SPEAKER: He does not. OK.
Rt Hon John Key—Recording of Private Conversation
7. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Did the Police Commissioner or any of his staff inform the Prime Minister or any of his staff of the decision not to prosecute Mr Bradley Ambrose; if so, on what date?
Charles Chauvel: Were the police aware that John Key would be overseas on Tuesday 27 March, the date on which they publicly announced the decision not to prosecute Mr Ambrose?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I was not involved in that conversation. It is an operational matter, and as policing Minister I have no knowledge of that.
Charles Chauvel: Can she assure the House that there is no relationship between the delay in making the decision not to prosecute Mr Bradley Ambrose and the public announcement of that decision on the one hand, and the fact on the other that the complainant is the Prime Minister, and that he would be overseas on the date of the announcement?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The police, who are operationally independent under section 16 of the Policing Act, deal with operational matters on a case by case basis, and exercise their discretion as appropriate. It is absolutely inappropriate for any Minister of Police to take any part in an operational matter.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to be very clear with the Minister that I was asking a question about the connection between a decision not to prosecute, which I accept is an operational matter that is not within her competence, and the public relations matters that were associated with that decision, for which she is responsible to this House. She has not dealt with that issue, at all.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, no, the Minister, if I heard her correctly, said that the Minister’s office is not involved in the decision as to when they make announcements, at all. She made very clear to the House that her office had no involvement in that whatsoever. I have got to take her word for that.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Is this speaking to the point of order?
Charles Chauvel: Yes. My primary question should have put the Minister on notice that I was interested in knowing about the communication decisions that were made about the decision not to prosecute Mr Ambrose and liaison with the complainant about that matter. So, as I say, I am not asking her about the operational prosecution decision; I am asking her about the public relations and the communication with the Prime Minister, for which she is responsible.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has made it clear, unless she wishes to change her answer, that she had no part in that communication decision, at all. That is what I understood the Minister said, and I have got to take the Minister’s word. She answered the question. She said she had no part to play in that whatsoever.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sought an assurance from her that there was no relationship between the communication decision, on the one hand, and the absence of the Prime Minister overseas. I submit—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s question has been answered. He has got more supplementary questions he can use to pursue the matter further, should he want. But in terms of that question he asked, the Minister, I thought, was very clear in answering it. She said that her office had no involvement in the public relations decision, if that is what the member wants to call it—the communication management of the decision made. That is a clear answer and I have got to take her word for that, as the House does.
Kris Faafoi: Given that charges were not laid, does she agree with the Prime Minister’s comment that Mr Ambrose’s actions have been “deemed unlawful”, and if so, why?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Firstly, I have no responsibility for the Prime Minister. Secondly, I always agree with the Prime Minister.
Kris Faafoi: Given that the Prime Minister said, in November last year, that police “do have a little bit of spare time” to investigate the teapot tape, how much did this investigation—done in police spare time—cost the taxpayer?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that that question was asked of the police at the Law and Order Committee and they said they were unable to put a cost on the investigation. However, anyone in this country has a right to make a complaint. The police deal with operational matters, and Ministers do not get involved.
Electricity—Generation from Renewable Sources
8. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What progress has the Government made towards increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewable energy sources in New Zealand?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) : I am pleased to advise that electricity generated from renewable energy sources increased to 77 percent in 2011, up from 74 percent in 2010. The National-led Government is focused on ensuring that renewable electricity generation thrives in New Zealand, and I am pleased to see us well on our way towards achieving our goal of 90 percent renewable generation by 2025.
Jonathan Young: What environmental benefits come from increased renewable electricity generation?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Government is aiming for 90 percent of electricity generation to be from renewable energy sources by 2025, and there are significant environmental benefits from increased levels of renewable generation. These include a reduction in reliance on thermal electricity generation sources and a reduction in electricity generation emissions, leading to a reduced environmental footprint.
Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—Treasury Monitoring of Deposits
9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What written reports did he receive from the Treasury during the 5 months after his appointment as Minister of Finance in late 2008 describing the increases in deposits in finance companies after they entered the Crown guarantee scheme, as referred to in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.5 of the Auditor-General’s performance audit report on the Treasury’s handling of the Crown Retail Deposit Scheme, and what did those reports tell him, if anything, about how much the Crown’s exposure to those financial companies had increased?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Before I address the details of that question, I just want to remind the member that the point of the deposit guarantee scheme, which was set up by the previous Government in 2008, was to protect depositors in extraordinary financial times, and administration of the scheme was delegated to the Secretary to the Treasury. The risk that finance company deposits would increase was recognised by the previous Government when it set up the scheme. Indeed, allowing the institutions to continue lending was one of the scheme’s main aims. In terms of the member’s question, I received no written Treasury reports specifically about the increase in deposits, although I discussed the management of risks associated with the scheme regularly and intensively with Treasury.
Hon David Parker: In the light of the fact that he received no reports during that period to that effect, is he aware that the Auditor-General’s report says: “It took 5 months for the Treasury to begin monitoring”, and that South Canterbury Finance’s deposit base increased by 25 percent in the first 4 months, and it increased its loans, including many new loans capitalising interest—in other words, Ponzi schemes—and second mortgages, all of which increased the risk profile under the guarantee?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not say I received no reports; I said I had received no written reports, but the matters were discussed extensively. As the Auditor-General has already pointed out, in the early stages of the scheme Treasury did not have immediately in place the kinds of arrangements you would expect for the management of such a large liability. But can I also remind the member that in early 2009, now 3 years ago, South Canterbury Finance was regarded as a large, strong, sound finance company, but in hindsight it now appears that its bad lending practices meant that, regardless of the guarantee, it was going to fail because of the impact of the global financial crisis.
Hon David Parker: Has he heard that Treasury’s main excuse for not monitoring finance companies or advising the Minister—and I am not blaming the Minister here—as advised by the Auditor-General to the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday, was that Treasury does not like to intervene in finance markets; and does he agree with the Auditor-General that that does not withstand scrutiny, because the Crown had already intervened through the grant of the guarantee, and should have been guarding against that risk growing unwisely?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have heard that, but we need to bear in mind that the deposit guarantee scheme as set up by the previous Government was correctly focused on protecting the depositors. It was not intended as a means of running the companies. As I said to the member earlier, South Canterbury Finance was regarded as a big, strong successful, soundly run finance company. It actually took most of 2009 for anyone to get enough information about its activities to understand that it was likely to struggle to survive, and matters went on for another 6 or 8 months, with every effort being made to protect the taxpayer by supporting South Canterbury to trade through. As it happened, it could not.
Hon David Parker: Will he support Treasury appearing before the Finance and Expenditure Committee to answer questions about the Auditor-General’s criticism of Treasury’s monitoring and its failures to advise you as Minister, which may have caused $100 million or more extra and avoidable cost to taxpayers?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a matter for the select committee. It is not within the Minister’s purview. However, I would ask the member to consider this issue: that although some people say there should have been more intervention, no one has actually said what that intervention should have been, short of becoming deemed directors of the company and, therefore, essentially taking over the running of it, and that, as I understand it, was never the intention even of the previous Labour Government when it set up the guarantee.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not whether he believed that the Finance and Expenditure Committee should have Treasury in front of it. That is for the Finance and Expenditure Committee. My question was whether he would support Treasury appearing in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to answer the Auditor-General’s criticisms.
Mr SPEAKER: That was, indeed, the question. It would be helpful if the Minister were to answer that, because that was the absolute thrust of the question—whether the Minister would support Treasury appearing in front of the select committee. The Minister made it clear he thought it was the select committee’s responsibility, but the question asked for an opinion—whether the Minister would support it—and some attempt to answer that would be helpful.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not take a view about that. It is hypothetical. The committee will make up its own mind whether it wants to get Treasury in. All public agencies know they are open to parliamentary scrutiny.
Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information
10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: What advice has she received about when ACC Board Chairman John Judge first became aware of the issues that were the subject of the December meeting between senior ACC managers, Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag; and if she hasn’t asked for that advice, why not?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) : That particular meeting that the member is referring to is, I know, the subject of a matter that ACC has referred to the New Zealand Police. However, I can refer the member to the written report from ACC for me that was placed on its website on 16 March this year, and I can read from that. It says: “The client who received the file contacted an ACC Board member to discuss matters pertaining to her specific case. No specific reference was made to the data held or the breach of privacy. As is normal practice the Director referred the matter to the Chairman, who in turn referred the matter to senior ACC management, who confirmed the matter would be dealt with at an operational level.”
Kevin Hague: Has she been briefed on all the correspondence between Ms Pullar and John Judge prior to that December meeting, and what was she told?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I do not know whether I have been, because I do not know what all the correspondence is. I have received some correspondence, which is the ministerial file, which is held in the Minister for ACC’s office. There may well be other correspondence that I have not seen, and therefore have not been briefed on.
Kevin Hague: Does she believe that two senior managers from ACC met with Ms Pullar and Ms Boag on 1 December at a meeting arranged by an ACC board member with the knowledge of the ACC board chair, during which they learnt of serious concerns about ACC processes and risk to the organisation, yet apparently did not then report those concerns to either the chief executive officer or the board chair?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What happened in that meeting is, as I have said, forming part of a matter that ACC has referred to the New Zealand Police. But I do know that it related as well to a massive breach of privacy, and I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate that member, when those same documents were sent to him, on referring them straight back to ACC.
Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know a bit about what the content of that meeting was, but that was not my question. My question is about whether, given what we know about the meeting, how it was set up, and the level of the risk to ACC that was exposed in that meeting, the Minister believes the account that those senior managers reported that to no one.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has been asked for an opinion on that matter, and it would be helpful if the Minister was able to express an opinion without compromising any—I call the Hon Judith Collins.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If I am told a matter by people, then I accept their word, unless I have evidence—real evidence—to the contrary.
Kevin Hague: Given what she now knows of John Judge’s management of all the issues concerning the Pullar case, does he retain her full confidence, and does she believe he should remain chair of ACC?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not know yet, until the investigations have been completed as to who knew what in the Pullar matter. I do have confidence that the board of ACC has done an excellent job around the finances of ACC, but I have on numerous occasions said that I am not yet satisfied that all of the provisions relating to privacy are, in fact, where I would like them to be. That is one of the reasons why ACC is working with the Privacy Commissioner and other independent people to make sure that it gets those processes right.
Grant Robertson: Why did she forward the email from Michelle Boag to John Judge, when she explicitly agreed with Ms Boag that that email would not be forwarded to anyone else?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member’s assumption is quite incorrect.
Housing Affordability—Government Measures to Address
11. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to make housing more affordable?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : The most important action this Government has taken is to manage the economy well during a difficult period. This includes less tax, putting more money in people’s back pockets to pay their mortgage, and a sustained period of low interest rates, making homeownership more affordable for Kiwis. We have also changed the Building Act and the Resource Management Act to remove unnecessary red tape, and we have increased the Welcome Home Loan caps. Since we have been in Government, in fact, 7,500 people have bought their first home using the scheme—a total value of borrowing of $1 billion. That is an awful lot of first-home buying.
Hon Annette King: Is he aware there is now a housing crisis in Christchurch, with agents saying last week that it is impossible to find rental accommodation; if so, how many of the over 600 Housing New Zealand Corporation rental houses currently boarded up, with no decision made to repair or rebuild them, could be made available to help relieve the growing housing problem?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member may not be aware, but there is a red zone in Canterbury where a large number of those 600 houses are. The Government has made it pretty clear, and residents have made it pretty clear, that they want to shift out of them. If she is suggesting that we should leave State house tenants in the red zone, but everyone else gets moved to safety, I do not know where this Labour Party is going.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer was most unnecessary. I did not raise the red zone. I asked about 600 houses, and asked how many of them could be used and made available for people where there is a housing shortage in Christchurch. It did not warrant that answer or attack on the Labour Party, and on what we thought about the red zone.
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I made it clear that many of those houses are in the red zone.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister’s answer, I accept, was somewhat more aggressive perhaps than necessary, but he did indicate that most—he said the majority—of those 600 houses are in the red zone, and that is why they would not be used. The member has the chance to pursue that answer further in further supplementary questions.
Hon Annette King: Has Gerry Brownlee raised with him the problem faced by an 85-year-old Christchurch Housing New Zealand Corporation tenant who has been told to vacate her temporary accommodation on Saturday, with no accommodation offered by Housing New Zealand Corporation, and with her family finding it impossible to even contact the department, and if so, what action has he taken to assist this woman?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It has not taken Gerry Brownlee to tell me of that particular case. I am aware of it, and so is Housing New Zealand Corporation. There is no doubt that there are significant housing issues in Canterbury, but it would be fair to say that over the last 12 months the pressure on Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants—the way that they have been managed, shifted to alternative accommodation—has caused very little political or actual noise at all, and Housing New Zealand Corporation has done an excellent job.
Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the next question, I thought the question asked what was done about this particular case, which the Minister has acknowledged he is familiar with. Given the nature of the Minister’s answer, perhaps he could have said what was being done for this person, since he is familiar with it.
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I was asked whether Gerry Brownlee had told me about it. I started my answer with that, but I am happy to develop the answer if you would like me to.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether Gerry Brownlee had raised it, and what he had done about it if it had been raised. In his answer he said he was aware of it, so he could have told us.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that people interject when they should not—on my right here—when a point of order is being considered. One could technically argue that it is two questions. Had the Minister been absolutely 100 percent helpful in his answering of these supplementary questions, I might have ruled differently, but given the fairly aggressive answers that have been given, I will ask the Minister to provide the further information—what has he done to assist this person?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I had been assured that Housing New Zealand is looking at the case. It looks at many hundreds, if not thousands, of cases. I am not completely up to speed with where that one is at the moment. I think if the member gets permission for me to release the details on that particular woman, perhaps I will look at providing her with a detailed response.
Dr Jian Yang: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding home affordability?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have seen a report as recently as this morning by Massey University’s real estate analysis unit, stating that in the 3 months ended February the national affordability measure has improved even more. According to the report, falling house prices, rising wages, and falling mortgage interest rates have all combined to make housing its most affordable in 8 years.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the said report that the Minister has just mentioned, which goes on to say—
Mr SPEAKER: Which report is this?
Hon Annette King: This is the home affordability report from Massey University. It goes on to say that there is demand causing pressure in the housing market, particularly in Auckland and Christchurch.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
- Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Rino Tirikatene: What reports has he received on affordability and overcrowding in Christchurch—for example, of 11 people crowded into a two-bedroom house, people renting a garage to live in for $160 a week, or the young man sleeping in his car when he is not delivering pizzas, because he cannot afford the rental or find a place to live?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am aware of some of those media reports. I think Opposition members need to realise that, yes, there are housing pressures in Canterbury due to the earthquake, but they should also remember that when we set up temporary accommodation, whether in the form of caravans or the units that are very successful in Kaiapoi and Linwood now, the Opposition parties attacked that and opposed it. They cannot have it both ways.
Hone Harawira: Why did the Government get rid of the rural housing fund, leaving more than 7,000 Tai Tokerau households without the badly needed renovations that had been approved under the fund?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Because we decided to put that amount of money, plus some, into the development of new housing, particularly papakāinga housing on multiple-owned Māori land or other land that Māori and iwi use. That fund has been very successful. We figured that new houses, well insulated and well designed, are much better than patching up roofs that are leaking and rusting, and patching up houses that are uninsulated and rotting, which is what happened under the previous Labour Government.
Hon Annette King: Has he got his priorities right, when he has Housing New Zealand Corporation restructuring its services at a cost of $80 million—
Andrew Little: How much?
Hon Annette King: —$80 million—getting rid of staff, and overspending its transformation project budget by $8 million so far, and when you have a woman in Christchurch who cannot get a house from Housing New Zealand Corporation, and to this moment nothing has been done about it? Where is this better service?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Housing New Zealand Corporation provides almost 70,000 houses across New Zealand. That is 70,000 families—actually, that is 220,000 people. That is a huge commitment. The fact that it is increasing the housing supply in places like Auckland is the right direction. What happened under previous Governments, where you had one person rattling around a four-bedroom house and entertaining gangs in State houses, and all those things are being put behind us. I believe that Housing New Zealand Corporation is heading in the right direction.
Denis O’Rourke: Will the Government regulate the exploding home-rental increases in Christchurch?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I refer the member to the answer in the House by the Hon Gerry Brownlee in recent weeks.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think it is unreasonable to refer a member to an answer in the House in recent weeks. The Minister is the Minister of Housing, he has responsibility for Housing New Zealand Corporation, and I think he should answer the question.
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I do not think he was asking particularly about Housing New Zealand Corporation; I think he was talking about the rental market in general.
