Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill

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

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

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

💬 Hon Member: Wakas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am advised that Te Rūnunga o Ngāti Whāoa has affiliated as a single trust to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. In fact, there may be another body. That is not unusual in these matters, as I am sure the member recognises.

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

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

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

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.