Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be now read a third time.

I acknowledge the people of Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. For those who are watching, for those that are here, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

This is a joint redress bill for the benefit, principally, of iwi whose—for whom I will use the shorthand Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu—two iwi are based in Wairarapa and including Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, the area around Dannevirke. I am pleased to stand and to support the third reading of this bill in this House.

There is a history behind this joint redress bill that also links to two other pieces of legislation. One has already been enacted, in 2015; that was the legislation for Rangitāne. The other is legislation that has yet to complete its journey through the House, and that is Ngāti Kahungunu. I want to acknowledge the efforts of those of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne who have made this joint redress, this agreement possible—and indeed, this legislation possible. I want to particularly acknowledge those who were involved and who have passed on, those who lead the charge to return their taonga to their people, which is what this bill does. It focuses on the Wairarapa Moana and the lake bed, as well as the Ruamāhanga River and a number of other discrete areas that are also part of this joint redress—redress that will be enjoyed by the people of both iwi.

I want to acknowledge the efforts of the various negotiators for both iwi. For Rangitāne: John Sproat, Jason Kerehi, Mavis Mullins, Tipene Chrisp, and Richard Jones. For Ngāti Kahungunu, I want to acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark, Ian Perry, Robin Potangaroa, Hayden Hape, Haami Te Whaiti, Marama Tuuta, and Rawiri Smith. I want to thank them for their hard work; their cooperation; their dedication to their people, their whenua, and their moana. I want to acknowledge the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā chair, Sonya Rimene, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Settlement Trust chair, Haami Te Whaiti, for their leadership and for getting things this far. I should also acknowledge—because, for redress such as contained in this joint redress bill, the local government plays an important role. So I want to acknowledge the local authorities that will have a key role to play in the redress in this legislation: the Greater Wellington Regional Council, South Wairarapa District Council, Carterton District Council, Masterton District Council, and the Tararua District Council, all of whom will be involved. I also want to thank my ministerial colleagues and their agencies for making sure the redress in this bill could come together and therefore could be enacted.

This bill, as I’ve said, will bring to life provisions in the respective deeds of settlement for Rangitāne and for Ngāti Kahungunu that had been signed in the last seven years. This journey started, of course, way before then—it started in 1853 with the purchase by the Crown of lands surrounding Wairarapa Moana. The Wairarapa Moana plays an essential role in the life—the wairua—of that area, and has been a jewel in the lives of the people of Wairarapa for generations. The annual hinurangi, or flooding, historically provided kai moana which enabled iwi to trade far outside the Wairarapa region. The purchases of land surrounding Wairarapa Moana hindered the trade and led to years of dispute. Those disputes led to a commission of inquiry, and, in 1896, the lake was gifted to the Crown by iwi as tuku rangatira with the intention of ending the disputes and to, hopefully, protect the lakes. But it didn’t. The lake continued to be degraded and this led to further alienation of local hapū from the Moana. The various agreements reached with Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu have included, in the Crown apology, recognition, and acknowledgment of the harm that has been done to the Moana, and it’s hoped that this bill and the redress in it will facilitate a long-overdue return of the Crown-owned lake bed to its rightful kaitiaki.

I think what has been important, too, in the negotiation and the engagement between the Crown and iwi, is an acknowledgment and an understanding of the intergenerational suffering that treatment of the lake has inflicted upon Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne—not only for the treatment of the Moana and the awa but also the fact that previous agreements haven’t been properly honoured. So both iwi have entered into negotiations on that basis.

I now want to turn to some issues that relate to the relationship between Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. The House is entitled to know that, even as recently as in the last 10 days, there have been engagements between the Crown and Rangitāne, the Crown and Ngāti Kahungunu, to address an issue that Rangitāne has raised right from the outset, when engagement first started over redress in 2013, and has not—in their view—been satisfactorily resolved. That relates to the reference in each of the settlements for Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, particularly, to two Wairarapa hapū: Ngāti Hamua and Ngāti Rangiwhakaewa. In Rangitāne’s view, those hapū are exclusively hapū of Rangitāne. It was first raised when terms of negotiation were being agreed between the Crown and each iwi, and an agreement between those two iwi called the Treaty settlement engagement policy process document. It’s important to note that, when that agreement was reached in 2013, signed by both iwi on 15 March 2013, a particular acknowledgment was made that, and I quote: “Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu have different narratives about their respective rohe and relationships with various hapū. This is the normal nature of tribal histories. Given that, both Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Rangitāne Settlements Negotiation Trust believe it is unhelpful and unreasonable to seek to construct a single global narrative that can be agreed by all Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu people in the rohe. This is because iwi affiliation is a personal whānau matter based on deeply held beliefs.” And, on the basis of that, negotiations were entered into between the Crown and between each iwi.

If we just follow through—and I’ll go as quickly as I can—these aspects. An Agreement in Principle was signed with Rangitāne in March 2014, although Ngāti Kahungunu continued to raise its concerns about the possible inclusion of these two hapū in the agreement with Ngāti Kahungunu. In any event, in June 2015 Rangitāne, in communication with the Crown, noted that they exclusively claimed Ngāti Hamua and Ngāti Rangiwhakaewa. There were further discussions and workshops ongoing between the parties, but on 9 November, the then Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, wrote to Rangitāne advising of his final decisions on overlapping interests and also referred to the hapū issue and had appointed, as a pūkenga, Tāmati Kruger to deal with the two iwi to try and achieve a resolution. On 1 December 2015, Mr Kruger provided his findings in a report and said the Crown was misplaced as a default arbiter in regard to claimant definition.

On 9 December, the then Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, wrote to Rangitāne and said, and I quote: “In view of Crown policy and advice from Mr Kruger, the Crown considers it appropriate to allow both groups to include hapū, where there is evidence of whakapapa and reasonable evidence of affiliation over time.” He went on to say, “I do not propose to enter into discussions with you on the Ngāti Kahungunu claimant definition, nor will I enter into discussions with Ngāti Kahungunu on your claimant definition.” He pointed out that the claimant definition in a Treaty settlement is not determinative of whakapapa; it is describing who benefits from a Treaty settlement. The upshot is that Rangitāne signed their deed of settlement, and so did Ngāti Kahungunu, on the basis that both understood that those two hapū would be included in their respective statements, as well as in this joint settlement as well.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, and I thank the Minister for providing some of that background. National will be supporting this redress bill through its further stages. This bill provides for a settlement, as per the deed of settlement, which was signed many years ago, actually, between Ngāti Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu.