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. The question did indeed ask about the general housing market; it did not specify. To sort this matter out I invite Denis O’Rourke to repeat his question, because he should have realised that the Minister is not responsible for the general housing market.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where does it say that this Minister is not responsible for housing practice and building and construction in this country?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Speaking to the point of order—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No. I will hear the Hon Phil Heatley first.
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Can I introduce Winston Peters to the Minister for Building and Construction.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order and stop this nonsense. Someone will be leaving very soon, unless there is silence all around. This nonsense will stop. Of course the Minister is not responsible for markets. I have not cut out the member’s question. I was not happy with the answer the Minister gave; it was not good enough. However, he points out that the question went beyond his responsibilities, so I invite the member to repeat his question, to make it clearly within the Minister’s responsibility, and I expect an answer.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may or may not assist the Minister, but he is the Minister responsible for housing policy.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. It is nothing to do with the Opposition which Minister is responsible for what; that is a Government matter.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have heard the member sufficiently, and as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with the order of this House. I have ruled on the matter, and I will hear Denis O’Rourke’s supplementary question.
Denis O’Rourke: The question was, will the Government regulate the exploding home-rental increases in Christchurch?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: We are not considering that at this time.
Denis O’Rourke: Will the Government do anything about the exploding home-rental increases in Christchurch?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery announced last week that we are providing more temporary accommodation in Christchurch to provide more supply. Clearly, we have got new developments coming on stream, and we believe that supply will help meet demand and will, therefore, drive down rents and house prices. That is what our primary objective is.
Denis O’Rourke: Given that some people forced out of their homes in the red zone in Christchurch cannot afford to buy a replacement home, will the Government provide some form of affordable bridging finance to assist them?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: At the moment there are a number of forms of finance that the Government does supply. Clearly, we are buying people out of housing properties in the red zone, so they can take that cheque and buy elsewhere. I am assured by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that when he reads a newspaper, there are sections and house packages available. We also have the temporary housing villages. We have the accommodation supplement. Those who are seeking rental in Housing New Zealand Corporation properties have the income-related rent supplement. Yes, we are open-minded to any other interventions, but at this stage we believe that our progress so far is sufficient. If we need to ramp up, we will.
Denis O’Rourke: Given the growing gap between accommodation allowances and actual rentals in Christchurch, will the Government review those allowances?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Those particular allowances are a matter for the Minister for Social Development. I believe that they are passed through her department, so it might be best to put that to that Minister.
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress
12. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What progress has the Government made towards enacting deeds of settlement with iwi in legislation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : This morning the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare claims settlement bills and the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill all passed their third readings. After question time we will debate the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. This is a very significant number of Treaty settlements to be progressed, against a historical average of around 1.7 bills per year.
Louise Upston: What has contributed to this progress?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: First, the Government has taken steps to increase the rate at which historical claims negotiations are resolved by the Crown and iwi through better resourcing and taking innovative steps to improve negotiations, and, secondly, there is the support and cooperation of this House in progressing these important bills. Today we have seen members sit during the extended hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. in order to give three bills third readings without having to go into urgency. I am very grateful to all members for their assistance.
Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Kei taku iwi, kua pā mai tēnei hōnore ki a au mai i Minita Finlayson kia ārahina tēnei kaupapa, te pepa tuatahi, mō tā tātau kerēme. Nā reira, e tika ana kia mihi ki a koutou kua tae pai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata. Ā, nā reira, nau mai ki te kaupapa ewhakakotahi ai tātau i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou. Kei te tangi au ki a rātau kua ngaro atu, rātau e mahi ana i te kerēme, me ērā katoa kua tukuna atu e koutou ki te kōpū o te whaea, Papatūānuku. Nā reira, tēnā koutou. Ko Tom Gemmell tētahi. Noho tahi māua i Te Aute, i Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kahungunu i ērā wā, nā, me okioki pai rātau i roto i te Kaihanga. Engari i tēnei wā, ka nui te hari, te koa ki te mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai nei i tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, hara mai rā.
[My people, the honour of leading this matter pertaining to our claims has been bestowed upon me by Minister Finlayson. Therefore, it is appropriate that I greet you for arriving safely at Parliament. Welcome to the occasion that unites us today; greetings. I mourn those we have lost, those who worked on the claims, and all of those you have returned to the womb of mother Earth. And so, greetings. Tom Gemmell was one. We lived together at Te Aute and worked together at Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kahungunu, and so may they rest in peace with the Creator. Nonetheless, at this moment I am delighted to greet you for coming here today. Thank you and welcome.]
Although I was unable to participate in the policy decisions about the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement, due to a declared conflict of interest, it is with great pleasure that I stand to speak today in the third reading of this bill, the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. I stand to acknowledge the children of Tamatea Arikinui mai Tawhiti, Tureia, Te Huki, Puruaute. I pay tribute to those who have travelled from the brow of the sacred mountain, Tāwhiwhirangi, from the ancestral waters of Mōhaka. I also pay tribute to those who for years also travelled from the lands of our tipuna Te Kahu o Te Rangi, bearing the grievances and aspirations of Ngāti Pāhauwera. Those who have passed live on in our history, live on in our people, and, most important today, live on in New Zealand law. I remember today Wikitōria Hāpeta, Aerial Aranui, Te Awhi Winiata, Raymond Joe—my cousin—Charlie Hirini, George Hawkins, Reay Paku, and Tom Gemmell.
Tangitū ki te moana
Maungaharuru ki uta
Mōhaka te awa
Ko Ngāti Pāhauwera te iwi.
This whakataukī describes the essence of Ngāti Pāhauwera from the mountains to the sea, from the river to the iwi. Maungaharuru forest lands provide food and resources; Tangitū, our coastal territory and fisheries. The Mōhaka River’s spiritual, cultural, and economic value to the people of Pāhauwera is immeasurable.
Te tapu o Irakewa.
Mōhaka te waiora.
Made sacred by Irakewa.
Mōhaka the unifier.
Mōhaka the life-giver.
The people of Pāhauwera comprise a confederation of hapū centred around Mōhaka on the eastern coast of Te Ika-a-Māui. Ngāti Pāhauwera stretches from the Ōhinepaka Stream south of Wairoa to the Waikari River, inland to the Maungaharuru Ranges, and north to the Waiau River. In 1994 the Māori Land Court appointed eight people to represent Ngāti Pāhauwera under section 30 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 for the prosecution and settlement of the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty claims against the Crown. On 8 May 2008 the Crown and the section 30 representatives signed terms of negotiation in Wellington. On 30 September 2008 the Crown and Ngāti Pāhauwera signed an agreement in principle, which covered the foreshore and seabed interests of Ngāti Pāhauwera, as well as their historical Treaty claims. Tom Gemmell, one of the leading forces behind the Pāhauwera claim, died just weeks after signing that agreement in principle. Moe mai e te rangatira e te hoa. [Rest there, the leader and the friend.]
On 5 November 2010 Ngāti Pāhauwera presented a deed of settlement detailing the historical Treaty settlement aspects of this agreement to their people. The deed received overwhelming support from the Ngāti Pāhauwera people, and was ratified and signed on 17 December at Mōhaka. Ngāti Pāhauwera were represented in their negotiations by the trustees of the Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust, which took over responsibility from the section 30 representatives.
The final reading of this bill today marks the fruition of many years of hard work. I would like to commend, in particular, the current and former trustees of the Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust—Toro Waaka, Kuki Green, Charles Lambert, Gerald Aranui, Sissiel Henderson, Arthur Gemmell, Tūreiti Moxon, and Tānia Hodges—for all their hard work and diligence, which has resulted in a very strong settlement. Ngāti Pāhauwera walked a long path to reach this point and can be proud of what they have negotiated—ī-hā!
I am pleased the settlement acknowledges Ngāti Pāhauwera’s relationship with their whenua, as well as their relationship with their awa and moana. I believe that this settlement will support the healing of the relationship between Ngāti Pāhauwera and the Crown. I hope that the apology, which forms part of the settlement, will also assist with this healing. Ngāti Pāhauwera acknowledge that the Crown’s apology represents its commitment to build a positive relationship with Ngāti Pāhauwera and to honour its obligations under the Treaty, for the good of this and future generations. The settlement will be a key step in allowing the iwi to move forward economically and culturally. The financial redress will provide Ngāti Pāhauwera with an ability to focus on and develop their future. Today we are celebrating the beginning of a new relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Pāhauwera. Ngāti Pāhauwera is demonstrating a spirit of cooperation and generosity in the relationship, by gifting back to all people of New Zealand much of Te Heru o Tūreia. I hope that the Crown is a worthy partner in this new relationship. I also hope that the people of Ngāti Pāhauwera benefit from an ongoing relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Pāhauwera as Treaty partners.
Nā reira koutou mā, mōhio ana au i te mamae o tēnei mahi whakatakoto kerēme, whakawhiti kōrero i te Karauna, ērā āhuatanga katoa. Ngā mea kua mate i tērā wā tae noa ki tēnei rangi, nā reira, ka nui ngā mihi ki a koutou kua tae ki tēnei rangi. Ahakoa kua oti ngā mahi mō tēnei kerēme, he wā hōu mō tō tātou iwi. He tīmatanga kia pakari ai tō tātou iwi, kia whakatōkia ngā whakaaro ātaahua, kia puāwai tō tātau iwi. Mehemea kei roto i te ōhanga, mehemea kei roto i te kotahitanga o ngā hapū, mehemea kia noho pakari ai i roto i ngā tikanga o Ngāti Pāhauwera, o Ngāti Kahungungu. Nā reira, kāre e roa aku kōrero ki a koutou, heoi anō, kei konei au, te kaikōrero tuatahi ki te mihi atu ki a koutou i tēnei rā, ki te tautoko i tēnei mahi, tēnei kerēme kua oti pai i a koutou.
[I know the hurt associated with the Treaty claims process, holding discussions with the Crown, and those sorts of things. People have died during that period until this day, and so I congratulate you for coming today. Although the work pertaining to this claim is complete, it is a new era for our tribe. It is a start so that our people can be strong and be able to institute fascinating ideas for our tribe to flourish, be it in the economy, the collaboration of subtribes, or a robust set of protocols for Ngāti Pāhauwera and Ngāti Kahungunu. My address to you is about finished, so here I am, the first speaker to acknowledge you today and to endorse this role and this claim, which you have completed well.]
I am pleased and honoured to be here today to mark this momentous occasion, and support the final reading of this bill.
Ko Tāwhirirangi te maunga
Ko Mōhaka te awa
Ko Kahuoterangi te tangata
Ko Ngāti Pāhauwera te iwi.
[Tāwhirirangi is the mountain, Mōhaka is the river, Kahuoterangi is the chief, and Ngāti Pāhauwera is the tribe.]
I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : Tēnā koe. Ki a koutou o Pāhauwera e tae tahi, e tae kaha atu i konei i te wāhi o te Whare Mīere, e mihi kau ana i a koutou. Ngā mea pakeke, Haami, koutou katoa, ngā kuia, ngā koroua, e mihi kau ana. Tēnā koutou mō tō kaha rawa e tae ana, e peka ana i konei, hei rongo ki te kōrero o tātau e mahi atu pērā i tō tātau Minita Māori. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.
Nā te pai o te rangi nei, ko tēnei te tīmata o te otinga mō koutou. Ahakoa te roaroa haere o te whakaae, kua whakaae atu koutou, kua tae atu i konei i te manaaki atu. Mō rātau e rere atu, pērā i a te whaea a Sophie, a Tom, a rātau mā, e tangi hoki te ngākau. Ēngari, nā te pai hoki kei te ora kaha atu te āhua o Pāhauwera. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.
Mō te koroua a Charlie King kāre au e kite, e mihi kau ana. Ahakoa te tangata o Nanaia, e mihi atu ki a Charlie, ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou. Ā, tēnā koe e te Minita, e Chris, e pai ana i tae atu tātau i konei hei oti pai tēnei. He tino take atu tēnei tō tātau Minita a Pita, mō rātau o tērā wāhi.
He tika atu ngā kōrero mō te pakanga, e ngaro atu te whenua, e tangohia atu tō rātau wāhi a te Kāwana, e te mahi taurekareka ki a rātau. Ahakoa i ngā wāhi o Te Heru o Tūreia, i te wāhi o Mōhaka, te wāhi o Raupunga, i reira kē e mahi atu ngā mahi. Nō reira, e pai ana e tae atu tātau i konei. Ahakoa e tū kaha atu ngā maunga i reira, tō rātau awa o Mōhaka, he tino rekareka atu i te tae atu tātau i konei mō tēnei otinga.
[Thank you. I wish to acknowledge Ngāti Pāhauwera, who have come here as one to the Beehive. To the elders, including Haami, greetings. I congratulate you on your strength in coming here to listen to those of us like the Minister of Māori Affairs. And so I salute you.
Because it is a beautiful day, this is the beginning of the end of the process for you. Although the process took a long time, you have given your consent and are here to take care of the matter. I mourn those who have passed away, such as Sophie and Tom. But it is wonderful that the nature of Ngāti Pāhauwera is clearly felt. And so I thank you.
I wish to greet the elder Charlie King, whom I cannot see here. Although he is Nanaia’s man, I congratulate Charlie and all of you. Thank you. I want to congratulate the Minister, Chris; it is great that we are completing this bill. This is an important matter to our Minister Pita, and to those from that area.
The stories about the wars are correct: their land was taken by the Crown through its despicable actions. Whether it was at places like Te Heru o Tūreia, Mōhaka, or Raupunga, it was doing its work. Therefore it is good that we are here. Although their mountains and river Mōhaka stand proudly, it is delightful that we are here for the completion of this bill. ]
I want to mihi to the negotiators, to Toro Waaka and co.—and it is no good naming them all, because I think a whole lot of them have been negotiating up there—and to the negotiating team. If you start naming people, you will leave somebody out, so kia ora to the negotiating team. It is important to acknowledge that during the course of the negotiations, Ngāti Pāhauwera made allowances for delays in the negotiations while the Crown worked through policy issues around the co-management of natural resources, including rivers. They put a lot of effort into parking up until the Crown had its act together, and that needs to be recognised. The negotiations were unique in that, at the outset, the Crown and Ngāti Pāhauwera sought to address both the historical Treaty claims and the foreshore and seabed interests of Ngāti Pāhauwera in a single negotiation. As that legislation was realigned, that was pulled out and they continued with the settlement today.
The basis of the claims is very telling. It is about the failure to ensure that Ngāti Pāhauwera retained sufficient lands for its future needs through land purchases and confiscations in the Ngāti Pāhauwera rohe, successive pieces of native land legislation, and the actions of the Native Land Court. There is some special, unique redress in this settlement for Ngāti Pāhauwera. The effects of war following military conflict with Paimarirein the Napier area in 1866 saw the Crown confiscating all Māori land between the Waikari and Esk Rivers. This included lands in which Ngāti Pāhauwera held interests, even though they had fought alongside the Crown forces. So they did not get thanked very much. I am glad, Minister Finlayson, that today we are making this special effort to ensure that that is recognised.
The special, unique redress needs to be mentioned, and it is about the transfer and gift back of the Te Heru o Tūreia conservation area, subject to 168 hectares of land around the summit of Te Heru o Tūreia and 52 hectares alongside the Mōhaka River. Hāngī stones cannot be extracted—I read a very interesting point about these hāngī stones—from the Mōhaka or Te Hoe Rivers without Ngāti Pāhauwera consent. It is fascinating that we have put a lot of effort into that.
I hope as you go along in relation to co-management with the conservation order that those issues relevant to metal extraction are truly discussed, and that the benefits and the costs of those metals are something that they get a fair whack out of, because they have been getting a pittance or nothing at all. We all know the value of shingle and metal at the moment. That we are importing steel parts from overseas to make up the road structures in place of metal is something that fascinates me. I hope that these negotiators and the Crown team are very clear on the value of that metal that may be extracted.
Ngāti Pāhauwera have the right to nominate members of any special tribunal to hear and report on applications in relation to the Mōhaka River water conservation order, or make a new water conservation order in relation to the Mōhaka River or its tributaries. That allocation is quite important in the sense of the water issue that is starting to rise up—dare I mention it now—and I hope that we are serious and clear about what their rights are in relation to that water.
The unique redress also recognises that Ngāti Pāhauwera and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council have agreed to enter into an agreement about gravel extraction from the Mōhaka River. This, I think, Minister, is something that we have to labour on—excuse the pun—because there are these partnerships already in place in some of the other settlements, and I am not too sure whether they are listening to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I hope we are clear and we are sure about making sure that they have an equal say at least with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and that they come to agreement about who does the extraction, when, why, what for, and, of course—I know this is being pragmatic—the return on it, because I think that more than the timber and the forestry and everything else, gravel is going to be a high-priced commodity.
