Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill

Part 3 of the bill relates to other cultural redress, including the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group, which we have talked about at some length already today; protocols between the Crown and Te Arawa; place name changes; and fisheries redress. The bill requires the Rotorua District Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to establish the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. It provides that the group is a permanent joint committee under the Local Government Act 2002. The bill also sets out the purpose of the group and that it is required to comply with the terms of the specified agreement.

There is also provision here for the issue of protocols by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and the Minister for the Environment. The form for each of the protocols is provided in the deed of settlement. That matter was raised, I think, in the second reading. A member expressed some concern about what form they would take. In fact, the form of such protocols is actually in the bill.

Finally, the bill contains the Crown’s acknowledgment of the statement made by Te Arawa of its particular association with Te Arawa lakes.

Kia ora anō. Kia ora tātou. I have a couple of quick points.

Most of the other issues have been covered, but one of the things I have not had answered, which I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton, to consider, is an issue in clause 48, which is in respect of the establishment of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. I put forward an amendment earlier to clause 5(5)(a) in respect of the number of Te Arawa members on that group being two, and I would not mind a response on that, because I think it is a key issue. I tried to put forward an amendment on it earlier, but the Minister did not give me a response with regard to how we might cover the equitable arrangement around it. So I would appreciate some feedback over that.

The other issue we talked about was the bigger picture around the whole notion about accountability, in a sense—not just the statement in the bill about Te Arawa having two members. As we mentioned earlier, the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty will be parties to the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group, but one would have thought that the notion of equitable numbers between the new owner—namely, Te Arawa—and those other bodies responsible would allow for a better balance of power sharing, in the sense of rangatiratanga under article 2 of the Treaty, and, therefore, might have meant a better way forward. I know that a number of submitters—and, indeed, people back in Rotorua—have argued that, as the new owners, surely we can have equitable numbers on the body that will be looking after the clean-up of the lakes. They were fairly adamant that it would be very good to address that sort of notion. So I wanted to address that.

The other provisions I want to bring to the attention of the Minister are new clauses 51A and 51B, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57, which is in my name. He will know that one of the issues raised was that of the three lakes—namely, Ngāhewa, Ōpōuri/Ngāpōuri, and Tūtaeīnangā—that fall under the jurisdiction of Environment Waikato. So the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group will be made up of members of the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty, with Te Arawa—and we hope Te Arawa will have equal representation with the other two parties, if that discussion is to have some fruition—but that group will have no jurisdiction over three of those 14 lakes. There are 14 lakes, and three of them are outside the jurisdiction of the three parties that are supposed to be cleaning the place up.

So what happens for those three lakes? Nought. There is a view that the group should simply talk to Environment Waikato, but there is nothing there that acts as a lever to get Environment Waikato to come to the party. The officials told the Māori Affairs Committee that Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 variously requires Environment Waikato to have regard to the Treaty of Waitangi and the values of Te Arawa in respect of their ancestral lands and water. That was supposed to be the leverage that would make sure that Environment Waikato comes to the party. Well, if that is the case, then it should have come to the party some 20 or 30 years ago, because that would have helped keep those lakes in the pristine condition that some of us remember as children. The Te Arawa Māori Trust Board told us that it had had no discussions with Environment Waikato. So I seek some assurances from the Minister, in terms of the particular point of those three lakes being outside the jurisdiction of Environment Bay of Plenty and in the hands of Environment Waikato, that Te Arawa has some guarantees that the concept of cleaning up all of the lakes in one shot will be part of the work conducted by Environment Waikato. I hope he will provide some sort of response to that. Kia ora.

I was not going to take another call, but I will quickly answer Mr Flavell’s two comments. I think I made the point earlier that responsibility for cleaning up the lakes, in the end, does not change as a result of the settlement. Ultimately, the responsibility continues to sit with the local and central agencies where it resides now.

The other matter the member raises has to do with the membership of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group, and that is covered in his amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57. I point out to the member that the agreement between the three parties is actually included in the schedule to the deed of settlement, not in the bill. That is where the detail of that agreement is laid out. The proposed amendments would fundamentally alter what is, effectively, the negotiated agreement between the Rotorua District Council, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. As I say, that is included in the schedule to the settlement, and that is where the functions of the group are prescribed. It would simply be inappropriate to try to override that through this mechanism.

I take a short call in this debate on Part 3. I raise in particular the function and procedures of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group, which are to include the review, amendment, and revocation provisions contained in the 8 October 2004 agreement. At the moment Te Arawa is on the committee at the discretion of the local authorities, so establishing the group by deed will ensure Te Arawa is on the group as of right, and therefore will ensure we have a significant and ongoing role in the strategic management of the lakes. We have heard that the strategy group will be made up of the Te Arawa post-settlement governance entity, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and the Rotorua District Council, and that it will lead to the provision of leadership to organisations within the community, and the identification of significant and emerging lakes, etc.

In respect of a matter raised by the Māori Party member Mr Flavell, in relation to three lakes standing outside the jurisdiction of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, I think that that strategy committee will set up, in the first instance, a platform for the community to have some administration and management of the lakes. In leading to that, the committee will, under the Resource Management Act, invite Environment Waikato to participate as well, as time progresses. So I think it is an opportunity to set in place a structure so that the management of the lakes can be shared within the community.

The typescript amendment in the name of the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell to insert a new heading and a new clause 48A is out of order, because it is inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the bill.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 3 be agreed to.