What we understand from the deed of settlement is that there’ll be several provisions here. First of all, the first part to the bill talks about primarily administrative actions that you would find normally in a settlement bill. The second part looks to address cultural redress. It particularly points out a provision for an overlapping classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, and a provision for the making of regulations for the management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamahanga River catchment. It also provides for vesting in fee simple of three cultural redress properties—either jointly in the joint redress trustees or in a tupuna—to be jointly managed by a joint management board. Part 3 of the bill talks more specifically to the Wairarapa Moana framework, including provision for the establishment of the statutory board—the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board—giving it certain powers and functions.

In 2010, the Waitangi Tribunal report Wairarapa ki Tararua identified 28 claims and boiled them down into three particular grievances shared by Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne. These included the Crown’s acquisition of vast areas of land and its failure to ensure that adequate reserves were protected in their ownership; the Crown’s failure to provide ample reserves near Lake Wairarapa, as it had agreed to under the tuku rangatira of the lakes; and the Crown’s failure to protect the iwi from virtual landlessness and from the erosion of their tribal structures—the social deprivation that resulted in the loss of te reo Māori.

I want to acknowledge, here, the select committee who has progressed this bill—the Māori Affairs Committee—and done a lot of work in this regard; the negotiators; and the key stakeholders, which the Minister mentioned in his offering, for the work that has brought it to this point. Now, yes, there have been some challenges in these past few days, but, in fact, if we look back, the issue that’s been particularly challenging was first raised as far back as 2016, if not further. That is more specifically the whakapapa for these two hapū and whether they sit with Ngāti Kahungunu or with Ngāti Rangitāne or with both. And, you know, that’s been a point of disagreement from many decades ago, and it sits as a point of disagreement here today. And there are some things in Treaty settlement bills that are just unable to be resolved. They progress, and the iwi progress, which is what we all want, but these particular items are never resolved. On one level, they are somewhat unresolvable. And we find ourselves in this position today with Ngāti Rangitāne being desirous of these two hapū to maintain their whakapapa relationships to them rather than Ngāti Kahungunu.

To put this in context, let’s remember that Ngāti Rangitāne has completed their Treaty settlement and that slowing down the progress of this redress bill also slows down the progress of settlement for Ngāti Kahungunu. So this is a stepping stone in progress. It may well be that, even at the completion of this bill and a deed of Ngāti Kahungunu’s settlement, both parties will still disagree on this point. Let this not be the barrier. Certainly it’s not for us to debate and reach a final point on whakapapa—that is for them to decide; that is for iwi to decide. But I think what we all have unanimity on is the desire for iwi to benefit from the sort of Treaty settlement legislation that we’re progressing here today. And so what I’m saying here is we acknowledge this difference in opinion. It has been long held, and it was not able to be resolved through select committee. I note that Ngāti Rangitāne, who feel the most aggrieved, did complete their deed of settlement, which does come with some responsibilities.

In the documentation provided to my colleague Joseph Mooney, who helps us lead this role, one of the key issues of contention was around advisory provisions from Te Arawhiti that Ngāti Rangitāne had agreed that the hapū could be jointly shared, if you like—if you can do that—between them. And they have grievous concerns around that advice, and they have put as much in writing to us. My understanding is that, as that was reported back to the departmental report, it was incorrect. And we are acknowledging—and certainly I and we on this side of the House are acknowledging—that this has been a point of contention that was unresolved decades ago when it was raised, that was unresolved through the select committee, and that will be unresolved as we pass through this bill here today. Our hope is that we can find a position of peace and progress with that unresolved issue, that does not hinder these iwi from getting the enablement and facilitation that these Treaty settlements will bring.

So we acknowledge this difference in opinion and acknowledge the letter that we received, and would seek to redress it here in this third reading by acknowledging that, in our view, the report back from Te Arawhiti and its documentation in the departmental report was incorrect and did not accurately spell out the position of Ngāti Rangitāne in its entirety. And for that, I will certainly apologise if I’m in a position to have that mandate to say, “I’m sorry; that that was wrong—in my view and in our view—to Ngāti Rangitāne.” And then, hopefully, that provides some peace and addresses one of the key issues, if not the major issue, that came to us in the past 24 hours. So we want to see progress for Ngāti Rangitāne. We certainly want to see progress for Ngāti Kahungunu. Ngāti Rangitāne already has their settlement. This contributes to it, and we hope that Ngāti Kahungunu can then move forward and progress the benefits that we all want them to have, and that on one level there may be some finding of peace around this issue over time. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou ōku rangatira. Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, tēnā koutou. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, tēnā koutou, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, nau mai, whakatau mai.

Nau mai whakatau mai ki te Whare Pāremata. E takatū nei, he hōnore nui tēnei ki te tū ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. Tēnā koutou i te mahi tahi, te mahi tahi kei roto i tēnei pire. Ngā mate huhua o te wā, haere, haere, haere atu koutou. Ko tātou te kanohi ora e pae nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings to my esteemed colleagues. To Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, I acknowledge you. To Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, I acknowledge you, greetings and welcome.

Welcome to the House of Parliament. I am prepared and it is an honour for me to stand in support of this bill. I acknowledge the collaboration, the collaborative work that we see in this bill. To the many dead of the time, may you rest in peace. To us here today, the representatives of the living, greetings, greetings one and all.]

Indeed, it’s an honour to speak in support of this bill, the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. Usually this esteemed position in the debate is taken by the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I’m pleased, as a former chair of the committee—whilst I haven’t actually examined this bill or had the honour of being able to hear the submitters and to go into great detail on all the provisions of this bill—I want to acknowledge the work of the committee that has done that work. I have the easy part to just rise to tautoko the good work of the committee and everyone that has been involved in this bill.

As with all Treaty settlement bills, this is a very significant day. I do want to again just extend my welcome to our manuhiri, who have travelled to be here for this third reading, and I want to acknowledge everyone, as has been outlined by the Minister and Dr Reti, who has been involved. These Treaty settlements span decades in terms of the work that’s undertaken, whether it’s on both sides—on the iwi side, on the negotiators—and the actual work that the Crown conducts through Te Arawhiti and their officials. So I want to commend Minister Little and his officials and everyone that’s been involved in working through these issues. They are not easy issues to work through, when we are dealing with Treaty settlements, but I want to commend the innovation, really, that is encompassed in this bill, being a joint redress bill. I’ve been here a few terms but this is the first of its kind, I believe, where we’ve got a separate bill which actually combines joint redress and deals with joint redress issues from different iwi. So I want to commend just the foresight and the mahi that is encapsulated within this bill.

