Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a second time. The Te Arawa lakes have long been viewed as a national treasure to be enjoyed by New Zealanders. These lakes have long been enjoyed by families, by tourists, and by recreational fishers, alike. But for Te Arawa, these lakes have an even greater meaning. Every single lake has a story to tell, handed down from generation to generation. The lakes have provided sustenance and a way of life for Te Arawa. Te Arawa has, and always will have, a cultural and spiritual relationship with these lakes.

This bill is an important milestone to Te Arawa and to the Crown. It signals the beginning of a new era in the relationship between the Crown and Te Arawa with regard to the lakes. I encourage every member of this House, if they have not already done so, to read carefully the preamble to this bill. It sets out the path that Te Arawa and the Crown have travelled to get to this point. I acknowledge the work and the commitment by the previous Government, in 1997, to make an exception to the Crown’s comprehensive settlement policy, in order to allow Te Arawa to negotiate their grievances in relation to the lakes separately from their other grievances. I also acknowledge the decision in 1998 to recognise the mandate of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board to negotiate this claim on behalf of all Te Arawa.

This bill sets out the Crown’s acknowledgment and formal apology to Te Arawa for past dealings that breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Through it, the Crown also acknowledges that a number of Crown actions have caused grievances to Te Arawa. For example, the Crown acknowledges that the introduction of exotic fish species significantly depleted the indigenous species upon which Te Arawa depended for food, for hospitality, for trade, and for koha. Further, the Crown acknowledges that Te Arawa petitioned the Crown for several years concerning the depletion of indigenous species, and restricted access to new species. Indeed, some of Te Arawa were prosecuted for fishing in the lakes without a licence during that time. The Crown acknowledges that it failed to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa, as part of its 1922 agreement regarding the lakes, when that annuity materially lost value as a result of inflation over a number of years. This bill will settle all Te Arawa’s historical claims relating to the lakes, including any claims relating to that 1922 agreement, and the annuity payments pursuant to the 1922 agreement.

This settlement vests in Te Arawa the fee simple estate of 13 lake beds, with the Crown retaining ownership of the water column and airspace above the lake beds. It establishes the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group as a joint committee, under the Local Government Act 2002, to provide advice on the management of the lakes. It records a formal apology to Te Arawa, to their ancestors, and to their descendants for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It provides a statutory acknowledgment to recognise Te Arawa’s strong spiritual, cultural, historical, economic, and traditional association with the lakes. It includes a financial redress of $2.7 million to recognise the economic loss suffered by Te Arawa arising from the Crown’s Treaty breaches, and a further $7.3 million to settle any remaining annuity issues. This bill makes it clear that it is a full and final settlement of all historical claims of Te Arawa in relation to 14 lakes.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and submitted its commentary to the House. The committee recommends that the bill be passed unamended, and I take this opportunity to thank the committee for its consideration of the bill. The committee received 20 submissions—18 in opposition and two in support. It should be noted, however, that one of the submissions in support of the bill, that of Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, was submitted on behalf of its beneficiaries, who number over 10,000.

I would like to comment briefly on the issues raised by the committee and submitters relating to the mandate of Te Arawa Māori Trust Board and the post-settlement governance entity. Various submitters opposed to the bill claimed that Te Arawa Māori Trust Board does not hold the mandate to negotiate the settlement on behalf of all Te Arawa. The trust board’s mandate to negotiate on behalf of all of Te Arawa, which was recognised by the Crown in 1998, still stands strong today. The Waitangi Tribunal has recently inquired into this matter and has concluded that the trust board’s Te Arawa - wide mandate was appropriate to deal with the complex and overlapping customary interests in the lakes, and that it has been well maintained—I think it is important to emphasise that—throughout the negotiation process.

The process of establishing the post-settlement governance entity was also raised as an issue by the committee and, indeed, by some of the submitters. The committee and those submitters were concerned that only one governance model was discussed with the people of Te Arawa. In fact, that is not correct. However, it is imperative that all of Te Arawa are able to be represented by the post-settlement governance entity. Given the large number of iwi and hapū that make up Te Arawa, and the varying sizes of these iwi and hapū, many models of representation used by other iwi were not appropriate for the lakes settlement. Various representation options were discussed and considered by the trust board, and in hui, over several years. Those options ranged from a Te Arawa - wide model, with representatives appointed by all Te Arawa, to various marae and/or hapū-based models. The trust board weighed up the options and, in consultation with the people of Te Arawa, developed a model that most appropriately reflects the complex interrelationships between the many and varied iwi and hapū of Te Arawa. That model, the Te Arawa Lakes Trust, was ratified by a convincing majority of those who voted. I am well satisfied that the ratification results confirmed that the structure of the Te Arawa Lakes Trust is an appropriate entity to receive and manage the settlement assets.

I should also note for the House that during the Committee stage I intend to move two very minor technical amendments to the bill. One is to give clarity to administrative arrangements for the Crown stratum under the Land Act 1948. The other is consequential to changes in terminology enacted recently in the Protected Objects Amendment Act, which will come into force on 1 November 2006.

It has taken many years of challenging negotiations between Te Arawa and the Crown to reach this important point. It began, as I have said, in 1997—and I want to acknowledge my predecessors the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham and the Hon Margaret Wilson for their significant contributions to these negotiations. The Crown considers it is a fair and just settlement, the people of Te Arawa have ratified it, and both parties now look forward to a more positive future relationship. I acknowledge the people, officials, Ministers, and members of the trust board, and especially the people of Te Arawa who are here today—those who have worked hard to bring this settlement to this point. In particular, Ānaru, e te rangatira, tēnā koe; Andrew, the chief, greetings to you. I urge the House to support this bill. It should proceed without delay. I commend it to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : National opposes the second reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. It says insufficient work has been done on it at the select committee stage to persuade the party that it should support what it regards as defective legislation. Much of the bill is unexceptional. In particular, the settlement resolves all of Te Arawa’s historical claims relating to 14 lakes and the remaining annuity issues. It removes the jurisdiction of the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, and the benefits of the settlement are to be available to all members of Te Arawa, wherever they may live.