In the standard redress, the protocols and letters of introduction to Ministers and local authorities—that is lined up over here—again, like the Ruapani paepae, the Ministers and iwi paepae, get together, and are supposed to meet yearly. I think it is already starting to fail. I would hope that you would keep an eye on that, Minister, and make sure that it does happen. It is too easy for people to say: “Yep, we have got a charter with you. Yep, we have got an agreement, and we don’t want to go and see you Māoris down Mōhaka or wherever.”
The $20 million includes the value of the Mōhaka Crown forest licensed lands, and it needs to be noted that the accumulated rentals will also transfer. Thirteen properties are to be transferred as commercial redress, including the Mōhaka Forest, Rāwhiti Station, and five surplus Wairoa District Council properties. Sixteen sites are to be vested in Ngāti Pāhauwera as cultural redress.
These are two great places: Raupunga and Mōhaka. You know, they have some special characteristics. They have got a whole lot of kids who can play the saxophone. I listened to them on Saturday—11 of them. I do not think there is anywhere else in the world where they have got 11 kids who can play the saxophone. There are some young fellas who live with their grandfather who still catch kahawai like the grandfather used to catch them. They were kind people, and they have got a very interesting whare down in Mōhaka, have they not? Rino reckons he used to go there a lot of times and have big feeds down there in Mōhaka.
Certainly, I want to remember those people who have passed on. Sophie Keefe was an old battler. She used to tell me that the thing with the Pāhauwera people is that you have got to be careful, because sometimes when they are saying yes they mean no, and sometimes when they are saying no they mean yes. It sounds like other people.
I am glad of the challenge being settled, but I would like to say to the Ngāti Pāhauwera people and to our Minister of Māori Affairs, quite simply, that the whare still sits there unfinished. It is great that this journey of settlement happens today. I am not saying you should use the settlement money to finish it, Minister, but I am looking at you—and the other Minister, because he is the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. Sophie Keefe would be very happy, and so would a whole lot of other people, if it was finished, because it is not finished, for whatever reason, whatever matter. I want it registered in the House that I said that to you—both of you.
Tēnei anō te mihi i roto i āku. E mihi kau ana i a koutou, kia pai tō hoki ki te kāinga, kaua koe e noho roaroa atu i te wāhi nei. Rorirori te haere o wētahi, mahi atu i ngā mahi i konei. Hoki kaha atu i te kāinga. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau, kia kaha.
[I wish to congratulate you again. I thank you. Travel home safely and do not stay away from here too long. Some who do the work here do crazy things. Be strong as you return home. So congratulations to you collectively and to us as well; be strong.]
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I too acknowledge the people of Ngāti Pāhauwera and welcome those who have travelled from the Hawke’s Bay and are here in the gallery to listen to this the third reading of their claims settlement bill, the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge those who have worked so hard to make this day possible, and I join in what Mr Horomia said about what kind people they are—generous in spirit. My first meeting with them was to tell the trustees that there was to be a review of the foreshore and seabed legislation, so that part of the negotiations would be on hold, and there was to be a review of river arrangements, and that part of the negotiation was to be on hold. But I think they would agree with me that the new Hawke’s Bay model is going to work very well, and I acknowledge the work they did with Fran Wilde and with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to put those new mechanisms in place.
In their dealings with the Crown the trustees have been gracious. They have conducted themselves with great honour and dignity throughout all negotiations, and I place on record how much I enjoyed working with them. I am very, very pleased that many are here today to witness this third reading so that their Treaty settlement can pass into law.
This bill settles the Treaty grievances of Ngāti Pāhauwera. In this bill the Crown acknowledges its breaches of the Treaty, offers an apology to Ngāti Pāhauwera, and provides for cultural, financial, and commercial redress. The passage of the bill marks a historic point in time, a point where the Crown and the iwi stand together as the Crown takes responsibility for its past actions and omissions, some of which I want to refer to now. During the process of land alienation that began in the 1850s the Crown failed to make sure that Ngāti Pāhauwera had sufficient lands for its future needs. By the mid 20th century Ngāti Pāhauwera was virtually landless, and ever since they have suffered economic, social, and cultural impoverishment.
During the New Zealand Wars Ngāti Pāhauwera communities at Mōhaka were left virtually defenceless because their warriors were away with the Crown’s forces. The Crown ignored warnings of a possible attack on communities at Mōhaka. When the attack occurred the Crown provided minimal assistance to help Ngāti Pāhauwera recover from the attack on their pā and kāinga.
There is a detailed apology in the deed of settlement, and I hope that very soon I will be able to travel to Mōhaka to formally read that apology out. The deed of settlement also records that Ngāti Pāhauwera acknowledge that the Crown’s apology represents its commitment to build a positive relationship with Ngāti Pāhauwera and to honour its obligations under the Treaty for the good of this and future generations. So they accept the apology offered by the Crown, and look forward to building a positive relationship with the Crown.
Ngāti Pāhauwera has travelled a long but rather different road than is usual to have their claims addressed by the Crown. In 1994 the Māori Land Court made an order appointing eight people to represent the iwi in the prosecution and settlement of their Treaty claims against the Crown. The tribunal reported on the historical claims of Ngāti Pāhauwera in 1992, with the great Mōhaka River Report, and in 2004, with the Mohaka ki Ahuriri Report 2004. In May 2008 terms of negotiation were signed for a combined negotiation of their Treaty of Waitangi claims and their foreshore and seabed interests. An agreement in principle setting out the broad components of the Crown’s settlement offer was signed on 30 September 2008.
Since then the trustees and the Crown have negotiated very intensively. A draft deed of settlement to settle the claims was ready for ratification on 4 November 2010. An overwhelming 99 percent of those who voted in the ratification of the deed endorsed the work of the negotiators in approving the deed of settlement. On that wonderful day, 17 December 2010, Ngāti Pāhauwera and I signed the deed of settlement at Mōhaka. I was very pleased that Mr Horomia was there to support me. It was a very special occasion for all those who attended.
This bill gives effect to the agreement to a final settlement of all historical claims of Ngāti Pāhauwera. Its provisions enable cultural redress to be provided to the iwi, including, as Mr Horomia said, the vesting of Te Heru o Tūreia in Ngāti Pāhauwera and the subsequent gift of a major portion of the area to the people of New Zealand as a historic reserve, and the retention by Ngāti Pāhauwera of Nakunaku as a historic reserve and, subject to a conservation covenant, Te Heru o Tūreia. There is the vesting of 14 other cultural redress sites. There is provision for Ngāti Pāhauwera to be involved in managing the taking of hāngī stones from the Mōhaka River, and a statutory acknowledgment over the relevant part of the Earthquake Slip Conservation Area.
The bill provides for some aspects of commercial redress: financial redress of $20 million, authorising the transfer of five former Wairoa District Council properties to the iwi, the purchase of licensed land within the Mōhaka Forest, and a right of first refusal over Crown land in a designated area. As Ministers are compelled to say every time a settlement bill is debated in this place, the redress provided can never fully compensate for the loss of life, land, and opportunity. I trust that the agreement reached with Ngāti Pāhauwera, which is embodied in this bill, will enhance the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Pāhauwera into the future.
The enactment of this settlement is a historic milestone. It is a very important step in this country’s progress towards settling historical Treaty claims. I know that you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and all members of the House are increasingly aware of the large volume of bills proceeding through the House at various stages. For example, four other Treaty bills are being read for a third time today. All these bills represent significant progress, and, in different ways, the resolution of complex and longstanding Treaty claims. I acknowledge the work continuing all around the country to achieve Treaty settlements.
There are many people who have contributed to this settlement over the years. I acknowledge the contributions of my predecessor the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, as well as those of the Hon Mr Horomia, who signed the agreement in principle with Ngāti Pāhauwera in 2008, and is always such a good person to chat through issues as they arise. I acknowledge my Ministerial colleagues, in particular the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister for Land Information.
I wish to acknowledge the valuable support and contribution made through the work of many Government departments and officials who contributed to this settlement. I have already mentioned the great contribution of Fran Wilde, my negotiator, who thoroughly enjoyed working with Ngāti Pāhauwera. I know she would very much want to be present today, but her work as chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council has taken her out of town, I think.
Most important, I want to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of Ngāti Pāhauwera, and particularly those who negotiated this settlement, and to thank them for their dedication on behalf of their iwi. It has been absolutely vital in the path towards settlement. I know that this claim has dominated their lives, and negotiating this settlement has come at tremendous personal cost. I do not think many New Zealanders really understand the sacrifices made by leaders such as these on behalf of their people, and I commend them for their commitment. But our business is not yet concluded. I know that Ngāti Pāhauwera want very much to talk to me about the marine and coastal area in the near future, and I want to tell them that I am looking forward to this negotiation.
In conclusion, I wish all the best for Ngāti Pāhauwera—their elders, their descendants, their negotiating team, and their trustees—and wish them all the very best for the future.
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : Ā, kāti e te Kaihautū o te Whare, tēnā koe. Huri rawa atu ki ēnei o ō tātau manuhiri kua tatū mai ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, kua tomo mai ki te ana o te raiona, kua tae mai ki te mātakitaki i ō koutou huānga, ngā kanohi Māori, ngā kaitōrangapū Māori, e whakawerawera nei me pēhea rānei ka kitea he rongoā e murua ai ngā nawe i tukua mai ki a tātau mai i te taenga mai o ngā Pākehā me ō rātau pakanga ki ō tātau mātua Māori. I tēnei rangi ko koutou kua tatū mai ki te tuku i ngā whakaaro i taimaha ai tātau te Māori, kia rere, kia uru mai ai tētahi whakaaro hōu, e hou tonu ai ki roto i te hinengaro, te ngākau me te wairua o ō tātau tamariki ā tōna wā. Hei ā rātau ngā taonga e kōrerongia ake nei e tātau, ahakoa kei te kapu o te ringa kaumātua i tēnei rā, ā tōna wā mā rātau e whakatinana. Nā reira, nau mai, piki mai, kake mai. Tēnā koutou katoa.
[Well, then, Mr Speaker of the House, thank you. I turn now to these of our visitors who have arrived here in Wellington, into the lion’s den, to watch their relations, Māori representatives, and politicians sweating over how, indeed, solutions will be found to take away grievances handed down to us since the arrival of Pākehās and their wars inflicted upon our Māori parents. Today you are the ones who have landed here to give us your thoughts as to why we as Māori have been weighed down and, in doing that, allow it to fly away and let in fresh ideas that will become entrenched in the mind, hearts, and spirits of our children, who will in the future take over resources that we are talking about but are in the hands of the old people today. They will implement these when they take over in the future. Therefore, welcome, clamber aboard, mount up. Greetings to you all.]
As I have said in Māori, I acknowledge the presence of the members of Ngāti Pāhauwera and their leaders. I am taking a slightly different tack from the one I took in my speech in dealing with Ngāti Maniapoto, because, as I predicted, I mentioned two men and no women, so I suffered a very severe censuring outside. So I welcome them in their uniform strength, and I welcome them as someone who comes from an area in New Zealand that has yet to experience the full range of emotions that one goes through from having a long, protracted settlement exercise and finally getting to this point—that is, consummation, with the passage of the legislation, the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. We from the north look forward to that experience.
I want to remind those of us who are in the House how far we have come. It is important that we recite some of the names of the people related to this whānau today. Indeed, I remember in the late 1970s attending Māori Council meetings in the esteemed old Māori affairs select committee room, and seeing such people as Charles Mohi, Timi Kara, Turi Kara Te Huata, and a host of other whānau from this part. They have gone on, and oh but that they were here today to witness this Parliament providing an opportunity for the expression of culture, providing an opportunity for an apology to be made, and passing a special piece of legislation that moves on from the old paternalistic trust board model that afflicted a lot of the Māori tribes.
During the Second World War attempts were made to resolve land grievances. There was the Myers Commission in my area, and we see here in an earlier time a reference to the Stout and Ngata exercise. In fairness to the people of that time, without having to pay too much or do too much, they were trying to get away with a lot, but that was the spirit of that time. And as the Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said, this current generation of taxpayers can never fully meet the burden, if it was to be fully monetarily tabulated, of this bout of alienation, etc.
But what we do here today is pass legislation strengthening the status of this group of tangata whenua and also endowing back into their ownership, either in actual asset title or other interests such as reflected in statutory instruments so that the management of catchment, the management of rivers, and the improvement of the environment do not take place in spite of their existence but because of who they are and the contributions, credible at an economic, social, and cultural level, of this group of New Zealanders, the tangata whenua of Mōhaka—Ngāti Pāhauwera. That is something to celebrate. There may have been elements in the last Parliament that were not too keen on it. Suffice to say they now have new jobs.
I would like to remind everyone that there are challenges in these settlements, because they are often happening in parts of Aotearoa where the economy is not strong. Many of their relations are, at the moment, it has been reported to us by Parekura Horomia, having a hang of a time at that Wairoa freezing works. For those of you who come from Te Wāhanga Whare Patu Mīti, from that particular background in the freezing works, etc., as Parekura has no doubt reported to you, and as we report back to you, we stand alongside with you. We do not want to see, in those parts of New Zealand, our people made increasingly irrelevant so the only option they have is to disappear to Australia, and our maraes get lonely and our mokopuna grow up as Aussies or “Mozzies”, not New Zealand - based Māori.
That actually increases the difficulty of the task of turning these settlements into a permanent legacy that generates wealth and income, certainly if it is a part of Aotearoa where there are big economic challenges. I can say this without a sliver of doubt, because I come from such an area in the very far north, so all power to the stewards, to the governors, and to the supporters. There will always be differences of opinion. There will always be the challenges, etc., but, unfortunately, that defines us at a very deep level as to who we are as Māori.
The other thing I have said in earlier speeches is about the centrality of rivers, because rivers remind us about the difficulty of environmental management, and they remind us that as we go forward and try to grow the size of our economy we are going to rely more and more on water. As we rely on water, that is going to throw up a new debate as to how can we manage water in such a way that people who are not as judicious in their use of water suffer a penalty and those who are clever in their use of water suffer a benefit.
It may come to pass that a future Government wants to introduce a raft of rights to do with water. Well, I say in this House today that the moment that happens we will see a new bout of Māori negotiations, because Māori business, where it is to do with natural resources, is never over. Treaty business, where it is to do with natural resources—that bottle has been uncorked—is never over, but it can be dealt with if it is dealt with very openly, in goodwill on both sides. After all, rain falls from God in equal distribution upon saint and sinner. I see that when I think of rivers as a new challenge coming for tira—groups—such as this one, and other Māori groups, etc.
It may not be in the time of a number of us as parliamentarians, but, unfortunately, once scarcity meets industry—and water is the resource that people pursue—rest assured an allocation debate will take place. Māori will be involved in that allocation debate. The final shape and form that the Māori presence takes in a water allocation debate, that is for the future, but do not for a moment think that it is going to be written out of the script, like, as I said, some angry farmer on a regional council wanting to dismiss the local Māoris. Unfortunately for him, his grandchildren could be marrying one.
We stand and support the sitting member, Parekura Horomia; support Dr Sharples, who is closely related to this group; and support the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and we and think of the people who have made their own contributions to these groups. After all, it was only in 1975 that we had the passage of the Treaty of Waitangi legislation, and it drifted for a while, but over the last 5 years it has certainly gathered a great deal of pace. No one on this side of the House wants to see that pace slow. I am disappointed the Greens have a different view. Fortunately, the influence of their view is proportionately related to the size of their numbers in this House.
We wish them well, and we wish well those who have taken a responsibility to steer the waka forward. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To you, the visitors, and all of you of Ngāti Pāhauwera, I acknowledge you greatly. Salutations.]
I am pleased to stand on behalf of the Greens to express our support for the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. Contrary to what my esteemed colleague has just said, we are by no means interested in delaying the progress of any settlement legislation, but we are entirely unwilling to sacrifice fairness or justice for speed. That is our position and I thank the member for giving me an opportunity to restate it.
We acknowledge the very long road, the very considerable hardship and loss that have been suffered by Ngāti Pāhauwera over many, many years. We acknowledge their leaders, past and present, whose work, whose determination, and whose perseverance have brought them to this place, to this point, if not of resolution, at least a considerable step towards that final resolution.
Sadly, reading the history—the background to this settlement bill and the history of Ngāti Pāhauwera—is all too familiar. It is a story of people who in the turbulent times in this country, in the mid 19th century, were obliged to participate in wars and conflict not of their making, and to their considerable loss. They lost not only their homes and resources; they lost their friends, their whānau. It was a bad time in this country. We saw the destruction of social and economic as well as physical resources and systems; the structures that supported and had supported those people over many centuries were destroyed, and it is only now, over 100 years later, that we seek to see those structures rebuilt in a way that meets the needs and the aspirations of the people who will benefit from these settlements.