I know that there are some controversial aspects, but I want to actually just focus on what this bill actually does, which is all about joint cultural redress—“joint” being the two iwi or the three iwi, Rangitāne with Kahungunu—over some significant taonga within their takiwā. I think being able to have those connections to that taonga is so vitally important and that’s what this bill does.

So, when we talk about taonga such as Wairarapa Moana, taonga such as the awa—these are areas of, I guess, mahinga kai, great abundance, great historical settlements, traverses, I guess, of the many hapū, the many tribes of these great iwi. And to be able to have both of the iwi—all of the iwi—jointly recognised in this redress, I think, is a testament to the work of everyone that’s taken part in these negotiations and, finally, in this settlement.

There are two separate deeds of settlement—one with Rangitāne and one with Ngāti Kahungunu—and both of those deeds refer to the creation of this joint redress. This is what this bill does in terms of being able to complete that aspect of this important part of both of those deeds. It also ushers in the way for the completion of the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement as well, which is also coming through this House. So it’s really important.

I was just doing a read of it, and it’s a pleasure to see a statutory board being created over the Wairarapa Moana, the return of the Crown land parts to be vested, and separate boards to be created with iwi representatives and those among local authorities and other appointees. So I guess that’s all about progress, as Dr Reti mentioned; it’s all about moving forward. And I know these are really important markers in the ground for the iwi, the mana whenua of the beautiful areas of the Wairarapa and up into the Hawke’s Bay.

So this is very significant legislation. It is innovative and I’m pleased that the parties have been able to follow through and be able to create the provisions in this bill which actually give effect to the return of those taonga, or the ability to have overlay classifications and recognition of the mana of the iwi within the area and across those very special taonga—waterbodies, wetlands, and other very special whenua for all the iwi of the takiwā.

Finally, I note from the bill that there is recognition around customary fisheries in relation to Wairarapa Moana and, I believe, also the awa. I commend the work that all of the iwi of the Hawke’s Bay and the Wairarapa are doing in the customary fisheries area. I know, in relation to the coastal fisheries, there is a very active and well-organised iwi forum—the Mai Paritu tae atu ki Turakirae Fisheries Forum—and that actual group actually now includes Ngāi Tāmanuhiri up on the East Coast and it goes all the way down through Māhia, through the Hawke’s Bay, and all the way down to the Wairarapa and to Cape Palliser. And, within that takiwā, are Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu, and there is a great deal of cooperation and working together in a marine fisheries sense on their rohe take, on their rohe moana, and on looking after the customary fisheries which are so important to these people.

I commend the work that they are doing at an iwi forum fisheries level. That goes all the way down to their individual marae and to their individual whānau. They have a very forward-looking plan of being able to upskill and being able to play their role as kaitiaki, which is so very important. And that also extends through this bill—the elements of kaitiaki, of upholding customary fisheries, also complying with the law, whether it be fisheries legislation or conservation legislation—but having those bodies in place which can regulate those very special customary rights, which our people hold so dearly.

So, with that, I once again want to just acknowledge the manuhiri who’ve come to witness this occasion, and it has indeed been an honour to be able to tautoko this bill. I’ve done many a Treaty settlement bill and, again, they are all just hugely significant, and especially this, which captures the cultural redress aspects which are held so dearly by all of these iwi. I do want to acknowledge the tupuna from both Rangitāne and from Kahungunu, who is vested in the taonga that is vested from this bill. I think that’s hugely significant that that shared tupuna is acknowledged in that way. And with that, I congratulate everyone involved and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora mai tātau.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take a short call on this matter. This is unusual for a settlements bill, because there is obviously an ongoing dispute essentially relating to whakapapa between Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu, and I take whakapapa very seriously, having had my own disrespect in this House, including my surname—my family name. I find it deeply offensive when people don’t take that seriously, so I understand that this is an ongoing and disturbing issue.

I note also, though, that the deed of settlement was signed between Rangitāne and the Crown on 6 August 2016 and that the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown was signed on 29 October 2021. Sometimes it is important to move on. It is important to be able to help people to be able to make the most of what there is, and then to sort out the dispute that is still existing.

I see that the Crown has worked long and hard to try and come to some sort of settlement between both parties. I think that it is actually a good thing that the Crown has tried very hard to do that, and I know that the select committee has heard submissions for quite some time on this matter. It is, however, important that this matter is addressed, and I’m sure that once the settlement bill goes through, it will be easier for those who are concerned about some of the aspects to be able to deal with those whakapapa issues between themselves.

I don’t think it is possible for the Crown to adjudicate with the judgment of Solomon on these issues. It is simply not possible. I think it would be lovely if that was possible, but I just know that the Crown will be accused of getting it wrong, and I understand why they might not want to do so. It is simply too important.

Some of the cultural redress provided to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne includes provision of an overlay classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve and provision for the making of regulations for the management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana and the river catchment, and it is important that these matters be addressed. I think it’s time for some of these big settlements to be completed, it’s time for people to be able to know where they stand, and it’s time for the iwi to be able to get on with their job of providing not only for their people of today but the people of tomorrow, for family and for grandchildren.

As to the issue itself, as I said, it’s unusual for this matter to come to the House. The National Party had some approaches from Rangitāne about this, and I know that some of our colleagues met with the Minister earlier today to address and to raise some of those issues. The decision was, essentially, that there was no way that we could bring this matter to a better conclusion than to ask both parties to be able to sort it out. It is simply not going to happen, and so I think that’s really the best that we can do. I think the fact that one settlement deed was signed under a National-led Government and the second was signed under a Labour Government probably tends to indicate that this has been taking quite a long time and, before that, no doubt, decades of grievance, and it’s time for us to be able to draw a line in the sand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and ngā mihi ki a Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua me Rangitāne o Wairarapa me Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua. It’s a pleasure to take a call as the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, which heard these submissions, and I want to also acknowledge the hard work of the chair of the committee, Tāmati Coffey, for leading what has been, I think, a very constructive and very discursive and in-depth process that the committee has gone through to examine the submissions on this bill and to really understand the history of the settlement to date.