However, I do note that there still remain some outstanding mandate issues. Let me say to the Government that mandate issues cannot be legislated away. If the Crown does not get this issue right, it will face ongoing litigation and ill feeling. I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that the Privy Council is shortly to give its decision in a case involving Ngāti Apa. That case raises mandate issues that have been hanging around for 17 years, and the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998 did not legislate those issues away.

A number of other points about this bill raise real concerns. The first is with regard to that elusive phrase “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, and the second is what I consider to be a dangerous reference in clause 7 to matters of spiritual importance. Of course, the Māori Affairs Committee paid no attention to those matters and simply endorsed the bill. So much for the theory that select committees should rigorously examine legislation! Nor has the Minister turned his mind to either of the issues. He simply stood up and read out a speech that ignored key matters and, in fact, glided over some of the real pitfalls. Probably the issues were beyond the Minister, who really is a complete waste of space. His performance in this portfolio is even worse than his performance in the justice portfolio—and that really says something. So the bill has come back to the House and the same defects as were there before are still there.

I do not intend to spend very much time talking about the first of my concerns. I closely examined the phrase “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in my first reading speech, and I will take that as read. In that speech I outlined nine key or central principles that have been extracted over the years from various cases and reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, and I said that it was not too hard to spell out exactly what one is talking about when one refers to the principles of the Treaty. In my first reading speech I criticised the Government’s lazy drafting and poor workmanship with regard to this bill. The fact that the bill has come back to the House in this defective form illustrates the point that the Government is not interested in addressing those issues, but simply wants to be rid of the legislation in some formulaic way. Well, we think the principles of the Treaty are important. We think they should have been addressed, and we are not supporting the second reading of the bill for that reason.

And I would be very interested to know the position of the New Zealand First members. They, too, should be opposing the bill, given Mr Woolerton’s important, but defective, Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, which is now before the Justice and Electoral Committee. In my first reading speech on that bill, I said that although it was lazily and sloppily drafted, it addressed some important issues that need to be addressed concerning the meaning of the phrase “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. If New Zealand First is to be consistent, it, too, will oppose the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill on those grounds—and I hear my friend Anne Tolley, the junior Opposition whip, laugh, because she knows what consistency is all about with regard to New Zealand First. So much for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I will now focus on one particular concern I have that, given the discussions and litigation that have occurred over the years, makes it simply negligent to include a particular phrase in this settlement bill. I refer to clause 7(1) of this bill, which contains the text of the acknowledgments as set out in the deed of settlement. Of course, apologies and acknowledgments should not be contained in legislation—that is a mistake in itself—but the acknowledgment itself is also badly drafted. The first acknowledgment is that the Crown recognises that Te Arawa value the Te Arawa lakes and the lakes’ resources as taonga, and the Crown acknowledges the spiritual importance to Te Arawa of the lakes and the lakes’ resources. In the Committee stage I will ask the Minister what that means, and how it is to be compared with cultural and traditional importance—not that I will be holding my breath while waiting for a coherent answer from the Minister on that topic or, indeed, on any topic.

What I find fascinating is that that phrase is included. Why is there an acknowledgment of spiritual importance? I find it strange that the Government is happy to enact that sort of reference, yet it goes out of its way to expunge any references to Christianity. In fact, this Government has an abiding hostility to Christianity, and especially to the part of Western Christianity that still firmly holds to articles of faith and objective standards of right and wrong. We can see that distaste and, indeed, hatred manifested in the way Government members constantly make extravagant and untrue remarks about a Christian minority—and it happened tonight—some of whose members dared to challenge the Prime Minister.

Antichristianity is to Labour Party members today what anti-Semitism was to the Nazis. Mind you, they do not really like Jews, either.

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s personal insults mean nothing to me, but I take deep offence at the comment he has just made. He has no idea what the personal faith of members on the Government side of the House is. I personally take deep offence at that accusation. The member should simply address this important piece of legislation, and stop indulging himself.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The point I am making, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just withdraw and apologise, please, and continue.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I withdraw and apologise. The point of the matter is that the Government is very concerned to include phrases along the lines of that one to recognise spiritual values, but can members imagine what the response would be if Catholic priests were dispatched by the Government all over the world to bless embassies before they were opened, or if we asked the Catholic Archbishop of Wellington to conduct an exorcism of Parliament at the time Parliament opened? Actually, that would not be a bad idea, because I can think of some Government members who would benefit from an exorcism.

The point I am making is that this Government, while it is doing its best to expunge the Christian religion from our society, is enacting that sort of phrase. It wants to do away with the reference to Christ in the opening prayer of the House, yet it enacts vague references to Māori spirituality. Respect for undefined spirituality can lead in all sorts of directions, and I can do no more than quote from an excellent article by Dr David Round, who is a law lecturer at the University of Canterbury.

In an article entitled “Here Be Dragons”, Dr Round states the following about phrases like Māori spirituality: “The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 requires all persons exercising powers and functions under it to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and also to take into account the relationship of Māori, and their culture and their traditions, with their traditional lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga. Acting in accordance with this, ERMA”—the Environmental Risk Management Authority—“has established its own Māori advisory committee, which maintains that Māori have today, and have historically had, practices relating to scientific knowledge. The committee has been generally opposed to genetic modification”—it is not alone in that course—“but so far ERMA has declined to accede to its own recommendations.”