Mr Horomia has already made the point that the bill records that following hostilities in 1866 there was a raupatu, a confiscation, of all land between the Esk River and the Waikare River. Some of the whānau and hapū who lost land in that raupatu were, indeed, the same people who had stood alongside the Crown. It was, indeed, a very shabby reward for their loyalty, for their support, and for their commitment to that particular side in the battles of the day. There was a loss of land and there was an ongoing loss of well-being for those people. Indeed, even after the shooting stopped, again, in too common a story, the Native Land Court and other agencies of the Crown continued to nibble away at their resources, at their possessions, and at the rights and their well-being. It is only now that we seek to amend that loss, to make good that loss, and to provide some means, some wherewithal, for a rebuilding to begin.
It was my pleasure as recently as last Sunday to travel through some of the land that is affected by this settlement. I travelled from Gisborne through the Hawke’s Bay, through the Wairarapa, and back here to Wellington. In the course of that journey there are many stunning views. There are some very beautiful landscapes. I am hard-pressed to think of a more dramatic, more memorable landscape than that around the Mōhaka River—those incredible vertical cliffs dropping to the river; it is extraordinarily rich in scenery and rich in natural beauty. Unfortunately that richness is not reflected in the well-being of many of the communities who live in that area. We know that as recently as 2001 an assessment of the people living in the Mōhaka-Raupunga area found that those people were living at the lowest level according to the New Zealand index of deprivation. I daresay that is a great crime, in fact; it is a great misfortune, a great shame, that people living in such a diverse and potentially rich part of the country have been reduced to such a condition. The economic, social, and cultural well-being has been stripped away over many years by the process of colonisation, and it is a real and genuine privilege to be able to make a very small contribution to the making good, to the amends that are now beginning to be made for that.
Ngāti Pāhauwera, under the provisions of this bill, will gain some co-management rights to the Mōhaka River and to the Waihua and Waikari rivers. There will be a co-management process in place, and that is a good thing. It may not entirely meet the aspirations of those people, those kaitiaki who may have preferred even more control and authority over the rivers and the future use of them. But it is a significant step and is not to be undervalued. I am sure that Ngāti Pāhauwera will be very active, very committed partners in seeing to the restoration of the river, the future care and utility of the water in it, and the management of those taonga tukunga iho.
With this co-management, the resolution that is being acknowledged and passed today is a considerable step towards an ultimate resolution that will genuinely honour the spirit of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is a step towards enabling genuine exercise of tino rangatiratanga in this area we are speaking to specifically and in the country generally. It remains only for me again to wish Ngāti Pāhauwera every success as they utilise what has been given back to them, as I am sure they will, to build a much more positive future for themselves and for their descendants. We wish them well in that endeavour. Kia ora koutou.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : I am pleased to take my second call in the House today to speak on one of the Treaty settlement claim bills that we have before us, this one being the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. I wish to start, as many other speakers have, by acknowledging the people here today from Ngāti Pāhauwera—the kaumātua, the kuia, the people who have fought for many years for redress of the wrongs of the past, who have been through a battle through the days of the past to seek rights to correct the wrongs of the past. It is good to see them here today. I am pleased that this House is considering another Treaty bill—one of the 22 deeds of settlement that have been signed since 2008 by the Hon Chris Finlayson. It is great that we are considering so many of these historical issues today, because they are important issues for many people in this country. As a nation, as we mature, we have to recognise that significant wrongs were committed, and we have to make sure that, going forward, we acknowledge those. We put in place measures to compensate for those issues, and we acknowledge that the Crown has not always done right by the people of New Zealand.
Reading through the deed of settlement, there are some alarming facts in there, but it is good that those facts are being acknowledged as wrongs of the past—things like early land transactions that led to thousands and thousands of hectares of land being lost by Ngāti Pāhauwera. There were the effects of the wars in the past, where we saw dozens and dozens of Ngāti Pāhauwera men, women, and children killed during attacks on Mōhaka, and the lack of assistance by the Crown to help Ngāti Pāhauwera recover. We saw the economic and social consequences of that lack of action by the Crown, which has affected Ngāti Pāhauwera. We have seen the Crown, which has received assistance from Ngāti Pāhauwera in the past, not fulfilling its own obligations back to Ngāti Pāhauwera. One of the most significant things in any Treaty settlement is the Crown apology, and it is good to see that that Crown apology exists for this Treaty settlement, as it has for all other Treaty settlements. It is also pleasing to see that Ngāti Pāhauwera has accepted that apology from the Crown, because not until the two parties both, one, apologise, and, the other, accept that apology, can we move forward.
I know from my time in local government and dealing with certain iwi in my own particular area that one of the most significant things for any Māori people is not necessarily the financial redress that comes through a Treaty settlement; it is also the recognition of cultural wrongs of the past and also the loss of land. I am pleased to see that Ngāti Pāhauwera will be receiving and subsequently gifting back to the people of New Zealand a large portion of Te Heru o Tūreia conservation area. It is very generous of Ngāti Pāhauwera to gift that back to the people of New Zealand, and I say thank you to them for that.
On the website of Ngāti Pāhauwera they make a very significant comment—it is a saying, I would suggest. It goes like this: “As Old Father Thames is to the Londoner, as the Ganges is sacred to the Indian, as the Jordan is spiritual to the Palestines, so is the Mohaka all these things to Ngati Pahauwera.” The fact that this bill addresses provisions for Ngāti Pāhauwera in relation to Mōhaka is also a very good thing. I hope that, going forward, the issues that have been addressed in this Treaty settlement, and the provisions that the Crown is making towards Ngāti Pāhauwera, help Ngāti Pāhauwera succeed for many years to come in the future, and I wish them the best of luck.
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) : Te Kaihautū o te Whare, tēnā koe. Ladies and gentlemen, children, whānau, dear friends, and people of New Zealand, we have heard today about the lengthy process that iwi have undertaken to get to this House to hear the third and final reading of their settlement, the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, and move beyond grievances that have plagued their whānau for generations. Ngāti Pāhauwera have endured a process no less arduous than other iwi, and I would like to acknowledge those who are here today and those who have passed on and are watching in spirit. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
As I speak to the particulars of this settlement, one of the most significant features is the Mōhaka River. Going forward, the water resource and management of our waterways will become more controversial and, inevitably, more valuable. One of the distinct advantages that our country enjoys is not only climate but water. Ngāti Pāhauwera might be regarded as one of Māoridom’s river tribes. The Crown has acknowledged the significance of the awa, the rivers, to this tribe. These rivers are taonga, and represent something akin to a life-force to the iwi. The special relationship with these rivers must be advanced. Rivers cannot be seen purely for their utilitarian purposes. Rather, they have inherent value and all of us in the House today should join with Ngāti Pāhauwera and ensure that these awa remain wild and free. I am sure, as other speakers have reminded us, a clean river is a healthy river.
The settlement bill also acknowledges their loyalty to the Crown, and I am speaking of service in theatres of war overseas. Let me read into the record a small but significant example of this ethic of service. In World War I Ngāti Pāhauwera demonstrated its loyalty to the Crown as part of the Allied war effort. They raised funds to help send their young men overseas, some of whom were decorated for their war service. They suffered heavily in the loss of young men and potential leaders. One such man, Hēnare Wēpiha Te Wainohu, gave distinguished service in the Māori Pioneer Battalion. He died in 1920, depriving Ngāti Pāhauwera of an exemplary leader, but his acts of bravery and encouragement to the Māori contingent endure, and here is one of his quotes: “Remember you have mana. The honour and the good name of the Māori people is in your keeping this night.” And that still resonates today.
I agree with the sentiments of the Hon Shane Jones as to the challenges that face Ngāti Pāhauwera going ahead. New Zealand First supports this bill, and we wish Ngāti Pāhauwera well. Auē, ake, ake, kia kaha ē.
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) : It is a great privilege to be able to take a very short call on this Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill today. Can I, firstly, acknowledge you all—kaumātua, kuia, and people of Ngāti Pāhauwera—for making the journey here. It is not always the most exciting place to be, but I am sure today is a very, very exciting one for you, and I acknowledge your presence here. I live in Te Tai Tokerau, a proud Northlander, but my iwi is Tainui, which does sometimes cause me some concern. However, the significance of the settlement process for Tainui cannot be overestimated. Although we may have got off to a bit of a rough start in some ways—trailblazers often do—can I just say that now the returns and the economic benefits to Tainui are significant, and can I say to you that I hope, moving forward, you also can enjoy the ability to look forward, to plan, and to invest in your people and in your futures.
I am proud that this Government, over the last 3½ to 4 years, has made a significant investment in empowering iwi such as you and others to do that. I just want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his significant efforts to do this. I am very proud as a National Party member of Parliament that we have got on as a Government with providing the tools for these settlements to progress. Lastly, can I say that I was privileged to be in the far north recently at the deed signing for Te Aupōuri, and I have never seen so many people in Te Kao, to be honest. Normally, I stop there for an ice cream. It was a special day. There were at least 2,000 people there, and there was a sense of pride, there was a sense of closure, but, more so, there was a sense of future. I wish you all the best in your future and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) : Tangi tū ki te moana, maunga haruru ki uta. Ko Mōhaka te awa, ko Ngāti Pāhauwera te iwi. Ko au kē tetahi o ngā uri o Pāhauwera, mihi tonu atu ki a koutou e aku whanaunga. Ka mihi te aroha nui ki a koutou.
[The sea’s lament on the shoreline and mountains resounds inland. Mōhaka is the river and Ngāti Pāhauwera is the people. I am a descendant of Ngāti Pāhauwera and acknowledge that direct connection to you, my relatives. Huge salutations and regards to you collectively.]
It is a great pleasure and a very proud moment for me to stand and speak on the final passage of the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. This bill is very deeply personal to me because I am very proud of my Ngāti Pāhauwera whakapapa, and in fact there are many Ngāti Pāhauwera whānau, whanaunga puta noa—all the way through—the Wai Pounamu. I acknowledge my dear great-grandmother, or as we say in our southern dialect, taua—Hauataua. Her name was Āmiria Henrici, and she was the daughter of Adolfus Henrici and Rōpine Hinemare Te Aohi. It is a very, very big whānau, but she was one of that very big whānau, and all of my whanaungas are here today, and many of them connect up through those lines.
The passage of this bill is deeply personal because this bill records—and I do acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson and his officials for the work they have put into this settlement—the history and the complete background to the grievances of our Ngāti Pāhauwera whanaunga, and it is important that we acknowledge that.
In regards to the attacks on Mōhaka, my great-grandmother Āmiria was a baby at the time, and her older sisters swam across the Mōhaka River to escape from the Crown attacks at Mōhaka. As one sister tired, she handed the little baby, their baby sister, over to another sister. That young baby obviously grew into a fine young lady, a Mōhaka Pāhauwera princess, and they moved down to Te Wai Pounamu, to the Banks Peninsula. Their father, Adolfus Henrici, was a very skilled boatbuilder and so he took his talents down there to Akaroa. He was very famous down there with his boatbuilding prowess.
She married into another very big Ngāi Tahu whānau down there, my poua, Āperahama Tūpāhū Solomon Score. Their two children, Rangi Solomon and my tawa, Ruti Matekino Solomon, basically had a huge whānau right across Te Wai Pounamu, and I am a product of that. My auntie and my late father were products of that, and they were all brought up by our great-grandmother, and that is why there is such a very close and dear affinity and affiliation to our Ngāti Pāhauwera side.
I would also like to acknowledge that, growing up, my late father always made it very clear to us, telling us the stories, and making sure that we would go back. I was playing in the Reo, and we would link up with Te Reo o Hamuera, we would go through to Mōhaka, and have many a great whakamoemiti and hui on that marae, and we had many wonderful 21st occasions and many ceremonial occasions in the hall—wonderful hākari, wonderful times. I remember I was playing my cornet in the band, but we could not match Raymond Joe and the Blue Mooners when it came to letting the hair down in the evenings, in that wonderful hexagonal hall, which is there in Mōhaka, the whare kai. So, yes, I am very, very proud to be standing to speak on this bill.
There are many elements to these settlements, and I mentioned earlier this morning that it is not about just the money, and it is not about just having words on paper. These are very deep acknowledgments, and it is all about establishing the permanence of Ngāti Pāhauwera to their place and their connection to the Mōhaka River and their whenua. So I am delighted to be here to actually speak on the passage of this bill.
I do want to acknowledge a couple of other people whom I have had the pleasure of dealing with over the years in previous careers. One is Toro Waaka. I know Toro Waaka has worked tirelessly on the Ngāti Pāhauwera claim for many, many years. A few years ago I took Toro overseas on seafood missions, looking at new markets for our iwi fishing companies. I always saw Toro’s really entrepreneurial drive and his commitment to his mahi, and that later progressed when he was a member of Te Ohu Kaimoana, the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, under Shane Jones, who was the chair at the time. I mihi to Toro in particular for all his work.
I am very proud that my sisters and I are registered as beneficiaries for Ngāti Pāhauwera. We receive all the mail through the post, and I am very delighted to receive those letters and all those updates. I also would like to acknowledge, as Parekura mentioned, Bishop Moxon—mihi tonu atu ki a koe—who is here today.
There are many elements to this bill. I will not traverse the details, because I know other speakers have actually gone through all the elements of it, but important to me is the acknowledgment and the apology that are listed in the legislation from the Crown, and the acceptance by Ngāti Pāhauwera of the apology. I think that shows a wonderful gesture on behalf of Ngāti Pāhauwera that they accept that apology in the legislation.
Then there are also the various other aspects—the cultural redress and the commercial elements. One in particular is the mechanism to provide for Ngāti Pāhauwera participation in the natural resources. I think this is a significant part of all the recent settlements that are coming through, particularly around the awa, the rivers, with the co-management models, protocols, letters of introduction, representation on planning committees, roles in nominating people to tribunals and the like. All of those are, as I mentioned earlier, very important in re-establishing, restoring, and reclaiming Ngāti Pāhauwera’s space, their river, and their lands.
I would just like to conclude my speech by saying that I am shortly leaving. I apologise to Ngati Porou, because I will not be here for the full duration of their Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. I will be shortly travelling down to Kaikōura, where I will be this weekend. While I am down there, I will visit the urupā where Āmiria Henrici is buried there in Ōaro. I will call in on her and fill her in on all the great developments that are happening with all of her whanaunga up there in Ngāti Pāhauwera.
I commend this bill. I mihi to all my whanaunga here, Ngāti Pāhauwera, and also all of my fellow members in this House. Kia ora anō tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.
ALFRED NGARO (National) : Me mua kia orana tatou katotoa i te aroa matua o te Atua. Kia orana to tatou tangata o Ngāti Pāhauwera, kua au te tangata o Moana Nui a Kiwa, no Rarotonga, no Aitutaki, no Mangaia. Kia orana tatou katotoa no te aere mai tatou no tenei ra.
It is an honour to be here today, and to acknowledge a historic moment, though I did ask myself who I am to be here, a Cook Islander born in New Zealand. All I can think about is toku mama reo toku mama gran toku mama Tepaki no Ngati Tepaki, no Aitutaki. She would often tell us that we are tuakana, so today I stand as tuakana to witness this historic occasion, for what you are witnessing today is a moment in this place and in this time. So I humbly stand here to acknowledge that. I also remember that my grandmother would say to me e toku tamait kare te enua kua au, tea enua no te Atua—“O little one, o little boy, never forget that this land does not belong to you, for it belongs to a greater one, te Atua.” I think it is a reminder for us that though we are receiving back that which belongs to us, in one sense it does not belong to us. Instead, we are the kaitiaki; we are the guardians. So I acknowledge the role that Ngāti Pāhauwera play. Today we are putting right that which was made wrong. We are honoured here. Today, simply in this short moment of time in this history, which is your history, I stand as tuakana to acknowledge you in this place for the history that is made.
Finally, I say this. At times we would often say “This is the beginning of the end.”, but maybe today it is the end of the beginning of a future that you will realise, of the potential that was once dreamt of many times over. So, to tatou pure, our prayers, our hopes, and our dreams are your prayers, are your hopes, and are your dreams, all that have gone before you, and all that will be now in this place. No reira, kia orana tatou e kia manuia.
Whakataka te hau ki te uru,
Whakataka te hau ki te tonga.
Kia mākinakina ki uta,
Kia mātaratara ki tai.
E hī ake ana te atākura,
He tio, he huka, he hauhunga.
Nō reira, tēnā koutou. Ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Ki a Papatūānuku ki waho, tēnā koe. Ki ngā mate o Ngāti Pāhauwaera, haere, haere, haere. Ki ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira o Ngāti Pāhauwera, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā tāngata o Ngāti Pāhauwera, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.