I also want to acknowledge the negotiators of Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu, and particularly for their work for the people they represent now but also for future generations, and for always having that in mind. The negotiators who come to the table on this represent so much—not only the hopes of the people now but also the weight of the expectations and the hopes of our tūpuna, and they have done that with dignity.

This bill, as the Minister said, brings to life agreements made in those rooms, in those discussions between rangatira of the iwi and the Crown. It’s a real privilege to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, which comes to see the very end point of the Treaty negotiations process and all of the work that has gone into that, not just from the Crown side but from the iwi themselves.

I will take us through some of the detail of what this bill does, as someone who’s had the privilege of examining it at the committee stage, but first, let me tell you about my favourite memory of sitting for this issue. It was on 12 May that the select committee went to Pāpāwai Marae in Greytown, and we were invited there to hear from the 21 submitters who wanted to be heard in person at Pāpāwai Marae. It’s a really important site for many iwi, not just the two iwi that we are talking about here today. It was the site of what was once a Māori Parliament. It has been a site of debate and discussion in Te Ao Māori for many generations, and it was really special to be there.

I remember standing at the mahau as the very light rain began—the marangai—and a rainbow emerged from outside. You know, in Te Ao Māori, that is a sign that these discussions are important, and I felt the weight of that. When we heard the mamae within the wharenui expressed in such personal terms—you know, these were people telling us their stories not only of their own deep feelings about the names of their tūpuna but also about the stories that they had learnt as children from their grandparents in that very whare that we were sitting in. It was very special, but also it’s not like another select committee where you hear from submitters and experts and then you’re able to weigh a sort of linear narrative about what is factually correct. This was asking us to make very careful judgment calls about how we expressed the select committee’s position on behalf of Parliament and reported back, and we took that job really seriously.

But it wasn’t actually in that wharenui that was the most important discussion. For me, it was in the wharekai over morning tea with—the hau kāinga had put on an incredible spread, and I got around the room and I got to sit with nannies and uncles and aunties and their cousins, and some nieces and nephews—some only 20 years old—who were presenting to the committee later in the day. And I just got to see—whether they were from what one might see as the Kahungunu side of the dispute or what one might see as Te Rangiwhakaewa side of the dispute or whatever it was—I saw them talking to each other about their hopes and what they wanted to see from this settlement.

In this space that was the wharekai, it really hit me how these relationships are so deeply felt and so important, and the Crown’s got really nothing to do with that. It’s really incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to appreciate just how irrelevant we are to the strength of those relationships which exist between the hapū, between the iwi, and between the inter-iwi relationships that go along with these settlements, and that it is for the leaders of these iwi to set a strong signal of leadership when these settlements go through and then for the people to keep them accountable and to make sure that they are working for our people.

So I’m pleased that at this third reading we will be passing this bill, and then we can step back from that role. We still owe a duty as the Crown to make sure that the commitments are honoured, and we will honour those into the future, but for these relationships that hinge on whakapapa and the right way to acknowledge whakapapa, those are not for us. I thank the member Judith Collins for what she said: the Crown cannot adjudicate on those matters. I heard, also, Dr Shane Reti when he said we want to leave this in a position of peace and progress. That is what we hope in this House. It is not a political position; that is the right thing to do, and I support those comments.

Now, let me just talk a little bit about this joint redress bill. It recognises that, while Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne are very separate and claim lineage from different ancestors, they are closely interconnected in the way that I spoke about and saw with my own eyes at Pāpāwai. They share whakapapa throughout the Wairarapa and Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua regions, and that is why having a separate piece of legislation like this, which deals with their joint redress, lets them—the iwi—have their own separate settlements that are for them to do with what they please.

It doesn’t mean that all of their joint redress is included in this bill, because, of course, both of their individual settlements will be for the benefit of many individuals who claim lineage to both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. It’s important for us to bear in mind that, while we heard from individuals who claim that settlement of a certain piece of land or settlement of certain assets should be to one individually, many of the individuals that we would have heard from can claim the benefit of both individual settlements and the joint redress.

The thing to know about the joint redress is that, as my colleague Rino Tirikatene has said, the joint redress deals with much of the cultural property. Cultural property in Treaty settlements is things like statutory recognition of the importance of a particular landmark or site—in this case, for instance, the Wairarapa Moana—that has been taken for the Crown wrongly and it will be recognised, going further, as significant to that iwi. It affects things like taonga tūturu protocols, which I’m really keen on. Those are things like when a taonga is discovered on private or public land—those are protocols that the Ministry of Culture and Heritage has to decide who might put up their hand and say, “We would like to care for that; we are the kaitiaki of that thing which our tūpuna used and is a taonga to us.” They’re important for things like signs and things like who gets input into the naming of certain sites. They seem small, but they’re actually really important about the way that we conceptualise the land around us. So that’s why these are particularly important.

I think it’s useful for the House to look at how Subpart 1 in Part 2 of this bill provides for the overlay classification of Castlepoint. That was a piece of land that the committee heard a lot about. It’s significant for both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, through their traditional cultural and spiritual and historical stories for that piece of land. We heard from submitters—and many submitters, in fact—that it was significant for both iwi, and so this is why it’s in the joint redress bill.

It also deals in Subpart 2 of Part 2 with the management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana, and later in the bill it deals with the land associated with Wairarapa Moana. This is something the committee considered really carefully, about how those arrangements will work in future, particularly around the penalties for people who break the rules around them, because this is something that the Crown and the iwi will be responsible for, going forward, around the management of that land. We delved closely into that because it is a common provision which officials gave us some really useful advice about, and, I think, we’ve got it right for the future.

There were also a lot of submissions around the Mākirikiri property, and I want to put on record for the House that we carefully considered the evidence provided to us regarding the vesting of Mākirikiri reserve in the tupuna Te Rangi Rangiwhakaewa. We sought advice from officials on the circumstances leading to the ratification of that Mākirikiri property. Some of the discussion has come back to that issue of whakapapa, and, again, I’m really supportive of where we have landed with this and believe in the leadership of both iwi to continue to work with that property and the rest of this joint settlement. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Whare. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in the third reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. I acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey, and my colleagues on the committee who joined for this and the companion bill. I mihi to the Minister and all of the officials because we know that these are difficult to get through.

This bill gives effect to specific cultural redress shared between Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, as provided for in their respective deeds of settlement. Me tuku mihi, ki a koutou katoa.