Dr Round gives another example from the present draft of the Aoraki - Mount Cook National Park management plan, which proposes to give the Department of Conservation the power to encourage and/or require climbers not to stand on the summit of Mount Cook—the justification being that Mount Cook is the deified ancestor of Ngāi Tahu, and that standing on the head, the most sacred part of the ancestor, is disrespectful.

So vague references to spiritual values can be very dangerous indeed. If phrases like that are to be included—and they should not be—then it should be defined exactly what is being talked about. As Dr Round observed in his article, there is a distinct element of condescension in this approach, assuming as it does that all Māori still hold to pagan and animist beliefs, and that no real Māori could be a Christian. The phrase is inappropriate.

Why does this Government simply not understand those elementary points? Is there one Labour member who would be prepared to stand up and make a sensible refutation of the points I make? Trevor Mallard was appointed as Coordinating Minister, Race Relations to deal with those things, but Mr Mallard was just another one of the Prime Minister’s shabby little tricks. She appointed him to do nothing, and he succeeded, beyond his wildest imagination. Once the election was over, the Prime Minister failed to appoint him or anyone else to the coordinating race relations position.

Those sorts of phrases are unsatisfactory; the situation is unsatisfactory. For those two reasons alone National will oppose this legislation at its second reading. [Interruption]

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you heard Minister King use unparliamentary language. She called my colleague a liar, and I would expect you to ask her to withdraw and apologise.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) : No, I did not call the member a liar; I said: “That is a lie.” Mr Finlayson had said the Labour Party was antichristian. He has no right to decide what our personal beliefs are, and then to say we are antichristian. This party has Christians and people who are not Christians in it. For him to say that is unparliamentary. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need any further information or explanations. The member who has just concluded his speech apologised for using exactly those words earlier on, so I will leave the matter exactly where it is.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : Ā, kia ora kei te Kaihautū. E tika ana kia whakamihi atu ki te heamana o te poari a Te Arawa, e noho nei i roto i tēnei Whare. I haere tawhiti mai i te hau kāinga ki te tautoko ake i tāna pire. Nō reira, kai te rangatira, tēnā koe.

[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that I should acknowledge the presence of the Te Arawa board chairman seated in this House. He has come some distance from home to support his bill. And so, greetings to you.]

Naturally, I stand in support of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. If I ever had to describe the previous member’s speech, I would describe it as something that came out of the mouth of a terrible bigot.

Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. All members are honourable members. The member on his feet cannot accuse another member of being a bigot—plain and simple.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence at being called a bigot?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. This bill is not about the religious beliefs of Māori; it is about the settlement of a historic claim over the Te Arawa lakes. If Mr Finlayson, who was on his feet prior to leaving the Chamber, could identify only the lack of input—

Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One cannot refer to the absence of a member from this Chamber.

Darren Hughes: I take the point that Mr Roy makes, and my colleague may have erred in that regard. But I suspect he was referring to the convention in Parliament that when members have concluded their speeches, they stay to listen to the person who follows them. That is an important tikanga of the Parliament and I suspect that that was what he was meaning. But it would be helpful, maybe, if he just withdrew and apologised—[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are hearing a point of order. If members want the benches to be cleared, they are going the right way about it. When we have disposed of the point of order, other members can come back in. I just ask for a withdrawal of that remark, please, Mr Ririnui.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I withdraw. The member referred to the lack of work undertaken by the select committee during the consideration and deliberation aspect of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. I can say that as far as the National members on the select committee were concerned, he is absolutely right. Not only did those members turn up late, some of them did not turn up, at all. They did not participate in the hearing of submissions, at all. The strongest criticism they made was about the length of time it was taking for submitters to get their points across. So if there was a lack of input at the select committee, I am sure the member would like to talk to National members who were represented on the committee, and to make sure they work a lot harder in future.

The religious beliefs of the people of Te Arawa is not the issue here. They do have a spiritual association and ancestral connection with the lakes of Te Arawa, and it is well known within the Rotorua district that that particular issue is acknowledged. That is why this Government is determined to return the Te Arawa lake beds to the iwi of Te Arawa.

I want to make reference to some of the points that were made during the submissions process. I did touch on this point at the first reading stage, and I thought I had said enough in regard to that matter. We have to acknowledge that the lakes that will be returned to Te Arawa are ill, sick, and polluted. But there is a misunderstanding that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will be solely responsible for the clean-up work. Well, that is not the case. In fact, the board chairperson of Te Arawa Lakes Trust has been in Wellington for a couple of days negotiating those matters with the Minister for the Environment and other Cabinet Ministers. So to make that reference is misleading. It also raises concerns when it does not necessarily have to.

I also refer to the number of submissions that came through from the various Te Arawa iwi. Unfortunately, those representations were made on the basis of having been deliberately misinformed about the Treaty settlements process; about the package; about the compensation; about the ongoing relationships between Te Arawa Lakes Trust and the Rotorua District Council, between Te Arawa Lakes Trust and Environment Bay of Plenty, and, indeed, a lot of groups that use the lake area on a day-to-day basis. I want to make this point clear in the House: public access has not been prohibited. The old owners of the lake, who now become reconnected with the lake beds, are determined that the people of New Zealand will enjoy the pristine areas around those lakes.

Brian Connell: For now.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: There is quite a bit of cynicism across the other side of the House, but I do not think that the member can justify that claim when he knows that under previous settlements public access to public areas has never been prohibited.