[Behold the sneeze of life!
Cease the winds from the west,
Cease the winds from the south.
Let the breezes blow over the land,
Let the breezes blow over the ocean
With a sharpened air, a touch of frost, and a promise of a glorious day.
So salutations to you collectively. Greetings to the House that stands before me and to mother Earth outside. Farewell, the deaths of Ngāti Pāhauwera; depart, depart. To you, the elderly, leaders, and people of Ngāti Pāhauwera, I salute you. And so acknowledgments and salutations to us all. ]
Kia ora. Can I say what an absolute privilege it is to be here today in one of the final speeches on the settlement for NgātiPāhauwera. It is a privilege for a number of reasons, but principally that NgātiPāhauwera’s settlement is the first in the area of my rohe of Heretaunga, in the area of my electorate, which starts at the Tūtaekurī River, heads up to Māhia and Māhanga and out to the beautiful Lake Waikaremoana, and comes down the Kāweka Ranges and back to the Tūtaekurī. My stomping ground, my tūrangawaewae, is one of the most beautiful places in Aotearoa. At the heart of that electorate is the Mōhaka River, starting up closer towards Taupō in the Poronui area, at the confluence of the Taharua River, and flowing all the way down to the sea through some of the most spectacular country in New Zealand.
It is rugged country. The Mōhaka River has grade 5 rapids at the top and flows down to the sea. There is beautiful scenery surrounded by native bush through much of the river. It is a wonderful, wonderful awa. The Mōhaka Marae is just at the end of the river on the left-hand side, where, I have to say, it was a privilege to be at the signing with Mr Finlayson of the initial deed that actually led to this process. You do not take these privileges lightly as a member of Parliament. They are one of those sorts of things that you touch on when you leave this place. That there are events like this, which are markers and which have taken place while you have been here, is something to be proud of for members from across the House—not just this side of the House, not just on the Labour side, or the Greens side, or the New Zealand First side. For all of us to be moving forward in this way is something to genuinely be proud of.
I used that whakataukī at the start of this speech, this kōrero, because it goes to the heart of what we are doing here, which is moving forward. To talk about that whakataukī in English, it basically says: “Cease the winds from the west. Cease the winds from the south. Let the breezes blow over the land, let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened ear, a touch of frost, a promise of a glorious new day.”, and that is what is happening. We have got to a point where we have been through a settlement process. We have been through all the issues that many, many speakers have spoken about today—the issues, the grievances—but we have gone to a point now where a settlement has been reached, and an apology has been given and accepted by Ngāti Pāhauwera, where there has been redress through not only forestry, some land, and the handing back of sacred taonga of other land, but also wider settlements, which means that we can move forward.
What I want to focus on is the going forward from here—not looking back over our shoulder, but where we go to, not only as Ngāti Pāhauwera but also as iwi throughout the country, as we go through these settlement processes. I do not want to mark the ground about who has kind of achieved what, in that space, in a certain number of years. The point is that we are moving forward as a nation in settling these grievances. Some will take longer; I have no doubt about that. But the point is that we are moving forward, and this sort of redress allows Ngāti Pāhauwera to be part of the economy in a way that they have not been previously. That is about building an economy of their own, jobs, creating wealth, creating a future for their people. But it is not just Ngāti Pāhauwera. There are lots of other people in the Hawke’s Bay community and in the Waharoa area—Raupunga and all around that area. That is my challenge: how we use this settlement now to maximise the opportunity to go forward with it. I know that Craig Foss, who is also an electorate member from my party, from across the way here, would join me in that particular mihi.
So the future is important. I think the economy is amazing. I think with regard to some of the land that is at the end of the Mōhaka River there, there are some wonderful opportunities. It has fertile soil, and the opportunity to invest in that and go forward has to be considered.
I want to finish with another mihi that again looks to the future. But before doing that, I just acknowledge the trustees, Toro Waaka, Tānia Hodges, Kuki Green, Sissiel Henderson, Charles Lambert, Tūreiti Moxon, and Gerald Aranui. I just acknowledge the efforts, and I know there have been a number of trustees who have passed away during the process, as well, and I want to mihi to them, as well. I just say thank you on behalf of this Parliament for the work that you have done in seeing that settlement through. Like I said, I just want to finish on that final whakataukī: “Whāia te pae tawhiti kia tata, whāia te pae tata, whakamaua kia ū, kia tīna”.
[“Seek the distant and near horizon so that it is closer. Firm it up and secure it”.]
That mihi talks about us reaching for the stars, going forward, pulling our goals close to us, and that is something we should do as an iwi with this settlement, taking it forward. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. It has been a privilege to speak in this debate tonight. Thank you.
- Bill read a third time.
- Waiata; karanga
Sittings of the House
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Tuatahi, kei ngā mana, kei ngā reo, kei ngā kaumātua, ngā koroua, ngā kuia. Ngati Porou whānui, kua tatū mai i tēnei rangi, ki te whakanui i te kaupapa i whakahuihuitia tātau, e whakakotahi ai tātau i tēnei rā. Nā reira nau mai, hara mai rā ki te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā ātaahua, te rā i hui tahi tātau ki te whakahōnore i ngā mahi kua mahia e koutou kia whakaoti te kerēme ki tēnei wā.
Tino roa rawa te huarahi kua takahia e koutou kia tae ki tēnei wā. Engari, i te mutunga ake he tīmatanga hoki. Kua mutu tēnā whawhai, kua tīmata ināianei te wā ātaahua ki te whakapuāwai i ngā hiahia, i ngā moemoeā o rātau e mahi ana i te kerēme, me rātau kua ngaro atu. Nā reira, kua pā nei ki a au tēnei hōnore kia mihi atu ki a koutou, me te kōrero tuatahi e pā ana ki tā koutou kerēme i tēnei rā.
Nā reira, kāre e roa aku mihi ki a koutou i tēnei wā. Hoi anō kua tae mai, nā reira, nau mai, hara mai ki te Pāremata. Ahakoa māku e mihi atu ki a koutou, nāku tēnā mahi. E, ko ētahi o koutou noho ai i konei, te nuinga hui ka tū mō tā koutou kerēme. Ko ētahi o Ngati Porou hoki e mahi ana i konei, Ngati Porou ki Tai Rāwhiti, Ngati Porou ki te Pāremata. Kei konei rātau e mahi ana mō tātau te iwi whānui i roto i te Whare Pāremata nei. Nā reira, heoi anō, nau mai hara mai rā.
[Firstly, to the powers, languages, elders, menfolk, womenfolk, and Ngati Porou at large who have gathered here today to celebrate the matter that brought us together as a united front, welcome to Parliament on this beautiful day—a day that brought us together to honour the work done by others of you to complete the claim to this point in time.
The road you have travelled to date has been a long one. But in the end, it is really only a beginning. That struggle has ended, and the best part, which will bring to fruition the aspirations and dreams of those who worked on the claims—those who are alive still and those who have passed away—is only just beginning. Hence this honour to acknowledge you and to introduce your settlement today has been placed upon me.
My tributes to you will not be too long at this point in time; indeed, you have arrived, so welcome, welcome to Parliament. It is my responsibility to acknowledge you—after all, some of you live here and the majority of meetings for your claims take place here. Some of you work here as well, while some are back at the coast. So welcome, welcome indeed. ]
I move, That the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. To the sons and daughters of Porou Ariki Te Matatara a Whare Te Tuhi Māreikura o Rauru, nau mai. From the resting place of the sacred waka Nukutaimemeha, atop the peaks of Hikurangi, to the Waiapū waters at Rangitukia as it surges into Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. The first on earth to see the dawn of a new day—since the dawn of time itself: Ngati Porou mana whenua, mana moana, mana tangata, mana Atua. Ko Hikurangi te maunga, ko Waiapū te awa, ko Ngati Porou te iwi.
The area of interest for Ngati Porou is on the East Coast of the North Island. One of Aotearoa’s largest iwi, with 72,000 members, the marae of Porourangi are located around the East Cape from Pōtikirua in the north to Te Toka-ā-Taiau in the south, covering 400,000 hectares.
The historical grievances of Ngati Porou relate primarily to the Crown’s failure to honour its Treaty promise to respect Ngati Porou rangatiratanga over their own affairs. Ngati Porou rangatira signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, and from then on sought to uphold the Treaty as a matter of honour. However, Crown actions soon created some disillusionment among Ngati Porou as to the Crown’s commitment to the Treaty. The Crown imposed land tenure reform on Ngati Porou, which deprived iwi members of collective control over their land, and made it difficult to utilise their land for economic development.
Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Porou, nor any claimant group at all, for the loss their people have suffered, nevertheless the redress in this bill seeks to recognise the longstanding cultural and spiritual association that Ngati Porou have within the region. It gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the deed of settlement by offering reconciliation redress including an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and apology, cultural redress that vests sites of cultural and historical significance, and a number of arrangements designed to facilitate good working relationships between Ngati Porou and the Crown. I am confident that the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill will settle the claims of Ngati Porou in a full and final matter, and set the foundation for a productive future relationship with the Crown. The Crown apologises to Ngati Porou for past dealings that breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. These include the detention without trial of some Ngati Porou on the Chatham Islands, the Crown’s abuse at times of its monopoly powers to purchase Ngati Porou land, and the Crown’s failure in a number of ways to respect Ngati Porou rangatiratanga in the administration of their own land.
This settlement will see the creation of a strategic partnership arrangement where the Crown and Ngati Porou jointly develop a separate section of the East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservation Management Strategy, to be known as Ngā Whakahaere Takirua mō Ngā Paanga Whenua o Ngati Porou. This arrangement will provide Ngati Porou with input into the strategic governance of specified public conservation lands within the Ngati Porou area of interest. Fifteen sites of cultural and historical significance will be vested in Ngati Porou, totalling approximately 5,898 hectares. These sites are currently administered by the Department of Conservation, except for one site, Taitai, which is 170 hectares and is Crown forest land administered by Land Information New Zealand.
The Crown also recognises that Ngati Porou have a proud record of military service overseas in New Zealand’s defence. The New Zealand Defence Force and Ngati Porou seek to affirm their relationship through the naming of officer entry scholarships and higher defence training programmes that are awarded to people of Ngati Porou descent. The naming will be subject to the recipient’s approval.
As we prepare to settle the Treaty of Waitangi claims of the descendants of Porourangi, it is fitting to honour those who are not here in body, but who no doubt are here in the hearts and minds of their people, and whose spirit lives on in the words of this historic settlement—and it is a historic settlement. We pay tribute to Mate Kaiwai, Dr Te Kapunga (Koro) Dewes—KD—Dame Kāterina Mataira, Dr Paratene Ngata, Sir Hēnare Kōhere Ngata, Merekaraka Ngārimu, Ānaru Paenga, Hopa Keelan, Waho Tibble, Wī Kuki Kaa, Martin Kīngi, Jules Ferris, Hōnore Chesley, Tāme Te Maro, and Whāia McClutchie. Me ērā atu. Nā reira koutou, okioki tonu mai koutou hei whāriki mā mātau. Koutou ki a koutou haere. [And others. So rest there as a mat for us. You, the dead, remain there with the dead; farewell.]
Ngati Porou mana whenua, mana moana, mana tangata, mana atua. Nā reira, koutou mā, he hōnore māku ki te pānui i tēnei kaupapa ki a koutou i tēnei rā. He kaupapa kua whakatakotoria e koutou i ngā tau kua pahure ake. Ngā mamae, ngā tautohetohe, ērā atu mahi, kua oti. Kua tau pai i roto i te pepa nei. Nā reira, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.
[Ngati Porou has autonomy over their lands, seas, people, and gods. It is an honour indeed for me to introduce this bill today. It was presented to you some years ago. The pain, debates, and other related activities are complete now and are well documented in this bill. Therefore, huge congratulations to you; well done and good on you.]
I commend this bill to the House.
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : I te tuatahi, tēnā koe e te Kaihautū o te Whare, huri noa ki tō tātou Whare, tātou ngā kaitōrangapū e noho tonu nei kia tutuki pai i a tātou ngā mahi whakarite, hai whai mā tātou i tēnei rangi. Otirā, me huri atu ki ngā ūpoko, ki ngā rangatira, ki ngā whāea, ki a koutou katoa kua tatū mai ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, te ūranga o te rā, mai i Pōitikirua, ki te Toka-ā-Taiau huri noa ki te tihi o Hikurangi maunga māturuturu tonu, ā, rere atu ki Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa mā roto i te awa o Waiapū. Ko koutou ngā kaitiaki, ko koutou ngā kaipupuru o te mauri kei tēnā rohe, ko tā mātou he whakatau, he mihi atu ki a koutou i tēnei rangi.
Hei aha māku te whakahuahua atu i ngā ingoa, otirā, tautoko i te āhuatanga o te reo whakamihimihi i puta i tō tātou Minita mō ō koutou mātua, rātou kua poupou ki te matemate. Tā te mea, hau tetahi i whakatipungia ai i roto i te kāinga o taku tupuna whāea, māku anō mō ngā wāhine e whakahua i te ingoa marae o Te Kawa, he hoa tino tata ki tēnā tupuna ōku, me te mahara ki te wā i tatū ai mātou ki waenga tonu i a koutou, mihi ana tērā hau tupua o roto i Te Tai Rāwhiti ki a mātou ka hinga atu i roto i tana mihi a Tāwhai Tamepō. Nā reira, rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Firstly, greetings, Mr Speaker of the House, and throughout our House to politicians who have remained so that we can complete the business well that has been set down for us to pursue today. Indeed, I turn now to the heads, leaders, elderly womenfolk, and all of you who have landed here in Wellington from the arrival place of the sun at Pōtikirua to Te Toka-ā-Taiau around the summit of Mount Hikurangi, where the water trickles down and flows to the Pacific Ocean via the Waiapū River. You are the guardians and the holders of the life-force at that region, and ours is to formally welcome and acknowledge you today.
It is not for me to name you individually but rather to endorse the welcoming sentiments expressed by our Minister in respect of your forefathers who have passed on. Because I was raised in the home of my great-aunt, and for the benefit of the women, I will mention Te Kawa, a very close friend to that ancestor of mine. I recall the time when we arrived amongst you, and during the acknowledgments by a great East Coast ancestor, Tāwhai Tamepō died. Therefore, let the dead remain there among their own and we the living among ourselves; respects and salutations to us all. ]
As I have said in Māori, we acknowledge the presence today of one of the great tribes of Te Ao Māori. I should say that, because they have a great man in this House in the form of Parekura Horomia. They are obviously a very sensible tribe because they sent him back here. I want to acknowledge, as we have said earlier today, the Ministers of the Crown on both sides, whether they be in the time of Parekura Horomia, Dr Michael Cullen, or even stretching further back to Koro Wētere in the days of endeavouring to vest Hikurangi mountain back in the people of Te Tai Rāwhiti, Ngati Porou. They have all made their contribution. Indeed, there has been a recent innovation to expedite the settlement of claims: they are called Crown negotiators. We have one, I think, in our midst, Mr Paul Swain, who, after leaving the Labour Party, found something possibly more valuable to do, and that is represent the Crown in the settlement of historical grievances, i.e., the Ngati Porou one. We acknowledge his presence.
We also have in the audience some survivors of Te Rua Tekau mā Waru, the 28th Māori Battalion, and we also have a host of other soldiers who have been down in the dugouts, and from time to time people have tried to dispatch them to the latrines. I think here of Api Mahuika. Tēnā koe, Api. Your task must not go unmentioned, and your record must not go unmentioned as we give our speeches. Unfortunately for those of you who reach those heady heights in our iwi affairs, your good works do not go unpunished, but we acknowledge your presence here today.
Ngati Porou produced someone whom a number of us Māori members regard as the most peerless of all Māori parliamentarians, Sir Apirana Ngata. It was he who, during the 1937 debate over the ownership of petroleum—if memory serves me correctly—advocated very strenuously that there was a Māori interest in that resource. I rather suspect, as the iwi go forward and turn this settlement into an enduring legacy, that those are the kinds of challenges that the stewards of this settlement will face: how to strike a balance between an opportunity of economic significance, the maintenance of cultural heritage, and also the safeguard of environmental standards. The reality is that as a consequence of the passage of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill in this House, both sides, working with the Crown, are watching a capital transfer take place. Whether it be in the form of commercial redress, cultural sites, reserves, or, indeed, the actual recognition of interests in the takutai moana, we are seeing something historic today.