The redress includes sites to be jointly vested, including the Mākirikiri reserves, the Mataikona property, the bed of Lake Wairarapa—which forms part of Wairarapa Moana—a wetland of international significance, and an overlay classification of the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, which enables Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to identify protection principles and value statements.

During the hearings for this bill at Pāpāwai Marae, we heard from many of the whānau, including the settlement trusts of all of these iwi. We heard from all parties about how this has been a long, long time coming, especially since the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill came into effect way back in 2017. We acknowledge all of the negotiators whose work led to this bill and its companion bill, the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, which is coming up for its third reading next week. We note the massive amount of research done by the parties involved and the depth of matauranga and whakapapa that they shared with us, and, of course, only a tiny, tiny bit of that could we hear in the hearings and the submissions we received.

These Treaty bills are quite different from other legislation we have, because they’re based on deeds of settlement which have already been signed, and that means, once it’s been drafted and it comes to us, there are not going to be many changes. It’s not going to be much changed from that point, but that means that the issues that are raised in the submissions at the hearings are unlikely to be resolved through the rest of this process. So our job on the select committee is to hear those things. For many of us on the select committee, it means we get sent letters and we get many phone calls. I haven’t had any subsequent meetings with any of the members since the hearings, but that’s part of our job to hear those things, and even though we know that it doesn’t mean that we’re going to be able to resolve them, part of our job is then to give a voice to that.

Some of those issues needed to be sorted out beforehand, and I know, and we have heard, how hard Ngāti Kahungunu has worked to try and resolve those issues and have hui with other complainants to resolve those issues beforehand, and they could not. We believe it was a responsibility of the Crown to do that mediation so that Ngāti Kahungunu wasn’t having to bear that burden, and, of course, we have heard only a little bit, again, of the distress and trauma that the whānau are still experiencing because they disagree. Matters of whakapapa are very, very personal and we have no doubt that both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne are absolutely correct in their own understandings of their own whakapapa. That is, again, not ever for us to have a say on. Of course, the key issue, then, is where they disagree, and particularly for the hapū of Ngāti Hāmua and—the pronunciation according to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa o Tāmaki nui-a-Rua—Ngāti Te Rangiwhakaewa, and, according to Rangitāne, Ngāti Te Rangiwhakaewa.

I’ve stated in the House that not only is it not our job to determine whakapapa, we still end up colluding with the fact that that’s what’s happening, and that’s a very uncomfortable position to be in as a Māori in this Whare. Nobody wins—nobody wins in that circumstance.

We supported this bill at the last reading and we had, right up until yesterday, intended to support it today, because we understood that even though the concerns were raised about those particular hapū in the submissions, we understood that both parties had agreed right from the beginning that they would appear in both bills. We thought “Oh well, that decision’s been made. That’s already happened.”, and that agreement was made even if maybe one party was thinking subsequently that maybe they’d like to change it. We have now learnt—and the Minister has confirmed today—that the select committee was given incorrect advice and that Rangitāne has never supported the inclusion of both hapū in both bills, and, of course, that impacts on this one, which is their joint redress. Yesterday, we received a letter from Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust saying that they were pulling out of this process and that they did not support this bill. This is their own redress. This is the finalisation of all of these issues being dragged through Parliament, and a chance for everybody to take a sigh of relief and to be able to celebrate, and my heart goes out to everybody involved, because this is awful.

We asked in our office, and no one in the Greens’ office has any experience of this happening before. I’m happy to be corrected. We were shocked by this, and to be clear, the Crown owes all of these iwi significant amends. So much harm has been caused, so much loss has occurred, and today this bill will go through. It absolutely will go through. For us, we don’t understand how a joint redress bill can be durable if one party refuses to agree to it. So, sadly, on that basis alone—and not because we think it shouldn’t happen—the Greens will be abstaining on this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand here today and have a short call on this joint redress bill. Lots has been said today around concerns where the two parties have not come to an agreement in regards to this, but I still would like to say how proud I am to stand here and be part of a process like this—even if it’s just a small process; even if it’s just the small bit of me standing here and saying we need to right the wrongs of the past. Unless we right the wrongs of the past as well as we can, we can’t move forward together, in this country, to create the beautiful country that we want to see. I think that we can’t fully right the wrongs of the past, but we can do the best we can and hope it goes some way to healing the pain and helping us move forward as a country. So we, the ACT Party, will be supporting this bill.

This is a story about two iwi that have their own journeys and stories about losing their assets, losing their connections with their land, and losing so much that they held dear to themselves—to the point that many, I’m sure, have already passed, before this has come before the House. Many have heard stories that have been handed down from generation to generation, and many will still feel the pain of their great-great-grandparents. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that, that we acknowledge the history, which has been handed down from generation to generation, so that we don’t repeat the wrongs of the past. These conversations need to be had. And I’m really proud that, as a parliament, we can come together—the whole House together—and agree that what happened was wrong, and we can agree that we need to acknowledge this and we need to acknowledge the pain of generations passed and generations today that have fought to right those wrongs.

So I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, because it can’t be easy not being able to help when you really want to, not being able to acknowledge issues that are outside of the scope of the bill, although you understand the pain that these submitters are going through in trying to address an issue on which, quite frankly, the select committee had their hands tied and weren’t able to. So I just want to acknowledge the select committee in how it must have felt to not be able to address those issues.

I understand whakapapa and how important it is because I’ve spent most of my life not knowing my whakapapa—and that hurts. So, when you’re finally feeling like you’re fighting for that right to feel belonging, or fighting for that right to have your whakapapa acknowledged, I can understand how painful that might be—not feeling like you have a sense of belonging and not knowing where you belong. So I feel that and I understand that, and I’m sorry that that has not been able to be addressed. I hope that the two iwi can come together and sort this between themselves in the future so that those who feel they don’t belong can have a sense of belonging sometime in the future. So ACT will be supporting this bill and, hopefully, this brings a little bit of closure to that pain.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Whakamoemiti ki a koe e Ihoa o ngā mano, ko te Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu, me ngā Anahera Pono me te Māngai āianei, āke nei, āe. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate o Aotearoa i tēnei wā, haere, haere, oki wairua. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, te Mana Whakawā anō tēnā koe. Tēna koutou ngā kaumātua, nga kuia, ngā rangatira, ngā pakeke, ngā uri o Rangitāne me Ngāti Kahungunu.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. I give thanks to the Lord God of the countless multitudes, to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Faithful Angels, and The Mouthpiece, now and forevermore. I acknowledge the dead at this time in Aotearoa, may you rest in peace.