David Bennett: Yeah, right!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Is that not the member who spoke on the 90-day bill and made a stuff-up of it? As I said, the condition of the lakes has been an issue, particularly for two submitters—Ngāti Whakaue, which has quite a significant interest in Lake Rotorua and in a number of other lakes around the area, Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Mākino, and a few others.

As the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations highlighted earlier on, the settlement will contain a Crown apology, and I do hope that Te Arawa as a people will accept the apology. The previous speaker touched on the fact that the principles in this case are not clearly defined. In that respect, the Crown did fail to protect the Te Arawa people in relation to those interests and rights. It is the principle of protection we are talking about here. We are also talking about the principle of redress.

I wonder what principles Chris Finlayson signed up to when he represented Ngāi Tahu in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. I suggest there is no difference in terms of the approach in relation to the principles. I suggest there is no difference in terms of the relationship Ngāi Tahu had with the taonga, in particular to pounamu, to the high country areas, to the maunga, to the awa, and to the coastline. So, what is the difference? Is it a case of having one view when one is a lawyer and having a different view when one is here as a paid member of Parliament? I think there is a name for that, but I am not allowed to use it in this House.

My colleague the Hon Mark Burton outlined the structure of the Te Arawa lakes following the enactment of the settlement legislation. The fact is that the lake beds will be returned to Te Arawa. We are dealing, in this case, with the historical aspect of Te Arawa lakes claim; we are not talking about the contemporary issues. We are not talking about the water, and we are not talking about the air column above the lakes. That is something I have no doubt Te Arawa will want to address in the future.

Also, on the management committee—which has been termed a two-by-two-by-two—Te Arawa will have two seats on the committee that manages the day-to-day affairs of the lakes. I have no doubt the representation from Te Arawa on that body will be quite significant and have a very powerful voice. I am sure the people of Te Arawa will make sure that is the case. This will mean that for the first time in decades Te Arawa will, in fact, have a legal voice at the table. The leverage relating to lake bed ownership and the property rights that flow from that mean Te Arawa will have a very significant voice going forward. There have been issues around the mandate. I note that Chris Finlayson did touch on mandate. I am not sure what his point was in relation to the process we have used. In this case it is no different from the one his party in Government signed up to with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Once again, it is another flip-flop, another U-turn.

Steve Chadwick: Hugely embarrassing.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Yes, I think he embarrassed himself when he made those statements. We heard from a number of submitters in Rotorua who expressed concern about that process, but going through it and speaking to Office of Treaty Settlements officials and also to representatives of Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, certainly every endeavour to ensure that the communication and consultation with iwi interested in the lakes was undertaken in a very thorough manner. But, of course, it is very hard to please all the people all the time. We are more than happy that Te Arawa Māori Trust Board has represented the views of more than 10,000 of its registered members in a very robust manner. It is with their support that I am happy to join them in progressing the claim to this stage today.

There are some issues that I am sure other parties will want to raise about the specifics of the settlement. We can address those matters during the Committee stage of the bill. I join my colleague Mark Burton in commending the Te Arawa negotiators, whose commitment and passion has enabled them to reach this stage of the settlement process. It has been a very, very longstanding matter.

I will be sorry to see the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board fade into history, but the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will be enacted at the time of settlement, and I am sure it will represent the views of Te Arawa people in relation to the lakes in a very robust manner. I feel sad about the trust board fading into history. My great-great-grandfather Teuarā Timi Waata Horne was a founding member of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board. So was my grandfather and three of his sons. I will not get that opportunity, because it will not be there any more—not that I was ever likely to be asked.

But the commitment shown by the negotiators and by the representatives of the various iwi with interests in the lakes is certainly something we can appreciate and commend them for. So, without having too much more to say, I commend this bill to the House.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is something of an interesting challenge for me to respond in the second reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. I have spent a fascinating afternoon—or a good portion of it—having a look at the issues that surround this particular settlement: the relevance of the grievance, the appropriateness of the process, the bill itself, and whether the bill will resolve the issues that this House should resolve. My colleague Chris Finlayson spoke about an issue of vagueness that is of concern to the National Party. Let me make a few “givens” right at the start. Should we as a Parliament be dealing with grievances? Yes, we should. Given that these are issues of significant importance, what should some of the principles that enshrine them be? Probably the greatest one is that they should be a full and final settlement, they should be just, and they need to be durable.

Following on from that, some significant processes need to be engaged in. We need to know that there is a high degree of acceptance within the iwi. We need to have buy-in from both parties. These are pretty simple principles; they are not rocket science. So after spending a good portion of the afternoon looking at the process and at what has happened here, I have some serious concerns. That is why National is not supporting the second reading.

Let me make it clear again. Is there a grievance in the case of the Te Arawa people? Yes, there is—undeniably so. Will this be a full and final settlement? I suspect not, and I wish to address some of those matters as we go through them in the next few moments. The bill itself recognises the need for an annuity, and I have no truck with the specified amount. If we bulk it up it is $10 million, and, in light of other settlements that have occurred around the place, it seems to be a relevant figure. I think the National Party would be happy to vote on that and support it, but there are some other issues that do concern us.

This is an issue that was first registered as a treaty claim in 1989. It is not as if this has just come out of the woodwork. We have had time to deal with this and to find some satisfactory answers. The models that I spoke about earlier, and the principles established by Bolger and Graham when we settled significant and difficult claims before, were not dissimilar in such things as structure of the iwi. We came up with some solutions that I believe are durable and that are full and final.