There is not a great deal that we can add, more than the fact that it is our duty as Māori parliamentarians to bear witness and testimony to this, so that when others follow on behind us they can be reminded that each generation of iwi leaders, each generation of Crown Ministers, and each generation of Māori parliamentarians have to make their contribution. Those contributions are defined by the challenges of the time, and the challenge of the time for this settlement process has been that it is not possible for current generations of taxpayers in our system, either of society or politics, to meet the full cost and weight of colonialism that fell upon this particular iwi. Dare I say it, that this is an iwi that has given long and valuable service to their fellow New Zealanders, whether it is the Māori Pioneer Battalion, Te Hoko whitu a Tū; the famous 28th Māori Battalion; or their contributions throughout the theatres of war around the world. Indeed, I bump into a number of them on a regular basis at the Manurewa RSA. I shall be encouraging them to go home and get their fair share of the spoils.
This is a day where we should have an element of sadness for those who have gone on, but an element that defines our Māori personality as being appropriately light-hearted. Because what the task ahead represents for those of us who have a life inside Māori politics, whether it is in Parliament or out, is that the real challenge lies in ensuring not so much that the assets are managed well, but that they are grown. To seize growth opportunities is always going to involve haggling, compromise, and a clear plan that enables people to dedicate their capital, but also finds a balance to protect heritage. Nowhere will we find finer carved meeting houses—wharemoko—than on Tai Rāwhiti. Nowhere will we find land that stretches from the mountain right down to the takutai moana than the Tai Rāwhiti. Nowhere will we find people who are very proud of their Ngati Porou ancestry, and never shirk from reminding you of how proud they are!
Ka nui ēnei kōrero ki tēnei reo Pākehā, me mihi atu au ki a tātou i roto i tō tātou Whare; kia kaha, kia ū, kia manawanui. Nā koutou i whakawerawera kia tutuki pai ai ngā wāhanga i whiwhi ai koutou, ngā mihi. Ngā wāhanga horekau i whakaaengia me whakahē atu i a Robert Wahawaha McLeod i te kore o Hone i puta i tēnei rā.
[I have spoken enough in English. I acknowledge us in our House; be strong, be committed, be stout-hearted. You put the effort in to get the parts that you gained well—congratulations. The blame for the parts not agreed upon must be with Robert Wahawaha McLeod for Hone not making it today.]
They have had a number of fine negotiators, and one that I should mention is Robert McLeod, who, I am told, unfortunately could not make it; Whaimutu Dewes, working with Api Mahuika; and all their supporters, because it has not been easy.
Kia tau ngā manaakitanga ki a koutou, e ōku huānga, tuākana, tēina i roto i Te Tai Rāwhiti. Nā, i roto i te pono o te ngākau, te manawa roa, te whakawerawera ka tutuki te rōanga ake o ngā moemoeā me ngā tūmanako. Ko tā mātou he tautoko i a koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.
[Look after yourselves, my relatives, elder and younger siblings, living down the East Coast. Long-term dreams and aspirations will result through faith, resilience, and effort. Our part is to support you. Congratulations and salutations to you and us collectively.]
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I too stand to acknowledge the people of Ngati Porou, and especially those who have travelled from Tai Rāwhiti and are here in the galleries today to listen to this the third reading of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge them, and all of those from Ngati Porou who have worked so very hard to make this day possible. I acknowledge the many Ngati Porou who are no longer with us who provided leadership and inspiration to Ngati Porou negotiators and their people. In saying this, I too want to refer to the great Sir Apirana Ngata, who was such a distinguished member of this House, and I am sure he would be very, very pleased to see the third and final reading of this bill. I also want to mention Sir Henry Ngata, who died only recently. Some years ago, shortly before his death, I was in Gisborne on a hui to deal with the foreshore and seabed legislation, and I will never forget his presence—his overwhelming presence—and his utterly principled position on that particular topic.
The Ngati Porou negotiators have done Ngati Porou proud. Throughout their dealings with the Crown they have conducted themselves with honour, with dignity, even in very difficult times. I am so very pleased that many of you are able to be here today to witness your Treaty settlement passing into law.
This bill settles the Treaty grievances of Ngati Porou. In the bill, the Crown formally acknowledges its breaches of the Treaty, offers an apology, and provides cultural, financial, and commercial redress. The people of Ngati Porou have waited a very long time for this day. After many years of preparation, formal negotiations began in 2008. The Crown recognised the mandate of te rūnanga in April of that year. Negotiations with Te Haeata—the negotiation’s subcommittee of te rūnanga—commenced in July 2008. A non-binding, high-level agreement outlining key elements of financial and commercial redress was signed by the Crown and Ngati Porou on 23 October 2008. After a period of robust negotiations a deed was initialled in October 2010. During November and December of that year te rūnunga undertook a ratification process for the deed, and the proposed post-governance entity. The work of the negotiators was acknowledged and endorsed by the people. Those who voted, voted overwhelmingly to ratify the settlement. The Crown and Ngati Porou signed a deed of settlement on 22 December 2010, and since then both parties have worked together constructively as their legislation has been progressed. The passage of this bill is the final step, which will enable the Crown to provide settlement redress to Ngati Porou.
I know that most of the elected representatives of the governance entity are here today. I know you have achieved a lot, including your inaugural AGM in February this year, and I wish you very well in your endeavours. The people have put their faith and trust in you, and I am confident you are going to do what is best for the iwi.
The historical grievances relate primarily to the Crown’s failure to honour its Treaty promise to respect Ngati Porou rangatiratanga over their own affairs. The Crown imposed land tenure reform on Ngati Porou, which deprived iwi members of collective control over their land and made it difficult to use their land for economic development. This has helped make the East Coast one of the most socioeconomically deprived regions of New Zealand.
Despite the Crown’s failure to honour its Treaty promise, and the resulting deprivations, Ngati Porou have played a very significant role in a number of aspects of New Zealand’s life. One aspect in particular I want to mention is the long and proud record of service in New Zealand’s defence. This has not come without very tragic consequences. The immediate and long-term consequences for Ngati Porou of the Second World War were that every Ngāti Porou whānau had members who either did not return home, or returned badly scarred by their war service overseas. Some family names, and even family lines, no longer exist because the last representative died as a result of the war. This resulted in the loss of many present and future Ngati Porou leaders. On behalf of all New Zealanders, I thank Ngati Porou for the sacrifices they have made for our country.
The bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the deed. The reconciliation redress includes an agreed historical account, the Crown acknowledgments and apology, and the naming of New Zealand Defence Force scholarships in higher defence training awarded to people of Ngati Porou descent. The cultural redress package includes the vesting of sites of cultural and historical significance, and a strategic partnership with the Department of Conservation over specific public conservation lands within the Ngati Porou area of interest. I am very pleased also that as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I can say that we are working together with Ngati Porou on the long-overdue Māori Battalion museum in Gisborne. In that respect, I acknowledge that wonderful New Zealander—I would have to say after Parekura Horomia, and I had better say Hekia Parata, my favourite “Ngati Porouvian”—Nolan Raihānia, a young member of C Company who fought for his country in several theatres of war, came back to New Zealand, made his contribution, and is now the esteemed chair of the rūnanga. There is also redress designed to facilitate good working relationships between Ngati Porou and the Crown, and that includes protocols with Government departments, a letter of commitment with Archives New Zealand, the National Library, and Te Papa Tongarewa to facilitate the care and management of Ngati Porou taonga, and a commitment by the Crown and Ngati Porou to develop a relationship accord to work together to address contemporary issues within the rohe.
Then there is the financial settlement of $110 million, comprising $90 million in financial and commercial redress, and $20 million in cultural and historical redress, and redress over Crown properties, including licensed forest land. Mr Shane Jones said it so well—and I have said it at other times during the day—redress can never fully compensate for what has been lost, but, having acknowledged that, the settlement given effect by this bill will provide Ngati Porou with a platform for future growth.
There are so many people who have contributed to this settlement over the years. I acknowledge the contributions by my predecessor Dr Michael Cullen to the early stages of the negotiations. I of course acknowledge Mr Horomia, who as I have said in other debates is always so helpful to have a quiet chat to about issues. I also acknowledge my ministerial colleagues, in particular the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister for Land Information.
I want to acknowledge the valuable support and contribution made by the work of many Government officials and departments who contributed to this settlement. I particularly want to place on record the wonderful work by Paul Swain, who was my Crown negotiator. He did such a wonderful job that he has been press-ganged into other negotiations. Most important, I want to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of Ngati Porou, particularly those from Te Haeata who negotiated this settlement. I particularly mention my other favourite “Ngati Porouvian”, Dr Apirana Mahuika. In fact, I should have mentioned him earlier, and I apologise. He is a great New Zealander. I have known him for over 20 years and I always enjoy working with him. The dedication and determination of the negotiators has been absolutely vital in the path towards achieving settlement.
So I wish Ngati Porou all the very best. I acknowledge, of course, when I look at today’s Order Paper and see item 53, Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill, that we have some unfinished business. I think my first task after becoming Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was to have to tell Dr Mahuika and the team that this bill would have to be put on hold while we looked at the foreshore and seabed legislation, but members of the iwi will be pleased to know that we have had a number of meetings. The new legislation has been passed, and it is my sincere hope and, indeed, expectation that this legislation will be progressed in the very, very near future.
So congratulations once again. Thank you to those who have made such a significant contribution. I look forward to seeing Ngati Porou continue to grow and develop and make those wonderful contributions to the country in the years to come.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : Ā, tēnā koutou. Tēnei e tāpiri atu i aku mihi ki ērā i waihotia i mua i te aroaro ki a koutou Ngāti Porou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā kaumātua, ngā whaea, ngā kuia, koutou katoa e hāpai nei i tenei o ngā hiahia, kia tutuki pai tēnei kerēme, ka nui te mihi atu.
[Greetings to you collectively. I add my acknowledgments to those placed before you, Ngati Porou; salutations and acknowledgments to you. I congratulate you, elders, aunts, old women—indeed, all of you who elevated the notion that these aspirations in respect of this claim be achieved well.]
It gives me great pleasure to be able to join with speakers before me and support the third reading of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. I was thinking in some regards as to how to approach this speech today because we have had four preceding settlements, and the hope and opportunity that comes from a settlement process is very real. But we are having a very different conversation here with Ngati Porou because this settlement is, in part, a continuation of a conversation and a relationship that has been well established. This is a sophisticated, smart, and strategic settlement in that not all the issues for Ngati Porou have been resolved. So it will lock future Governments into a continued relationship of having to work with Ngati Porou to achieve the best outcomes in that area.
I was reminded of some sage advice that was given to me by a kaumātua when I came into Parliament. He said to me: “Remember, kōtiro, when you get up and speak on a kaupapa that is a Māori kaupapa, you must be able to whakapapa to that kaupapa.” Do not get up and say something if you do not know anything about it—that is what he was telling me.
I thought that on this particular issue the footprints of Ngati Porou have definitely left a deep impression on contemporary New Zealand history. When I think about that I think about the bust that is at the front of the Grand Hall, and as you walk past that bust you cannot help, as a parliamentarian and certainly as a Māori parliamentarian, to be inspired by the leadership of Apirana Ngata and what he sought to achieve in his lifetime. I make mention of that particular point in history because were it not for Apirana Ngata and his relationship with Te Pūea, I am sure our fate may have been very different.
I want to highlight three important strategic and significant contributions of Ngati Porou that have endured to this day and have certainly left an impression with my people. Firstly, there is the contribution of the 28th Māori Battalion and that legacy of being a proud fighting people, and being able to contribute towards the effort to preserve and protect who we are as a country, as a nation, for the benefit of our people and our citizens here in Aotearoa.
The other contribution was really in my mind where Tā Apirana Ngata had a deep impact on Te Pūea, my ancestor, and that was around land development. I mentioned earlier that we are having a very different conversation with Ngati Porou because, unlike many other iwi, they do know what it is to develop their lands, have an economic base, and look after their own people.
The third important contribution was in the area of cultural restoration—our language and our taonga. We see very much in the components of this settlement those significant historical contributions being reflected in this settlement. That is why it is a sophisticated, strategic settlement, in my mind, and I am sure a lot of iwi will be looking at how they realise the gains from it.
But here it is at a fine point. In Ngata’s relationship with Te Pūea, he impressed on Waikato the importance of self-sustainability through land development. Indeed, my father used to holiday in Waiuku, in one of those places where Te Pūea was trying to get land development back under Ngata’s times, in the late 1920s, and my dad can remember going to the farm that he worked on, that Ngata and Te Pūea had established. The other part was the importance of strategic political relationships. It would be true to say from our telling of history that Te Pūea’s own relationship, certainly with the powers that be of the day, were reinforced because of her personal relationship with Ngata, and it endured beyond their personal relationship.
The third really important element was education. Many other iwi can tell this story, but I think Ngati Porou tells it particularly well, and that story is about the importance of education underpinning successful and enduring leadership for the future, and that, in itself, I think, is a huge legacy. Prior to Te Pūea’s relationship with Ngata, there was a huge campaign against going to schools, because of our experience during the 1860s, and it was only with the relationship with Ngata that Te Pūea embraced the fruits of education. Indeed, had that not happened, my father would not have been sent to Mount Albert Grammar School. So I do have a lot to be grateful for in terms of Ngati Porou’s legacy of leadership and how it has impacted on me, and that is really how I whakapapa to the conversation that is being continued here today.
This is a great settlement, in my view. There are real opportunities for other iwi to learn from what can be achieved in areas like the letter of commitment and what is being tried around the cultural redress aspects of it. I look forward to the realisation of what I am sure will be a dynamic regrouping of Ngati Porou histories, traditions, and taonga in some very unique ways for the benefit of future generations.
The other, I guess, innovation that through the Treaty settlement process was something we grappled with was that because the direct negotiation process cut across the Waitangi Tribunal hearing phase, and hearings were suspended, throughout the submission process we pointed to the airing of grievances opportunity, and how very real it is for iwi and people who have a historical grievance to tell their story. This is a particular innovation that has not been seen in any other settlement.
I certainly want to highlight that throughout the hearing of submissions it was very important, in some shape or form, to give some prominence to people being able to air their own particular grievances, so that their history could be told. Far be it from me to say the level of hurt that was felt during the submission process; I am only highlighting, really, that this is an innovation, and could be one that could endure going forward, as well, for other settlement models.
The other unique innovation, I think, which really ties again to how strategic Ngati Porou is, around the skills value-add that they can derive from the Crown, is in these unique Defence Force scholarships. We all know in our own iwi that we would love to take those 10 percent of my cousins who may not do so well at school, but could do really well in the police force and the defence forces; and opportunities like these, I think, will be looked at very keenly, to see whether they can afford more tangible ways of turning lives round but making a great contribution to our country, and producing great leaders.
I want to thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and former Ministers from Ngati Porou, who all had a hand in this in one way or another, I am sure, for presenting this kind of a settlement to the House. It is an important day today but, as I say, we are at a different part of the conversation with Ngati Porou, as a Parliament, from where we are with some other iwi. What we need to be able to say and promote—nā te mea, ēhara te kūmara e kōrero mō tōna ake reka [however, it is not for the sweet potato to say how tasty it is]—is that where there are exemplars, we should be embracing and pushing and ensuring that they can continue to be exemplars. Where there are issues where lessons can be learnt, let us share that experience so we do not recreate the wheel.
He iti noa tēnei nāku, hei tuitui ki te whāriki kōrero i waihotia i mua i te aroaro. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou.
[This contribution from me is but a small one to be woven into the fabric of the contributions put before you. Therefore, acknowledgments, salutations, and congratulations to you and to us all.]
[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the local people of Ngati Porou, fond greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations indeed to all of you.]
The Green Party recognises that this is an extremely important moment in your long and vibrant history within Te Tai Rāwhiti and Aotearoa. We recognise the sense of achievement that must accompany what is a significant settlement for this iwi. Like our colleagues across the House, we wish to acknowledge the people who have worked on this settlement, the people from Ngati Porou, the people from the Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal, and all those who for generations have contributed time and effort and their stories and their lives to creating this bill, the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, today.
We know the redress that is needed in the rohe, and that Ngati Porou have many plans and dreams that are coming closer to fruition. We have to place on record our concerns about the cross-claimants who have spoken to us of their marginalisation from this claim process. We cannot ignore them, and we have stood in this House to support this settlement. We have also stood in this House to support their right to challenge and to be heard. It is the Crown processes that divide and manipulate, but there is no escaping the contradictions. So, hard as it is, we think it is important to acknowledge the issues and not pretend that the processes the Crown dictates have advantaged the smaller natural groups of self-determining hapū.
However, having said that, I need to return to the reasons for this claim. It may not be the same story as the raupatu in Taranaki or the theft that occurred in Waikato, which is where I come from, but each claim tells its own extraordinary story of the mechanics and the strategies of the mutating virus of colonisation in achieving access to land and resources from ngā tangata whenua o Aotearoa. The Crown compulsorily acquired land from Ngati Porou on more than 2,000 occasions. That is a simple statement, really, but actually it is about 2,000 incidents of outrage, dispossession, and damage. That is what is being recognised today, and that is what is being addressed in part.