To us, the living, to you again, Mr Speaker, greetings. Greetings to the elders, the chiefs, and the adults and the descendants of Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu.]

It is with humility I take this call. Humility because all the hard work has been done. It’s been done and carried out as a result of me only just recently coming into the House. I want to acknowledge everyone that’s been involved with this, both settlements—and this bill, in particular—each and every one of you all, and in particular Ngā Iwi.

I want to acknowledge the passing of time on this bill, and all the claims involved here. It is said by the old people—which is a term of endearment—“There is no such thing as time; it takes the time it needs.” Rangitāne me Ngāti Kahungunu, this is your time. This claim dates back to the early 1840s, but, as we hear today, there is still more work to do—a lot of work, mamae to be worked through. But what’s important is that we find a way today—and this is a way—to be able to try and make those little steps forward.

I want to acknowledge—in saying that and acknowledging the 1840s—those who have passed behind the veil. It is because of them that we are here today; it is because of their sacrifices; it is because of their hard work that we are able to stand here today to work with tangata whenua, Te Ao Māori, Aotearoa New Zealand.

I want to acknowledge my three-year-old mokopuna, Caesar Te Ariki Paewae-Meihana, uri o Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu; the next generations—his generation and others to come—who deserve and have the right to move through life in a way that upholds their mana motuhake, their tino rangatiratanga, that was handed down to them by their tīpuna.

I want to touch very briefly, but in a simple way, on what this all means—this bill, the redress—in a simple, plain English way. I’m no lawyer; I come here because others thought I should be here. But I always think, when I attend these meetings and I’m learning about being in Parliament, how easy it would be if we can do things in a simple, plain English language way.

I just want to talk about the cultural redress. You’ve got overlay classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve and Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne. What I see here: it’s a place where you can build that relationship, where you can work together. Our mokopuna, they have no boundaries. We all whakapapa to our boundaries. Most of us do; that’s the way whakapapa works. But here we are today: we are in a colonial mainstream construct and this is what we’ve got to work with today. This is a way that we can look at, to continue to try and find steps that progressively move us forward. They don’t have to be big steps; they can be little steps. Nevertheless, for our mokopuna, let’s look at them as being a step forward no matter how big or small. So that’s how I think about the boundaries when it comes to Treaty settlement—not the easiest for anyone by no means, for any iwi to navigate through.

Customary fishing makes me think of growing up as a little girl when—might be showing my age here, but hey—my pāpā used to go fishing over there at Ōpunake and come home with kai moana; there was plenty of kai for us. It was cool. We didn’t know back then, actually, how rich and how valuable that was to us. But what I see here in terms of the customary fishing—because we’re in a world today that’s changed dramatically since then; some good, some not so good. But nevertheless, this is a chance for us to be able to hold on to that which is dear to us, our kai moana; to be able to go and fish and to feed our whānau.

The next one is the cultural redress of properties. I think we’ve all been involved in the redress of our properties, our whenua. We’ve all been involved in it somehow, shape, or form with regards to land utilisation of what we’ve got left—albeit a lot of it’s landlocked, a lot of it’s unproductive, underutilised for whatever reasons. But I see the opportunity here for you to work together, to be able to do something with this land, whatever that might be; whatever you decide.

Lastly, a framework. It sounds very business-like—that’s the world we live in today—but what I like about these frameworks, from my experience, is that they actually bring people to account. It brings the Crown to account; it brings stakeholders, it brings councils to account around what’s being proposed here. They have responsibilities; it’s up to us to hold them to account.

I’m reminded of a kupu o T W Ratana back in 1918, when he tirelessly worked to unite Te Ao Māori and restore Te Tiriti o Waitangi to its rightful place as the founding document of this nation. It was a time when he brought our people out of the darkness and into the light. And here we are today, finding a way how we can continue to do that as a people, as a nation.

So I’m humbled, in many ways, to be here, to be able to share with you all and to speak to this really important redress on behalf of us all, and, more importantly, those that have done the hard work before me. I commend Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill to the House. Kia ora.

Chris Penk—a five-minute call shared with the Māori Party.

Thank you, sir. It’s always an honour as well as a pleasure to rise to speak on settlement and redress bills. And I feel as though it’s also appropriate to acknowledge a sense of responsibility. I think we’ve heard this afternoon that sense of responsibility is felt by all colleagues across the House as we have explored the path that has been trod to this place, at this, the third reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. We’ve heard in relation to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne the cultural redress that’s clearly important from a historical perspective, but also acknowledging, in the present, the issues that have formed the background to these discussions. And when we talk about the issues in the present, it’s worth acknowledging that it’s as recently as the last couple of days that further substantive discussion about these has taken place.

If I can just step back briefly from reflections on what’s at stake in the particular bill, I think it’s worth remembering that Parliament is called on to approve the actions of the Government of the day, acting as the Crown. Parliament’s not a rubber stamp but it is called upon, effectively, to ratify the decisions of the Minister on behalf of the Crown. For that reason, Opposition members can be, I suppose, at somewhat of a disadvantage in the sense that we are not so actively involved in that direct discussion and negotiation. But where good engagement takes place between the Minister and members of the Opposition—as has taken place in this case, I understand, through discussion with my good friend and colleague Joseph Mooney—then we can have a greater degree of confidence that we are collectively doing the right thing in this space.

Others have referred to challenging aspects of the passage of the legislation. And another colleague and friend Dr Shane Reti has made, I think, some, if I may say, very intelligent remarks in that space, as have others across the House, actually, including even the party that has determined, ultimately, that it can’t support the bill at its third reading. And the fact that Parliament cannot resolve these issues, can’t determine whakapapa, I think, is part of the point, and the rest of the point is that it should not attempt to do so. It shouldn’t purport to be able to make those decisions, even if that were possible. Even if we had the competence, it shouldn’t be something that we feel is within our jurisdiction. Of course, we do need to turn our mind to these issues to the extent that we need to understand what the legislation says about recognising different groupings and the same groups, in some cases, that have been affected by the historical wrongs of the past.