Let me address the matter of voting. When the Minister, the Hon Mark Burton, spoke first on the second reading he said that the trust board represents 10,000 people. From my reading of the papers the figure is 9,000, but I am not going to quibble about the 1,000. Yet there were 40,000 people registered at the last census of Te Arawa iwi whakapapa to whom this applies. So we have some 9,000 people—10,000 if the Minister is more accurate than me—who are members of the trust board and who have a pertinent vote on it. When we look at the numbers that voted, my figures tell me—and I invite someone to get up and say they are not correct—that there were 4,000 people out of the 9,000 or 10,000 who voted. Yes, there was a 97 percent affirmative vote, but when we start looking at the overall iwi of 40,000, we should ask how durable this process has actually been.

The Minister kind of downplayed the submission process. He said there were 20 submissions and 18 were against and two were for, but then one of them was the trust board of some 10,000-odd people. I guess that is right, but I have some concerns about the submission process. If it is a reflection of what is in the iwi, then I have some serious misgivings about the durability and suitability of what actually happened.

Let us go back and have a look at the first attempt, because we have to learn from history here. The first attempt to make a full and final settlement was in 1922. Was it full and final? At the time, it was thought to be, but it was not. If members look at the process at that time, two lawyers—one from Auckland and one from Wellington—met with Sir Apirana Ngata, a significant luminary of the Te Arawa people, whom I presume had in place networks to represent their view, but I could not find out too much about how that worked, and a full and final settlement was drafted in 1922. Was it durable? No, it was not. Yes, there is a grievance, and yes, there needs to be an apology. Yes, there needs to be an annuity paid, and, yes, there needs to be a process that will be durable and will be full and final.

My colleague Chris Finlayson spoke a great deal about the impreciseness that is included in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and he mentioned the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. There are a number of things that give me some concern about whether we all have a clear understanding of exactly what this means. In the preamble to the bill, in the report back from the Māori Affairs Committee, it talks about the form of protocols in the deed and states that the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and the Minister for the Environment are empowered to issue protocols. Why are these not worked out now? Why do we not have a clear understanding of exactly what this means? There are two parties in this—we have to accept that there are two sides. What happens if we do not agree on the protocols that are still to be worked out and we have delegated that responsibility to Ministers? To me, this is recipe to be back here to have another go at this and that is of significant concern to me. I do not know what the form of those protocols is and here we have a delegated responsibility. It seems to me to be a most unusual step to take in something as important as settling a longstanding grievance that is holding back both sides of this situation. That is simply not good enough.

Why do I think we need to spell these things out? There is a myriad of illustrations where even when we have tried to be precise, and time moves us on, we actually see different interpretations coming in—and that is when we have tried to be precise. Let me give members an example. I am quite familiar with fisheries legislation. If members go back and have a look at what we did there to accommodate the needs of iwi, they will see that we set up things like tai-ā-pure and mātaitai reserves. Now a mātaitai reserve is something that we all had a clear understanding about at the time. It referred to a traditional fishing ground. It could be a rock, a reef, a bay, a river mouth, or whatever. But right now, some 12 or 14 years on, we have applications for mātaitai reserves as big as the whole of the Bay of Plenty or the whole of the south coast of the South Island. They are huge areas that simply do not fit, if members look in Hansard andat what the legislation states, with what was said at the time—and that is when we were being absolutely specific.

So what does all this mean in terms of the protocols that are out there? We currently have the Government working on an access formula because issues for New Zealanders to have access to mahinga kai for everybody—trout fishing, or whatever—is something we see as a birthright. Yet in a significant area of the central North Island, we now have charging for access to fishing. Now members might well argue in a semantic argument that there is not any charge to fish, but if there is a charge for access, there is a charge to fish. Introduced species are mentioned here, and the Minister himself said that this is an important and significant place for all New Zealanders to go and do their outdoor recreation. When these protocols come into place further down the track, are we again going to see something that has an implication for the access of all New Zealanders? It is not spelt out; we have delegated the responsibility of setting up these protocols.

There is a desire to solve this issue, and to do it in a way that is durable and in a way that is fair. Pay the money, give the apology, but let us get the detail right. I have a serious concern that this is not a durable settlement. Therefore, National will not be supporting the second reading.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Ā, tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā tātou o te Whare. Engari he wāhi poto tēnei mihi atu ki a koutou mai i te waka o Te Arawa, koutou ngā kaikawe o te kaupapa nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou.

[Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us of this House. This is but a brief moment to acknowledge you, the canoe of Te Arawa, the bearers of this bill. Therefore, greetings to you and to us as well.]

First of all, although I may not agree with what they have said, I acknowledge those fine Māori speakers from the National Party. I find it very interesting that its two speakers thus far were not members of the Māori Affairs Committee, yet those of their colleagues who are members are not taking a call. I find that rather astounding.

Secondly, those National speakers criticised the rules under which this Te Arawa lakes settlement process is taking place, yet a former National Minister actually set the format for the process that we are now enjoying, and he was responsible for this format. On top of that, the previous National Government gave him a knighthood—and here we are tonight, hearing those people criticising the process! I find that rather amazing.

I also note that reference was made to a law lecturer from Canterbury, but Mr Finlayson omitted to tell this House that he referred to that particular law professor because he was a National Party candidate. So I can understand why Mr Finlayson was supporting the comments the professor made. However, I do acknowledge those two fine Māori speakers, and no doubt they will be ably supported by the Māori Party.

This is the eighth Treaty of Waitangi settlement since 2000. It is an indication of the contribution being made towards seeing the issue of Treaty settlements through to a suitable conclusion. The Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed in December 2004 in order to settle all of the historical claims of the Te Arawa in relation to 14 lakes in the Rotorua district. In the select committee process, we heard that one or two lakes were not included. The reason was that they were not part of the original agreement between the Crown and Te Arawa.