My colleague Catherine Delahunty, who could not be here today, explained in her speech in the first reading of this bill that she saw at first hand that damage that continues, when she was a beneficiary advocate at Ruatōria. She explained that on one of the trips to Ruatōria they were invited to stay the night at Waiōmatatini by descendants of your great ancestor Sir Apirana Ngata. She described sleeping in the corner of the room of that remarkable house, from that remarkable whānau, and looking out over the river flats and imagining the leader coming home from Parliament, tired from the battle for the best interests of his own people. And so it has continued. So you have continued.
The settlement is worth $110 million and 6,000 hectares, plus cultural redress and recognition across Ngati Porou rohe. It is the second-largest single deal in the history of Treaty settlements, and I agree with what my esteemed colleague Nanaia Mahuta has just said about the importance of the historical strategic alliances that have been built up over the many decades. There are many ideas and plans to use this wisely in support of the people. We look forward to those benefits being available at last to the people in the broken houses in Tokomaru and the people who are jobless beneficiaries without transport, credit, or opportunities in the back country between Te Puia and the cape. My colleague Catherine Delahunty met many of these people as an advocate, and they are still rich in culture and rich in te reo, language, and history. But they did not have the same material privilege that many of us, and in fact many of us here in this House, take for granted. They did not have their young people, who were mainly away working, the elders, and the very young. They want their community back, and they want it to be a shared well-being. My best wishes and our best wishes go to them all.
Ngati Porou is a magnificent country, and we acknowledge that some signed the Treaty and some felt no need, but my wish is that this somewhat controversial but very hard-won agreement will enhance the whenua, protect the moana, and restore the wairua of the people. We congratulate you. We wish you well, and we will be supporting this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) : I feel privileged to stand here in this House today as the MP for East Coast for the third reading of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. The territory covered by this bill is the area from Pōtikirua Point to the place of the stone in the centre of the Tūranganui River, which runs through the centre of Gisborne and forms a large part of the diverse East Coast electorate.
This is a unique day in Parliament, and I think it is fitting, then, that Ngati Porou form part of this very unique experience. As I look around the gallery I see many, many familiar faces who have made the trip down from Tai Rāwhiti to celebrate this third reading and the closure of one part of the Ngati Porou story today. Can I acknowledge Dr Apirana Mahuika sitting up there. Can I acknowledge His Worship the Mayor Meng Foon—I see him in the gallery—and his councillor Bill Burdett. But there are many, many more up there, and, of course, they bring with them the spirits of those who have gone before, who would have loved to be here today to celebrate the settlement of this Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill.
Ngati Porou is the second-largest iwi in New Zealand, with 72,000 members, 58 hapū, and 48 marae, and they are spread far and wide. Many of them make it here to Parliament, and we are pleased to have them. In fact, I was in Christchurch last year, following the earthquake, meeting with some Ngāi Tahu there and talking about how we would be helping them with some of the kōhanga reo that had been badly damaged in the earthquake. They informed me that there were more Ngati Porou living in Christchurch than there were up on the East Coast. I do not know whether that is correct, but it does indicate the difficulties of the area that we all come from, which is quite remote in New Zealand. The last couple of weeks have shown us just how remote we are, when first we lose our roads and then we lose our rail. But I admire Ngati Porou for recognising what could be a disconnect between some of their people. Of course, the iwi themselves recognise ahi kā, the people who remain at home, and Ngati Porou kei te whenua, those who reside outside of the tribal lands and are seeking to make their way in the world.
Ngati Porou has a proud history of working with the Crown to preserve the New Zealand way of life. Many Ngati Porou fought in World War II in the Māori Battalion. Ngārimu VC, the first Māori New Zealander awarded a Victoria Cross, was, of course, of Ngati Porou descent. And their spirit lives on not just in the stories and the recognition of their valour but also in the Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Board. I had the privilege to chair that board for 3 years as the Minister of Education. We worked hard to embody the mana and the tikanga, despite some very rigid legislation.
When I read this not insubstantial bill here on the Table of the House, for me there are one or two paragraphs that stand out that I would like to read: “The Crown acknowledges that, despite Ngati Porou fulfilling its Treaty obligations, the Crown has breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles in a number of respects. The Crown also acknowledges that, despite Ngati Porou’s significant contribution to New Zealand, it has failed to address the longstanding grievances of Ngati Porou in an appropriate manner, and that recognition of Ngati Porou grievances is long overdue.” For me, that embodies the work that has gone in over the years to bring us to this point.
There is one other part that I want to read out. It was interesting that my colleague Nanaia Mahuta referred to education and Ngati Porou, because there is a paragraph here where the Crown “acknowledges the significant harm Ngati Porou children suffered by being punished for speaking their own language in Crown-established schools for many decades. It also acknowledges that the education system historically had low expectations for Maori academic achievement, and that the educational achievements of students in East Coast schools have lagged well behind those of other New Zealand children.” We all wish that that story could have changed throughout New Zealand, because I believe, after 3 years as Minister of Education, that there still are low expectations for Māori children in our schools.
However, I believe that what Ngati Porou have done with education reflects their long struggle and their long focus on the way ahead for their people. In particular, can I acknowledge Dr Apirana Mahuika, who I think is a great leader. He is a man who is constantly looking forward at how he can ensure that Ngati Porou people get the very best out of everything that modern New Zealand has to honour. The education programme that was put into place and overseen by Ngati Porou over the last years has reaped enormous rewards, to the point that when the Education Review Office went in and had a look at those schools last year there was hardly a school that had not made significant improvement in focusing on the achievement of their children. I think that that is a great testament to not only the leadership of the iwi but the commitment of the families, the teachers, and the communities to ensure that every opportunity is given to Ngati Porou children for the future.
I am delighted to stand as the local MP to welcome all those who come from Tai Rāwhiti to this House to celebrate the end of this particular journey, knowing that it is just the beginning of the longer journey in the partnership between the Crown and Ngati Porou. Kia ora tātou.
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) : New Zealand First asked for these settlement bills to be read in the bright light of day so that all of New Zealand could gain a greater understanding of each grievance and the process, and to witness the settlement. In many settlements, iwi are given land in a ceremonial fashion and then return it. They have been more than reasonable so that awareness is gained, apologies are accepted, and a commitment to move forward into the future is understood and undertaken.
We have seen four prior settlements today, and in earlier speeches I have referred to the opportunities afforded iwi with financial settlements. But let no one in this House or anywhere in New Zealand believe that money is being thrown at Māori. The total amount paid out to all Māori tribes is not billions; in fact, it pales in significance when compared with asset sales and the $1.7 billion South Canterbury Finance bailout. It may surprise you that the total amount of settlements in the history of New Zealand to date is less than $1 billion; it is $955 million. Having said all of that, I am sure that no one would begrudge a little money going to our East Coast National Provincial Championship team, who, I am told, have endured the presence of Parekura Horomia for many years.
I would like to point out to iwi with new finances that there is a powerful tool on our doorstep that can revolutionise the retraining and upskilling of our people with new skills and competencies. The biggest convergence that the world has ever seen is about to happen, and that is broadband power coming together under the same umbrella as browser ubiquity. That convergence will bring about change in human behaviours in the new education systems related to that convergence. The social infrastructure of whānau, hapū, and iwi advantages Māori for the new broadband literacies that will be required to trade and operate successfully in the new commercial world. I look forward to seeing intergenerational learning, intergenerational caregiving, health, and support systems, and intergenerational and cross-iwi networks.
New Zealand First offers congratulations to Ngati Porou on the culmination of a journey where reparation was first sought during the Muldoon Government. It has been a long, gruelling journey, and there have been many difficulties of varying nature—one being communication because of the relative isolation of what some would say is the most beautiful part of New Zealand. Our East Coast roads are not like the smoothly travelled highways of Auckland, and journeys can often be delayed due to slips, such as the one currently blocking the Waioeka Gorge, which is the main route from Gisborne through to Whakatāne and on to the port of Tauranga. There is, of course, the coast road, but you only have to see a logging truck coming at you from round a blind bend as you are travelling from Tōrere through to Te Kaha to know how scary that can be. I know the East Coast well through my fishing and surfing sojourns, as I grew up in Whakatāne, but if you have never been on this stretch of coastline, you are missing out. It is amazing, and you only have to see the children fishing, gathering kai moana, and riding horses around bareback to know what a special place and what a special piece of country this is, and also a slice of Kiwi life that is precious.
Another major challenge for Ngati Porou was the cost of World War II—the shocking loss of so many promising young Māori from the 28th Battalion, or the Māori Battalion. This war deprived Ngati Porou of many future leaders, who gave their lives for our country so far away from their East Coast shores. In 2008 I had the privilege to be present at Te Poho-o-Rāwiri Marae for the launch of the book on C Company written by Monty Soutar. It is a wonderful account of the mana of Ngati Porou and the soldiers of the Māori Battalion. Modern New Zealanders know of Corporal Apiata VC, but I want every member in this House to remember the peerless hero of the Māori Battalion, Ngati Porou’s warrior son, Te Moananui-a-kiwa Ngarimu VC, and let no one doubt the ethic of service that this tribe has shown to fellow New Zealanders. And it was the giant of all Māori parliamentarians, Sir Apirana Ngata, who characterised the efforts of his tribe and the battalions as being the price of citizenship.
I would like to remind us that this tribe not only have affection for their land but they have a mighty river, the Waiapū. Settlements are not only about economic opportunity but a chance to improve Māori participation in natural resource management. I look forward to the implementation of the vision and strategies that Ngati Porou leaders have for their tribe.
Ngati Porou are no strangers to New Zealand First. [Interruption] I am listening to my fellow members, and in keeping with their encouragement to be modest—and like the kūmara that never boasts of its sweetness—we are proud to support the elders, the chiefs, and all the leadership in their strategies to lead the tribe forward, to benefit not only Ngati Porou but the entire East Coast and the greater New Zealand. Kia ora.
[Hikurangi is the mountain, Waiapū is the river, and Ngati Porou are the people. Greetings and acknowledgments to us all.]
I am extremely proud to be a member of this House on this historic day of the passing into law of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. This bill recognises and addresses those grievances and settles the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngati Porou, which are significant and longstanding. The historical grievances are the direct result of the Crown’s failure to respect Ngati Porou’s rangatiratanga. The Crown-imposed significant land tenure reform on Ngati Porou has meant that the East Coast does remain one of the most socioeconomically deprived regions of New Zealand, despite the significant efforts and achievements of the people and the rūnanga of Ngati Porou thus far. Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Porou for the losses and grievance suffered, as the Minister of Māori Affairs has said, the redress in this bill seeks to recognise the longstanding cultural and spiritual association that Ngati Porou has within our region.
This Treaty settlement is—in true Ngati Porou style—innovative, strategic, and at all times carried out with the famous Ngati Porou modesty. It includes the vesting of sites of cultural and historical significance, a strategic partnership over public conservation lands, a financial settlement, a relationship accord between Ngati Porou and the Crown, and much more. But as others have done, I want to particularly mention the inclusion of recognition of Ngati Porou’s military service. No family has been left untouched by the enormous contribution Ngati Porou men and women have made to the military efforts of Aotearoa, and I want to acknowledge them today. But what we must ensure is that these strategic relationships and partnerships are real and enduring and that they do not disappear or fade away after an initial burst of enthusiasm on behalf of the Crown and its entities. But I am confident that the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill will provide the base for a continuing productive and mutually respectful relationship with the Crown.
I want to acknowledge the work of Te Haeata, the subcommittee responsible for the supervision of negotiations, and the work of the negotiating team. Te Haeata is, indeed, an appropriate name, given the new dawn this Treaty settlement heralds for the people of Ngati Porou, and I look forward to the continuing cultural and economic renaissance of Ngati Porou following this settlement. It is important to acknowledge the work of Te Rūnanga o Ngati Porou thus far. As part of the post-settlement process, the rūnanga will also pass over $50 million worth of agricultural, social, and cultural assets built up from practically nothing over the last 25 years. Collectively these assets already employ 300 people in our region. And as a scientist, I welcome the work that is under way on post-settlement initiatives. These will potentially include, firstly, a science, technology, and innovation unit to work with universities to find more efficient and profitable ways of managing farms, aquaculture and fisheries, and to turn round the historical relative underperformance of Māori assets. Māori in general and Ngati Porou in particular have found it very difficult to access mainstream research funding from central government. Government science and innovation strategy documents do not acknowledge the particular needs and interests of the Māori economy. Changes need to be made to ensure Māori applicants’ equitable access to mainstream science and innovation funding, not just small carved-off specialist pots of money.
They also potentially include the development of a science syllabus, which will prepare students for work for the tribe in the future. They include the establishment of a school of excellence focused on tikanga and reo and an associated sporting academy. And they include housing and alternative education initiatives. These are all initiatives that will make a significant difference to the economy and to the people of Ngati Porou. I note that an online poll on the www.tehaeata.co.nz website shows that 74 percent of respondents said employment should be the priority for Ngati Porou. So I particularly welcome the comments from the Te Rūnanga o Ngati Porou chairman, Dr Api Mahuika, when he reaffirmed that post-settlement decisions will focus on people, not just the financial bottom line. As we grow our assets and our economic activity, we are going to need the people with the skills to look after those assets. And I could do no better than to read this quote from Dr Mahuika: “We have to develop ourselves at home because if you can’t keep the home fires burning and if you can’t keep the sentiment of your people and the tikanga that they belong to—then you lose them … and we don’t want to lose them because they are the repositories of our history, our knowledge, our tikanga and our reo.” Kia ora, uncle. We must do everything we can to give our young people opportunities at home, not in Australia.
I want to mention one last thing. Today is a significant step forward for the relationship between the Crown and Ngati Porou. But that relationship is holistic and not limited solely to Treaty settlement processes. The Crown must treat the relationship as one of ongoing mutual respect in practice as well as in word, and in regard to recent activities and processes embarked upon by the Government in relation to oil and gas exploration off the East Coast, the Crown fell seriously short of its obligation under that relationship.
So it is an honour to speak today. I want to congratulate all those who have worked to get us here today, especially the many who are no longer with us. Today marks a new dawn for the people of Ngati Porou. Kia kaha. Kia manawanui. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kia ora mai koutou katoa.
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Hoi anō, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa e Ngati Porou, koutou i haere tawhiti mai ki roto i tō tātau Whare i te rā nei. Me mihi atu ki a koe e te matua e Tāmati, koutou ko ngā rangatira o tō tātau ao Māori i kawe atu i te aroha ki te whānau o te Kingi o Tonga i tērā rā. Koutou ko tā mātau Minita anō hoki. Nō reira, i haere koutou, ā, kua hoki mai nei ki roto i a mātau i te rā nei. Hari ana te kite i a koe. Nō reira, ngā mihi, ngā mihi, ngā mihi ki a tātau.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I extend acknowledgments, salutations, and congratulations to all of you of Ngati Porou who travelled from afar to be here in our House today. I acknowledge you, elder Tāmati, you and our leaders of Māoridom who accompanied our Minister as well the other day to express our sympathy to the family of the King of Tonga. Your entourage went and has returned today to be with us. How wonderful it is to see you. And so fond salutations three times over to us.]
I was listening to one of the earlier speakers talk about ongoing bills, etc., establishing a lock between the Crown and Ngati Porou—as if anybody from any other tribe thinks that Ngati Porou has not already got a lock on the Government. Hekia on that side, Parekura on this side, my whanaunga up there Stephen Īhaka wanting to put his hand up for the Greens, is it, Stephen? And I understand Herewini is wanting to stand for United Future. Me mihi atu. I do not think you are going to lose any relationship with the Government there, Api. Your situation is safe for many generations to come.
Hoi anō, hara i te mea kia ’hakapau kōrero i te mea mōhio ana au kei konei a Parekura me Hekia hei whakaoti i wā tātau kaupapa i te rā nei. Nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou.
[However, it is not because to continue talking is a waste of words, but rather because I am aware that Parekura and Hekia will cover our matter off today. So I am merely acknowledging your presence.]
Just one thing. Parekura promised me when I came into the House that if I supported this Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill right to the end he would ensure that I got a bach in Tolaga Bay. I came into the House today to ask him whether or not that clause is in the bill and he said: “I think some of my relations have put a casino there already.”
Hoi anō, hari ana au kia tae mai me te mōhio anō hoki koutou, ’hakoa ngā piki, ngā heke i roto i a mātau, i roto i tēnei Whare, e tū kotahi ana ngā mema Māori hei tautoko i te kaupapa, kia whakahokia ngā mana ki ngā iwi. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.