So others have spoken, therefore, about the settlement process and the need for progress. And, at the risk of stating the matter too bluntly, I think it’s always worth us bearing in mind the desire, I think, of the whole nation. Now, I don’t purport to speak on behalf of the nation, but I think those with goodwill, including those in the House who want to assist as many as possible in as timely a fashion as possible, do need to acknowledge that, whereas points of contention—again, to borrow the phrase of my colleague and friend Dr Reti—will arise, nevertheless it’s worth us working through and understanding as best as we can where this has been based on misunderstandings or conceived advice and so forth, and to provide if not finality, then as much certainty as possible.

I will take no more of the House’s time. I haven’t been intimately connected with the discussions at select committee level but I acknowledge those who have. I acknowledge those who have contacted members of Parliament, Government and otherwise, to make their feelings and thoughts on the matter clear. And if I can presume to finish on a note that I suppose is more reflective than informative, but it seems to me that the pain of the past that we sometimes feel as a nation inevitably means that the present is complex, but it’s only by grappling with that past and that present that we can hope to have a future that is better. So I join others from around the House today who ultimately, at this, the third reading of the bill, commend it to the House.

Ka tangohia taku pōtae. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, me Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i runga i te āhuatanga o ō tātou mate, ngā mate putuputu o te wā, ngā mate o te hunga nā rātou i kawe, pīkau ngā mamaetanga o ngā iwi e rua i roto i tau maha kua hipa ake. Kei te tangi tonu, kei te mihi tonu, kei te poroaki tonu, rātou ki a rātou.

Whakahaerengia tēnei kaupapa ki runga i a Pāpāwai. Ka mihi rā ki te tipuna a Te Mānihera Te Rangitakaiwaho, ki a Hāmuera Tamahou Mahupuku, me te āhuatanga o Te Kotahitanga o ngā iwi i raro i te maru o Ihoa o ngā mano, tēnei rā ka mihi atu nei ki a koutou.

[I will doff my hat. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, greetings. I greet you and acknowledge our dead, the frequent deaths of the time, the dead of those who have carried the burden of pain of the two tribes in the past many years. We grieve you still, we acknowledge you still, and we farewell you still, let the dead be with the dead.

The work on this issue was done at Pāpāwai. I acknowledge the ancestors Te Mānihera Te Rangitakaiwaho and Hāmuera Tamahou Mahupuku, as well as the aspects of unification of tribes under the safeguard of the Lord God of the countless multitudes, I stand here and acknowledge you.]

Joint redress should not be determined by Government, but by iwi, and not the Crown, who has inflicted and forced process that has been designed to divide and conquer our people. Whakapapa is about connection. Boundaries are about connection, and not separation. This House cannot preach peace and prosperity for any iwi when this House has sponsored State terrorism on our people. It continues to do so today. It all feels like empty words to us: you can’t cry about whakapapa when you are part of parties that continue to denigrate the mana or the whakapapa of tangata whenua through race-baiting policies. I want to acknowledge the mamae that the Crown has caused throughout this process.

Te whakawehewehe i ngā iwi. I mua noa atu i te hē kau ngā whakahaere o tēnei Kāwanatanga i ngā kerēme Tiriti kāore tēnei tūāhuatanga i heipū ki waenganui i a tātou. Nā Te Karauna tēnei mahi, nā Te Kāwanatanga tēnei mahi, me ōna kaupapa whakahaere katoa.

[The separation of tribes. This Government has long erred in its management of Treaty claims, and this situation didn’t merely come about by chance amongst us. But, rather, it is a result of the Crown, with all its attendant administration.]

This mamae has only intensified in the last two years’ decisions made by the judiciary. Our Government flaunts itself as a beacon for indigenous rights on the international stage, while exploiting the generosity of tangata whenua at home. Crown negotiation policies such as large natural groupings and the fiscal envelope have determined this, engineering further division, further harm, and further breaches of Te Tiriti itself. That is why the Māori Party does not accept the settlements are full or final. The Crown may give us 1 percent of our land back, but our mokopuna must fight for the other 99 percent. I would also like to remind the Crown that the Treaty was never about tangata whenua. We had mana motuhake long before the Dutch cartographer conferred the name Nova Zeelandia or the Latin equivalent of the Dutch New Zealand—the name of one of the last ports that transferred African slaves to America. The Treaty is what gives the Crown the right to be here, and so I’m not sure why they’re in such a rush to settle this.

But we have the answers; Te Paati Māori have always had the answers to our mana motuhake policy. Te Paati Māori would transform the negotiation process, ending Crown-imposed policies such as the full and final or large natural groupings. Instead, we will affirm the right to all hapū and iwi to continue the struggle for the recognition of their rights and interests, and for the return of their land; overhaul Te Tiriti settlement process and end the fiscal envelope; insert relativity clauses into all Te Tiriti settlements to ensure all iwi have parity with Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui who have paved the way; make Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown and implement all unaddressed Wai claims and recommendations; abolish full and final settlements, like I’ve said, and large natural groupings; return conservation land to whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori; introduce a first right of refusal policy for mana whenua when private land or historical significant lands come up for sale, just like Ihumātao. Wērā āhuatanga katoa ka kitea i te oranga o ngāi tātou. E kore te rino e piri ki te keretū, koinā hoki tētahi kōrero.

[All those approaches lead to the benefit of all. There is another saying, clay and iron will not stick.]

The clay and iron will not stick. And this is the reason why we are here. There’s another saying that we used at Te Whānau-ā-Apanui: it is like Rangi trying to fit her foot into Cinderella’s slipper. Nō reira, e hika mā, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, Joe, koutou Rangitāne, Kahungunu, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Therefore, friends, many thanks to you all, Joe, Rangitāne, Kahungunu, many thanks. Greetings to you all, be well one and all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a fairly brief call in support on this side for Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, and, in doing so, I want to acknowledge the work that colleagues around the House on the Māori Affairs Committee have done in terms of progressing this bill up to this point. Colleagues that have spoken before me have touched on some of the issues that were raised, and certainly the process and the experience—and the opportunity—that that particular part of the process did provide for them as well.

Bills of this nature, generally, in this Chamber are moments of significance: moments of significance for our country, for our community, for iwi, and for our sense of identity. And so this particular bill, which will, as a mechanism, give effect to, essentially, all cultural redress that’s shared between Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-ā-Rua, and also Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-ā-Rua—that’s contained within the relative deeds of settlement; some that have been signed more recently than others. I do, however, want to acknowledge all of those that have played an active role to get this piece of legislation to this particular point in time, before the Parliament. I’ve said that my contribution will be brief because it means that there will be no further waiting in terms of being able to pass this piece of legislation through the Parliament, and, on that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Oh, I’ll straighten myself out, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We haven’t got that long, Mr McKelvie!