The lakes are those subject to the agreement made between Te Arawa and the Crown that was given effect by the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1922. I will name those 14 lakes: Ngāhewa; Ngāpouri, also known as Ōpōuri; Ōkareka; Ōkaro, also known as Ngakaro; Ōkataina; Rerewhakaaitu; Rotoehu; Rotoiti; Rotomā; Rotomahana; Rotorua; Tarawera; Tikitapu; and Tūtaeīnanga. Along with the ownership of those 14 lakes, the iwi will receive $2.7 million and an apology, plus $7.3 million to buy out the annuity paid to the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board.

For me this settlement clarifies Te Arawa’s rights and limits its liabilities. It is important that we should be aware, for example, that the iwi will not be liable for weed control or contamination, unless it has caused the problem. Existing structures on the lake beds can be maintained or removed without their owners having to seek the trust’s permission, and without charge. The rights of public use, existing commercial activities, and public utilities are enshrined in this bill.

The select committee hearing into the bill revealed a “rift” in Te Arawa, which New Zealand First found quite disturbing. This “rift” was manifested by the fact that of the 20 submissions received, 18 opposed the bill, notwithstanding a comment made by the second speaker from the Government that many of those who objected did so as a result of misinformation. Several hapū told the committee they wanted the bill suspended or mention of their names removed from the legislation, which mentions only three Te Arawa ancestors.

The Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, which negotiated the settlement, claimed to have the support of a large majority of its members. Te Arawa is the confederation of iwi and hapū, with about 40,000 members. It is important that they are all represented in this claim and that they all feel included in the process. New Zealand First was concerned that the consultation process was compromised by the fact that some participants felt that the process was dominated by the trust board’s recommendations, and were, therefore, predetermined to a large degree.

Some also disputed the mandate of the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board and its right to represent them. Amongst these were Ngāti Whāoa, Ngāti Mākino, and Ngāti Rangitihi. In the case of Ngāti Whāoa the inclusion of Lake Ōpōuri in this claim, without their mandate, ran counter to their own claim to this lake. Unfortunately for Ngāti Whaoa, the application for an early hearing of their claim was declined by the Waitangi Tribunal on 23 June 2006—a decision based on the review of evidence, relevant minutes and judgments of the Māori Land Court, and a tribunal-commissioned report known as the Melvin report. The presiding judge was convinced that the trust board’s mandate to represent Te Arawa had been collectively determined and well maintained. I am obliged to say at this juncture that the issue of mandate is a common feature of the settlements that have come to this House, thus far.

New Zealand First was also concerned that the discussions about a post-settlement governance and entity were limited, in that it was confined to one model. We feel that this issue could have been more comprehensively dealt with, which would have allayed the concerns of many submitters. The committee was advised by the Office of Treaty Settlements that the 2-year review process of the intended governance structure and operations will provide an avenue for further discussion on the structure of and representation on the trust. I am led to understand that the post-settlement group intends to allow for local management—that is, hapū management—of the respective lakes so as to allow for local involvement. The 2-year review would also present an opportunity to address issues expressed by members of Ngāti Whaoa with regard to the ownership of Lake Ōpōuri.

The high percentage of submissions opposed to the bill illustrates the fact that this settlement has not been without some concerns. However, I am hopeful that the processes put in place for a review will see a willingness by all parties to make a concerted effort to see this settlement as a successful one. For getting to this point represents a historic milestone, and it acknowledges that the lakes are inextricably bound with Te Arawa, while also allowing for continued public access. It also resolves outstanding annuity issues.

I support the previous speaker, who said that any settlement, notwithstanding this one, should be just and durable. New Zealand First believes that this will be a just and durable one. For those reasons I am happy to support this legislation on behalf of New Zealand First. Kia ora.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : The Greens are supporting the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and congratulate Te Arawa on negotiating a successful conclusion, after such a longstanding grievance. We recognise that there are always issues with treaty settlements, as a result of the Crown’s insistence on negotiating only with large, natural groupings, which always leaves the possibility of some groups feeling disadvantaged and brings into question the size of the mandate that has been achieved. There are some issues relating to the bill, which my colleague Metiria Turei wants to raise, and she will be doing that during the Committee stage. So at this stage I will simply express our support for the legislation.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare i te pō nei. Koutou i hara mai i te kāinga, e koro Ānaru, tēnā koe, Roku, koutou. Kia ora rawa atu koutou. Huri noa i te Whare, kia ora tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us all in the House tonight, and to you especially from home, koro Ānaru, greeting to you, Roku, and to you others. Greetings indeed to you all. Throughout the House, greetings to us all.]

In his submission to the Waitangi Tribunal in June 2003, Professor Hirini Moko Mead of Ngāti Awa raised the concept of te whakahoki whenua—the return of land. He suggested that the removal of the ringa kaha—the forceful occupation by another people—and the restoration of ancestral rights, can be achieved either by defeating the group holding the ringa kaha or by arranging to have the land, and therefore the mana over it, restored. He raised, as an example, the retaking of Maketū by the hapū of Te Arawa, thereby restoring the ancestral rights of Te Arawa over that area some 200 years after Ngāiterangi seized the land by conquest.

Tonight we bear witness in this House to the actions of the ringa kaha, those who represent the imposed treaty settlement process of the Crown, those who have threatened kotahitanga o te waka o Te Arawa—the unity of Te Arawa—in making monumental decisions about the large tracts of lakes, waterways, and lands encompassed in this bill. The question that the Māori Party brings to this debate is how sufficient the provisions within this bill are in restoring the ancestral rights of Te Arawa over our cherished lakes and lands. How is our rangatiratanga protected, or is it our fate to be eternally grateful for the breadcrumbs thrown to our people?