[However, it pleases me to be here. You need to be aware as well that despite the ups and downs we experience here amongst ourselves in this House, Māori members stand as one in supporting policy whereby autonomy is returned to tribes. So salutations, acknowledgments, and good wishes to you collectively and to us all.]
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : Ko Hikurangi te maunga, ko Waiapū te awa, ko Ngati Porou te iwi whānau rua. Te rere haere atu te awa o Uawa, e tae kaha i te moutere o Pourewa. I reira kē e tū atu te waka o Hinematioro. E whakahoki atu te kitenga o Te Whakatātare, ki te whare o Ruakapanga i te taenga o Te Kani, peka ana ki te wānanga o Te Rāwheoro ngā karangatanga o Rangiuia, tihei mauri ora.
E mihi kau ana i a koutou, ngā koroua, ngā kuia o te kāinga, mai i Tikirau ki Te Toka-ā-Taiau. E rekareka atu i te kite atu i a koutou e tae atu i konei mō te oti pai nei. Ahakoa ngā piki ngā heke. E whai atu, e whai kaha atu koutou. E mōhio atu tātau mō rātau e rere atu, e kore e konei. Ahakoa e kore e konei, e mōhiotia atu ko wētahi o rātau, he mahi whārikitia mō tēnei otinga. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.
Te pāpā e Apirana tēnā koe. Tā Tāmati, e mihi kau ana. Ki a koutou o ngā tokotoru tapu e noho i mua rā, a te pāpā a Barlow, Uncle Noel, Tāte, e tino mihi atu i a koutou. Tāhia koutou. He whakaaro mō rātau, e kore e konei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau. E Ming, tēnā koe. He nui atu o ngā kōrero mō ngā Hainamana e tae atu i konei i tango whenua. Kaua koe e haere kaha atu i reira. E Herewini, ana koutou katoa. He tino kaha atu koutou. Tēnā tātau.
[Hikurangi is the mountain, Waiapū is the river, and Ngati Porou is the tribe on both sides of the family. The canoe sails on the Uawa River. It reaches Pourewa Island, where Hinematioro’s canoe was. When Te Kani arrived, Te Whakatātare was taken back to the house of Ruakapanga and then went to Te Rāwheoro, the traditional school of learning; to the descendants of Rangiuia, behold the breath of life.
I salute you, the elderly men and women from home, from Tikirau to Te Toka-ā-Taiau. It is wonderful to see you here for the completion of this bill. You have pursued it with strength. We all know that those who have passed on are no longer with us. Although they are not present, it is well known that they laid the groundwork so that this bill could be finalised. And so I thank you.
To my Uncle Apirana, greetings. Greetings, Sir Tāmati. To the sacred trio sitting in the front—Uncle Barlow, Uncle Noel, Tāte—I congratulate you. Our thoughts are with those who are no longer with us. And so I salute you. Greetings, Ming. There has been a lot of talk about the Chinese coming here to take land. Do not go there. To Herewini, and to you all, you are all strong. Thank you. ]
The only thing I ever promised Hone Harawira was a mamae during duck shooting season. [Interruption] And I hope that instead of shooting mallard, they try to shoot him.
Can I say seriously that this is a wonderful day to celebrate. We have done five settlements today, and it attests to the seriousness that some of us try to ensure is imbued through that great statement of nationhood. I want to recognise the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Sharples, and, especially, Chris Finlayson, the Attorney-General, who defended his right not to say anything yesterday. But I want to thank Chris for his effort, and to remember my colleague Michael Cullen, and Mita Ririnui, and all of those who had something to do with this. I want to especially recognise my very close cousin, who has good blood in her, Hekia Parata, the Minister of Education, and to say that I am very proud of her being Minister of Education, even though at times we may disagree.
The redress is here. Everybody has read it. There are a whole lot of things in here that will make life better for our people. There certainly have been struggles. One of our tūpuna—we have a whole lot of chiefs and chieftainesses in Ngati Porou nō Tai Rāwhiti—was Te Kani-a-Takirau, who was a relation of my tupuna. He was well known. He hīkoi-ed to Pūkawa in November 1885 to try to ensure that unity was true and proper amongst Māori leaders. In all that he pervaded over Ngati Porou, he lived with the great people of Hauiti, and I want to remember that today.
Tribes are not too unlike Pākehā Christian churches. They have the same God and the same goal but they differ at times. And that is what Treaty settlements seem to be, to me. You want a good outcome, and there is a good outcome here for our tribe. I am of Ngati Porou descent, and my nanny said to me when I used to roam around on the road—she was from Te Horo—“Whatever you do, e hoa, don’t tramp on any Māori’s neck, whether it is down in Te Wai Pounamu or up in Ngāpuhi.” I said: “Why is that, Nan?”. She said: “Because you might be tramping on your own neck.” Whakapapa is a great thing, as my colleague Nanaia put forward about the mahi between Te Pūea and Apirana Ngata.
I took umbrage. I have really warmed to the Minister—the Attorney-General, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He said a few great things today about finishing the Maniapoto settlement, building the whare for the 28th Māori Battalion, and ensuring that the rest of the Ngati Porou settlement will be done in this sitting. I think that is what he was leading up to, and I want to thank him for that, and I look forward to it. He made a bit of a faux pas in suggesting that Ngati Porou were sluggish in economic development. I want to tell you that Tā Apirana was way ahead of his time. He gave Taranaki the first 12 cows. They have forgotten about that now that they are the big shareholders in Fonterra. He built a dairy factory. He was ahead of his time.
Then this damn Kāwana legislation convinced our people in the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s to pack their gear up. I remember being a 5-year-old in 1955, sitting on the post of a cream stand—people do not know what a cream stand is any more—with my nanny, watching the Haengas, the Crawfords, the Tautaus, and the Kōpas pull their houses down. They were going to this faraway land called Wainuiōmata, or Manuwera. It may as well have been New York for us, because we hardly got to go to Tolaga Bay. Our people have been transient. In those 22 years 86 percent of our population left Ngati Porou. I am seeing them going to Aussie now. It is a repeat. But I would suggest to Minister Finlayson do not ever underestimate Ngati Porou’s economic prowess. They held on to their land. They are going forward.
I was part of a group who decided to build an abattoir in Ruatōria, I recall, which Potter Swann designed. Everybody said we were mad. If only we had built that abattoir.
Hone Harawira: You were mad not to!
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is right. We had the water. We had worked it all out, and my cousin Martin Kīngi said to me: “Build the abattoir.” Martin was a bit of a drinker. I think of the people who are not here. I think about Bill Te Kani, and Uncle Noel and my Uncle Hinga, two of the last of the 28th Māori Battalion. Let it not be said that Ngati Porou have not done their bit to serve their country. Hōnore Chesley had a smile like a million dollars. There are some great people in Ngati Porou. I think of Auntie Gaga and the famed prophet and scholar Koro Dewes, who believed that life began and ended at Whangaōkena. He was a great, great warrior and a great partner for Uncle Api and them, coming here and finding ways through for this settlement. I think of Maraea-te-Kawa, Pēhi Kaa, who has just passed on, Senior Tangaere, Tip Tāmae-te-Maro, Tom—all of those people. Auntie Kate I want to mihi to but I do not see her here. And Tā Hēnare, who has passed away. To all of the people up in the gallery here, it is great to see you all. This is a good day. Take your time going home, and keep an eye on everything that is going on.
I thought I would use the last minute of my call again. You know, Māori signed up for forestry plantations at 3 percent. It was a rip-off. It was terrible. They were chased with the Noxious Weeds Act to get rid of the scrub and the gorse. Then all of a sudden there was money allocated from the Government to do forestry. I am not too sure what it does for our people. So I can assure you that the guardians, the rūnanganui, in charge of this big effort will ensure that the best results, with decent partners, will happen for our people. Let it not be said that we rely on the middle people all the time. I want to say to our leaders quite seriously: trust yourself, your own intellect and intelligence, and believe in the people living there, inside. It is important we get expertise from outside, but not to chastise and control us like lawyers and accountants have done over several years. Let us ensure that we can do that, and make sure that we can leap forward on it.
It is a great day for Ngati Porou. I am certainly proud to be here with my cousin Hekia. Rino thought she was wearing Ratana colours. I told him “They’re not Ratana colours; we had those before you.” That is about Hiruhārama. That is why Whaea Tilly has got the purple on, too. So tēnā koe.
E mihi kau ana i a koutou katoa e Vic. [I congratulate you all, Vic.] I want to mihi to my whanaunga Heeni, and Maria Whitehead. You have really been consistent, Maria. Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou.
Pai ana te rangi nei mō tātau o Ngati Porou. Kāre mō te kōrero whakahīhī, hoki pai ki te kāinga, tukuna, mahi atu te mahi pai mō ngā uri katoa o tātau. Kia ora tātau.
[This is a great day for us of Ngati Porou. We will not speak with arrogance as well, but return home nicely, launch it, and accomplish the positives for all of our kinfolk. Congratulations, everyone.]
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) : Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakahaere, otirā, tēnā tatou katoa e whakawhāiti nei. Ko Hikurangi te maunga, ko Waiapū te awa, ko Ngati Porou te iwi, tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and, indeed, to all of us packed together here. Hikurangi is the mountain, Waiapū is the river, and Ngati Porou are the people, so salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings to us all.]
Can I say how proud I am to be standing in the House today in your company and in the company of all our tūpuna whose presence I feel around us today. I am pleased that we were able to begin this final reading of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill with our Minister of Māori Affairs, and as I rushed in from the airport listening to the speeches and the names on the roll-call of some of the Ngati Porou people who have been attendant upon this claim, I was concerned that I would get here in time and be able to participate in the final passage of this bill. Kātahi nei au ka hoki mai i Tūwharetoa, me ngā mihi a Tā Tumu me te whānau o Tūwharetoa ki a tātou, mō tēnei rā whakahirahira.
[I have just returned from Tūwharetoa with salutations from Sir Tumu and the Tūwharetoa family on this momentous day.]
I would also like to join with the previous speakers in the House from all parties for the sentiments they have expressed, for the ideas that they have canvassed, for the acknowledgments that they have paid to Ngati Porou, and for the recognition of the particular and unique and distinctive contribution that Ngati Porou has made to our nation of Aotearoa New Zealand. We, indeed, do come from a tribe with particular characteristics that are sometimes misunderstood by the rest of the world, and that strengthen all of us no matter what pathway we walk in our lives and no matter what place we occupy at different stages of our lives.
He tū whakaiti tēnei ki mua i a koutou, he tū whakahīhī hoki nā te mea, he nui ngā mahi kua mahia e koutou, ngā kanohi o rātou kua mene atu ki te pō. Kei te mōhio tātou, ehara i te mea, ko koutou anake e waha nei i tēnei kaupapa ēngari, ko ngā whānau, ko ngā tāngata, ko ngā kuia, ko ngā tīpuna kua mene atu ki te pō; kei konei tonu rātou, ā, kei waenganui i a tātou.
[I rise in humility before you, and proudly as well, because much work has been done by you collectively as representatives of those who have gathered in the world of death. We are conscious that it is not just you alone who bear this matter but families, people, elderly men and womenfolk, and ancestors who have assembled in the world of the dead; they are still here, of course, among you.]
This has been a long journey. It has been a long journey, and at different times different people have carried the responsibility of keeping the process going, of keeping the momentum up. It has cost a lot of energy and emotion and time for all of you who have been involved with it. I want to acknowledge all of you who have at different times carried this kaupapa, because it has relied not on one person but on everyone at different stages.
Although it has been in the context of a Treaty settlement where injustices and breaches of relationships and trust have characterised this process, it has nevertheless allowed Ngati Porou to retell our stories to ourselves, to remind ourselves of the narratives that make us who we are, to remind us of the people from whom we are descended, and to remind us of the responsibility that we have to the future. So, as other speakers have remarked, this is, indeed, the end of a particular chapter, but it is a chapter amongst many chapters yet to unfold in the Ngati Porou story, not only of who we are as a people but of the continuing contribution that we can and must continue to make to our Aotearoa New Zealand.
We all of us engaged in this process are nation builders. All iwi across the country have a particular and distinct contribution to make to who we are as a nation, and I am mindful that there have been four other settlements passed in this House today. I think that in going forward the particular things that I am interested in are what we do with this settlement, how we build the strength of Ngati Porou for the future, how we continue to invest in the cultural richness of who Ngati Porou are, and how we ensure that the dialectal richness of our language is imbued in our children and that we do not rely only on the education system to support that. It is not the education system’s language and it is not the Government’s language.
If we want te reo o Ngati Porou to be transmitted and transformed and to be part of the language of our children and of our mokopuna, then we have to speak it. It is not the Government that comes to our christenings, or our twenty-firsts, or our weddings, or our tangihanga, or our hura kōhatu. It is us. It is us who stand on the sidelines and cheer on Ngati Porou East Coast rugby to ever-greater victory. It is us who speak to ourselves about ourselves in our most modest way! It is important that we are able to do that with the full range of the beautiful vocabulary that is part and parcel of who we are as Ngati Porou.
So I would hope that we are going to invest our settlement in the growth of that cultural capital as well, because it is through using our language that we carry the full beauty and breadth and depth of the stories of who we are. I would hope that we are going to invest our capital in the growth of our social well-being. Yes, that does include employment. I believe, as I have said, that we do not actually have an unemployment problem; we have a skills-deficit problem.
Ngati Porou, through its his and her story, has demonstrated its capacity to invest in education, to understand the importance of developing the most potent, the most powerful, the most transformational resource we will ever have, and that is the one between our two ears. It is how we think about ourselves, it is how we process the world around us, and it is how we take the knowledge from the past and create new knowledge, in order to continue the unfolding story of who we are as Ngati Porou and how we contribute that back to Aotearoa New Zealand.
So I would hope—and I do not think it is coincidental that I have the honour to stand before you today as our Minister of Education—that we in Ngati Porou will take the opportunity to really invest in growing the educational achievement of Ngati Porou children, wherever they are, kei te kāinga, kei te whenua. It is important that our babies and toddlers go to early childhood education, whether it is playcentre, kindergarten, puna reo, or kōhanga reo. The fact is that it is important that they go, that they engage in the learning process, they take advantage of Te Whāriki—the architects of which are in the gallery today—and that they grow and become competent and go on to primary school.
It is important that they are then received by teachers who care about their learning, who want to see them progress, and who understand that it is as much about language, identity, and culture as it is about academic achievement. It is important that they then transfer on into secondary school and achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. They will then have a meaningful qualification that allows them to have a self-determining life. It would be helpful if you could contribute to our target of 85 percent of all 18-year-olds achieving NCEA Level 2 by 2016. Of course, it would be great if we could have a competition between iwi as to how many more Māori children we could have successful in our education system, because then they will be self-directing and self-determining in terms of their life choices and their life chances.
I would hope that with our settlement, as others have said, we invest in the physical assets that are the basis of our rohe, that we grow that with the science and innovation that others have mentioned here, and that we take advantage of the technological opportunities that ultra-fast broadband and the internet give us. I hope that we do all of that with the intelligence and the strategic outlook that others in this House have mentioned tonight, and that we grow the social, economic, and cultural capital of Ngati Porou, not just for Ngati Porou but for the ongoing contribution that has been part and parcel of the way Ngati Porou have participated in the growth of our nation.
As others have said, when I come to the House every day and I pass that bust of Sir Apirana Ngata, I feel motivated and inspired, and I never feel alone, ever, in this place. The weight of expectation of all of you in the gallery, and all whom you represent and reflect from home and from other parts of the country, inspires all of us here—my brother, Parekura, who is obviously focused on what I am saying—in the House, and we are motivated and committed to making a difference. Whether here on this marae or on our marae in Ngati Porou, all of us are responsible for raising the quality of citizenship, for not only paying the price of citizenship, of which Sir Apirana Ngata spoke, but for also receiving the gifts of citizenship that are the reciprocal obligation between the Crown and iwi in the honouring of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the compact between ourselves.
So I am proud and humbled to be a participant in this chapter of the development of Ngati Porou and of our country. In so doing I would like to acknowledge the Ministers who have made it possible: my colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson; previous Ministers of Treaty settlements; Dr Michael Cullen; and those Ministers back before them, some of whom have been mentioned in the House today; and, indeed, everyone who has had a hand in this, officials and negotiators, and all of you who have been responsible for bringing to fruition this settlement today. I acknowledge you, I thank you, and I wish you well in turning this chapter into yet a greater saga of development by Ngati Porou for Ngati Porou, and for Aotearoa New Zealand. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.
- Bill read a third time.
- Waiata; karakia
- Waiata; karakia
- The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.