IAN McKELVIE: I’ve participated in, I think, all three readings of this particular piece of legislation without having been any part of the discussions around the Māori Affairs Committee, but I have listened carefully, however, to what’s gone on in this House. I also have great respect for both Ngāti Kahungunu and the Rangitāne, and I think my role really here is to try and put a bit of perspective on this from my point of view.

I just want to say a couple of other things first, though. I thought that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations did a pretty good job of explaining the situation with respect to this joint redress bill. I think he also made another point which I want to emphasise, and that is that the redress in this bill can only be put into place with the goodwill of the councils involved, and I hope those councils enter into the spirit of this bill in the manner in which the bill has been agreed.

However, I said that I wanted to put my perspective on this, and I want to speak about the concerns raised by the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, and they were explained well, I believe, by the Minister, as I’ve said. However, I come from a family that’s been around New Zealand for quite a few generations now, probably eight or so—maybe more if you count the females in the beginning of it—and I can understand very well the trepidation with which iwi and Māori enter into these Treaty settlements, because, effectively, what they’re trying to do is settle something that happened in the 1850s and 1860s. I know full well that in my own situation—and I’m the oldest survivor in my family now, which shows I’ve been around a while—it would be extraordinarily difficult to commit my family to a settlement of something that had happened in the 1850s and 1860s.

So I’ve the greatest admiration for all of those who participate in these Treaty settlement claims, because it’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to go back 150 years and think that we’re going to get some agreement on what happened 150 years ago. Whilst in a family like mine, we might get some agreement on it, we’d never document it, because the moment you document it, it’s fact, and you can absolutely see the trepidation with which these Treaty settlements are entered into. I think that for iwi or for all sorts of entities to enter into these agreements and document stuff that happened 150 and 160 years ago—and that then becomes a perpetual settlement—it would be extremely terrifying for those people involved, and I’ve seen that, I guess, in my time. I’ve spoken on a lot of Treaty settlement bills in this House and been a participant in a lot of the discussion around some of my local Treaty settlement bills, and I think that it’s extraordinarily brave.

So what I’m really saying is that I think that, whilst there’s some disagreement on the terms that might sit behind these two Treaty settlement bills, at the end of the day, the two Treaty settlement bills have been entered into in good faith by both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, and they’re going to have to sort the issues out. I wouldn’t want the Crown interfering in my family affairs, and I don’t think anyone else should have the Crown interfering in theirs, either.

So I think that, from the perspective of this Parliament, the select committee has done as good a job as they could possibly do in what are extremely difficult circumstances, and I also think the participants in these bills do an admirable job of trying to resolve something that’s bugged this country for nearly 200 years. I think that great credit goes to those people who are involved in this, and I say that from Parliament’s perspective; this is the best effort we can make. I think that that’s where we need to get to as a country, and I have great admiration, as I said, for those people involved in this.

All I want to say is that I think we’ve done our best with it, the Parliament has done its best with it, and I think the two parties concerned have done their best with it. They are going to have to get on and resolve the issues that are outstanding from here on. With that, I support the bill fully. Thank you.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa e noho nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i te ahiahi nei. He hōnore tēnei mōku tū hei kaikōrero whakamutunga mō te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire i tēnei ahiahi.

Ko taku mihi tuatahi ki ngā iwi o Rangitāne o Wairarapa, o Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua. Nō koutou tēnei rā. Ko koutou te kaupapa i tēnei rā mō tēnei pire kei mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, nō reira, tēnā koutou. Ki a koutou i roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, ki a koutou tēnā pea e whakarongo mai ana mai i te kāinga, mai i ngā tōpito o te motu, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings to all of you here in the House this afternoon. I am honoured to stand as the final speaker for the third reading of this bill this afternoon.

Firstly, I wish to greet the tribes of Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua. This is your day. You are the focus of the day regarding this bill in front of the House this afternoon, therefore I acknowledge you. To you, who are in the House this afternoon and to you, who are perhaps listening at home right around the country, greetings one and all.]

It is an honour and a privilege to be the final speaker on the third reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. Like the speaker prior to me, Ian McKelvie, I think I have spoken on this at the various stages, but I have not been intimately involved with this particular redress bill. I have subbed in and out of the Māori Affairs Committee at times, but I just really want to acknowledge those members across the House who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, who have followed this bill through its various stages from first reading to the select committee process, second reading—we didn’t have the committee stage—and the third reading this afternoon. I know I was listening to the contributions of the member Arena Williams, where she spoke about actually attending a hearing of the submissions at the marae, and it was lovely to hear her recount the most memorable parts of that visit and those submissions from—I think it was about 21 submitters that she referred to.

Like others, I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, who has now left, although he was here earlier for much of the debate. I want to acknowledge the Minister for the work that he has done. But also I want to acknowledge the contribution made by the Hon Judith Collins—

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, don’t worry about me.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes, well, she actually mentioned that this whole settlement has been through the previous Government, as well as this one, and I think the point that she was making is about the length of time that this has taken to get to this point.

What this bill does is it is giving effect to the joint redress that is in the various deeds of settlement that have been signed by the iwi. It is noted here that the deed of settlement signed between Rangitāne and the Crown was on 6 August 2016, and the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown on 29 October 2021. And it has been noted in the contributions to the debate this afternoon that we have the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement bill third reading shortly, so it is important that we pass this bill, and then we are then able to pass that one. That will then conclude the settlements for all of the iwi involved in this particular one.

I know that previous contributions have outlined some of the nature of the redress. This is to give effect to the cultural redress in particular, which is the overlay classifications, customary fishing—I heard the contribution of Rino Tirikatene regarding that—and also the vesting of cultural redress properties, and the Wairarapa Moana framework.

This will be a short contribution because I’m the final speaker and we’ve got everybody here in the gallery to witness the passing of this. So, once again, I just want to acknowledge the Minister; the officials; the negotiators; the iwi who, over a long period of time, have been negotiating this settlement; and that, with the passage of this legislation, we’ll be able to give effect to the joint redress, and then we will have the final deed of settlement pass through legislation when the Ngāti Kahungunu bill passes its third reading. So, with that, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire pau te kaha [I wholeheartedly support this bill].