At the Māori Affairs Committee hearings, submission after submission recorded the dissatisfaction of submitters challenging the Crown that the financial compensation and responsibility for cleaning the lakes were insufficient. The Te Arawa Federation of Māori Authorities made an impassioned call to suspend this bill until more appropriate compensation and redress were available. It stated: “Continuation of this settlement is irresponsible. We cannot recover from the deliberate barbaric efforts of Government to delay provision of maps and survey materials which would have enabled our ancestors to present themselves, prepared for the demands of the native Land Court. We cannot understand why we were prosecuted for fishing in our own lakes. Our lakes and waterways are now devastated with unforgiving pollutants. Let us have the opportunity to reform an alliance which will not jeopardise our mana as a great tribe.”

It was a theme that was reinforced throughout the overwhelming majority of submissions, each one of them speaking of the threats that have been endured by te ahi kā roa—those who keep the fires burning at home. The rights of ahi kā roa emerge from the mana and the freedom to enjoy the benefits of tino rangatiratanga over their home whenua. The question of those who can assert mana whenua—literally those who have mana, political control, and authority over the land—is a highly contentious issue within this bill. Ngāti Wāhiao demanded that all reference to Lakes Ōpōuri/Ngāpōuri, Ngāhewa, Tūtaeīnanga, and Ōkaro be deleted from the bill, because they believe they never gave a mandate to any organisation to act on their behalf, and particularly in this lakes settlement. They have never had a seat on the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board, and, additionally, Ngāti Wāhiao lands, which include the lakes, are subject to current Waitangi Tribunal claims. It is disappointing that we have a settlement when the issues of ownership over these lands and lakes is still to be clarified.

Richard Charters, in a separate submission, searched Archives New Zealand for the 1915 minute book relevant to the sale of the Rotomahana Parekarangi land. He reviewed the research reports leading to the 1922 settlement and right through to the hui of 1997 for Te Arawa beneficiaries. From this basis he concluded that there was no mandate given by the people of Lake Ōpōuri, there was no ratification of the settlement by those owners, and, in fact, the people were excluded from voting on the settlement.

Then there is Ngāti Mākino who claim that the bill does nothing to provide for the spiritual relationship between Ngāti Mākino and their ancestral lands, lakes, and fisheries—their tribal identity. Ngāti Mākino are strongly opposed. They believe: “ … the net effects of clauses 13, 15 and 16 deny the descendants of Te Arawa proper and just restitution of their taonga.”

Then there was Pua Mīria Maka of Ngāti Pikaio, who stated that the financial compensation offered is an insult, and that the social and financial liability for the desecration of the lakes is not adequately addressed. Maka’s submission—and others from Kiri Pōtaka-Dewes of Ngāti Rangiteaorere, from Maru Tapsell of Waitaha, and from Michelle Beckett of Ngāti Whakaue—has given particular emphasis to describing the proposed settlement as inconsistent with the tikanga of Te Arawa and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It states: “The separation of the mana and authority of the beds of our lakes from the waters of our lakes and all other taonga within, is inconsistent with the cultural and spiritual integrity of the lakes themselves, and Te Arawa kawa, and tikanga.”

The submission of Te Ariki Mōrehu, for and on behalf of Ngāti Hinekura, talked about his position as an elder of Te Arawa having been attained through his upbringing at Ōtara marae, and over half a century of intense involvement in Te Arawa affairs. Te Ariki expanded upon the metaphysical or spiritual relationship of Te Arawa with our lakes, which he referred to as sacred, and regarded as a taonga since the discovery by our ancestor Īhenga. He explored the significance of Te Arawa holding mana whenua and rangatiratanga over these lakes since the time of Īhenga—our customary role as owners and kaitiaki of the lakes. He explained how these rights and responsibilities have been transmitted from generation to generation in Te Arawa waiata and karakia—their use governed by Te Arawa tikanga. The lakes, waterways, streams, rivers, swamps, and springs were a vital food source and a medicinal resource, as well as being part of an extensive communications network. He spoke about them being essential to the spiritual and cultural well-being of Te Arawa, with the waters from the various parts often used in ritual and ceremony. He said: “For Te Arawa, their lakes and waterways are not inert lifeless objects. In a very real sense the lakes are regarded as tupuna awa, tupuna moana; living taonga of Te Arawa … the full names of Lakes Rotorua and Lake Rotoiti are Rotorua nui a Kahumatamomoe and te Roto iti i kitea ai e Ihenga; Te Arawa ancestors who came on the Arawa canoe.” Malcolm Short, on behalf of Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust, extended this further to note that Lake Rotorua is not just a taonga for all of Te Arawa but also a national treasure for all New Zealanders.

Against the context of our most precious taonga, the despoliation of the waters and the disruption of the relationship of Te Arawa peoples to their lakes is seen as a catastrophic breach of Te Tiriti. Te ahi kā roa o Maketū explained the ways in which people have fought for decades against what was described as “the blankets of bureaucracy that have smothered our people”, and “the erosion of the whanau and hapu integrity of tangata whenua.” They said: “ … this is the yardstick that I use when I state unreservedly that we are being ripped off.”

The rip-off of the Crown’s policies and actions was given contemporary relevance with the submission of Colleen Skerrett-White, who advised that the Crown’s failure to protect the exploitation of Te Arawa culture, tikanga, and kawa from the growing ravages of the tourism industry, alongside its actions with regard to the lands, lakes, and geothermal interests, has effectively denied Te Arawa the opportunity to use and develop their assets to move from a subsistence to a cash economy.

The debates in this House tonight form part of the history that following generations will revisit. Indeed, the submission from David Wickliffe lays this challenge: “The Rotorua Lakes Bill is simply history repeating itself which we now know has not been in the best interests of Ngati Tamakari.” It has been my intention tonight to do the best I can to represent the interests and aspirations of my constituency. I have attempted to present their kōrero to the House tonight, for the esteemed representatives here to consider their heartfelt call for justice.

Don Morrison, who can whakapapa to a number of tribes, spoke—as, in turn, did his father, and his father, and his mother, and her father, Hēmi Te Tūpāroa. He stood to remind the Crown of what he called its deliberate discrimination that comes from appropriation and a position of power against Te Arawa. He said: “ … it is stated the Crown profoundly regrets that past Crown actions have had a negative impact on Te Arawa’s rangatiratanga … and you the Crown go further to ‘begin the process of healing’. Am I to be overcome with humility and gratitude and accept with thanks those words of fine gesture? I will tell my children’s children what I am about to tell you.”

The challenge for all members of this House tonight is whether we can live with what we will tell our children’s children. Is the apology a sincere apology? Is the redress appropriate to the rangatiratanga of Te Arawa? Is this the price of citizenship we should accept with thanks? We have a whakatauākī that I think is appropriate at this time: Kia mate ururoa, kei mate wheke—it is better to fight like a shark, than to give in like an octopus. Kia ora tātou.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. My contribution will be brief, as I have laryngitis.

I will focus very briefly on the fact that we are reminding ourselves tonight of the Crown’s presumption of legal title, and how that dispossessed Te Arawa. As a consequence, Te Arawa endured, in terms of the lakes that were precious to them, the introduction of exotic fishes without their permission, the issuing of fines for fishing without a licence, and, perhaps more devastatingly, the release of sewage into those lakes. Tonight we continue the process by which that title is received back by Te Arawa, in the mess that we have allowed the lakes to become. So in this brief call I just remind the House that we have an ongoing responsibility for the cleaning up of those lakes. We also need to concern ourselves with and keep mindful of the fact that there are some smaller interests within this claim who feel that their voice has not been heard. We need to make sure, particularly in the Committee stage, that those issues are relooked at. United Future is very happy to support the second reading of this bill.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I am pleased to be able to take a call at the second reading of this very, very significant bill. I also congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell on one thing: he actually got it on record how significant, culturally and spiritually, these lakes are to the people of Te Arawa and the people of Rotorua.

I felt incredibly saddened tonight listening to the diatribe about Christianity by the member opposite, Chris Finlayson. I was sitting in the gallery earlier tonight, and I looked down at the members in the Chamber with huge embarrassment when they trivialised something that this tribe has sought to put right since 1922. We have to ask ourselves where Chris Finlayson was coming from with his deeply bitter diatribe about Christianity. I could see that the member was earning his money tonight when I looked across and saw members of the Exclusive Brethren in the gallery. I do not believe for a minute that the member believed what he said tonight, and I felt saddened as a colleague and a member of Parliament that something so deeply spiritual and cultural to Te Arawa has been trivialised for such precious little gain for the Opposition.

The process of how we seek redress for treaty settlements, which are always complex, was set up by a member of the National Government, Sir Doug Graham. That is the process that was followed in the bill, and it is the process that Chris Finlayson criticised so roundly tonight.

I want the members opposite to know that one of the advisers called in by Don Brash during the last election was Don Stafford. He was an adviser asked to teach the Leader of the Opposition about issues Māori. Don Stafford put on the record the settlement history of the Te Arawa lakes—the story of the layers and layers of redress that the tribe deserves in terms of the lakes. Yet, National members have not listened to the very iwi adviser they sought out. He would be deeply offended tonight, as would Bishop Manu Bennett, who is now deceased but who held deep spiritual beliefs about the value of the lakes to the Te Arawa people. I put on record that he would have been appalled to hear Chris Finlayson in the House tonight.

I am also sorry to see that there are people at home who have been disaffected during the settlement process. It has been divisive. I acknowledge up to the Gods tonight, Ānaru Rangiheuea and Roku Mihinui, who, in spite of some dissatisfaction from some groups in Te Arawa, have continued to lead the settlement process. I congratulate them on that leadership. Once this bill is through—and there is no doubt that it will be passed with the support of the sensible members in this House—the leadership on the post-settlement management group will be a huge responsibility. I have every confidence that the old members of Te Arawa Māori Trust Board in this new post-settlement management group will undertake the job of rebuilding with those disaffected who have felt alienated by the process. Treaty settlements are never easy.

I conclude by reminding the member opposite, who has so deeply upset me personally tonight—and I took offence—that in his maiden speech he said of Winnie Laban: “Unlike many politicians, she debates the issues but does not get personal.” I commend her example and I hope that Chris Finlayson follows that example himself in the future. I would not want to see him ever given the responsibility of being involved in the treaty settlement process.

I congratulate Mark Burton on his leadership here. In his quiet and steadfast way he has led the negotiation through his office with the negotiators, who have respected this Government’s approach, to leading through some very sticky phases of this bill. We are here tonight and I congratulate the Minister.

I am sure we are going to get there; then we will have the job of rebuilding. I am sure that when we rebuild, those who are dissatisfied will come on board and accept that the package would never be enough. How do we quantify the intrinsic value of the lakes in dollar terms? It is quite wrong to have trivialised matters and to have told people that this amount is not enough for Te Arawa to reassert their ownership over the lakes. It is not about the amount. It is about the process, the settlement, and the apology. There is rebuilding to be done after the debate in the House tonight.