Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. As with other bills, this is very much the culmination of a tremendous amount of work over many years. I particularly want to recognise Bevan Taylor and Tānia Hopmans, two people for whom I have enormous personal and professional regard for the way they have worked on this matter for many, many years.

The bill has had a very rapid passage. I signed the deed on behalf of the Crown on Saturday, 25 May 2013. I was really pleased that my colleagues Craig Foss and Chris Tremain were also there representing the Crown and Parliament. The bill was then introduced and referred to the Māori Affairs Committee after its first reading on 31 July 2013. Notwithstanding the extraordinarily huge amount of work that the committee had during last year, it reported back to the House on 18 December 2013. So when viewers are watching and they may think that we say all these nice things about Mr Henare and the Māori Affairs Committee, let us bear in mind that last year this committee not only dealt with this legislation but also dealt with the huge Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill, which we have just read a second time today, and the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill, which we have just dealt with. It has been working on the Tāmaki Collective bill, the Tūhoe bill, the Ngāti Korokī Kahukura bill, and many others. As people say, these bills give rise to a number of submissions, and they have to be dealt with very carefully indeed. So I do really just say on behalf of all of us that when we thank the Māori Affairs Committee, we mean it. It has done a very, very good job.

As it turns out, there were a number of submissions on this bill, but at the end of the day there are very minor changes indeed. They are of a technical nature and they are referred to in the committee’s report. I am very pleased that that is the case.

I heard someone say something about the importance of Crown acknowledgments in the Raukawa bill. Actually, it was a very good point, and I just thought I would spend a little bit of time on it because the acknowledgments that are contained in clause 8 of the Maungaharuru bill are actually very important indeed. They are certainly not pro forma acknowledgments that are sort of drafted in a few minutes. They are the result of very careful discussion with iwi over an extended period. I can say about one bill—which I will not, obviously, refer to by name—that there has been lengthy and sometimes very heated discussion about what is and what is not appropriate to include in an acknowledgment. So I just want to assure the House that such acknowledgments are very carefully thought out. They are the result, as I say, of a lot of discussion and a lot of careful analysis, particularly by historians on behalf of the Crown. The decisions are not made lightly and they are a very important part of the legislation. Getting the history right, setting out the acknowledgments of what went wrong, and then the apology are, in fact, very important parts of a bill, which I think are often overlooked.

Several people from Raukawa texted me this morning to say that they were sorry they could not get to town because of the fog but they were glued to their television sets. I went back to them—you are allowed to text in the House, are you not—and said that it was fine and that it is the third reading where all the really lengthy speeches are given, so they were not to trouble themselves. I acknowledge Vanessa Eparaima, who is probably still beaming in even though we are no longer dealing with her bill. I do thank Maungaharuru-Tangitū for all the tremendous work they have done. I very much look forward to welcoming them to the House for the third reading and for a function afterwards, because they have certainly done an enormous amount of work to reach this stage, and I have so enjoyed working with them. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei. It is an absolute privilege to again rise in support of the second reading of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I too want to acknowledge the whānau who have not been able to make it from Napier because of the closure of the airport. Quite rightly, like the Hon Chris Finlayson said, this is really a part of the process. The critical part is the third reading. I do just want to say to those who could not make it due to fog that I know you are here in spirit and, despite your absence from here, I know your excitement at the thought that we are almost at the end of this journey. I do want to acknowledge that.

I was fortunate to be on the Māori Affairs Committee in Napier. We were talking about the speed with which the Māori Affairs Committee is working in terms of dealing with these bills, and can I say that at the hearing we had at Napier the Māori Affairs Committee was split. We had half in one area and the other half in Napier. I want to acknowledge the honourable Te Ururoa Flavell, who chaired the Māori Affairs Committee in Napier, and to share with the House that we had many submissions. The fact that the honourable Minister Finlayson has just commended the bill shows that the submissions were not of any major concern. But I do want to acknowledge those in Napier and around Hawke’s Bay who came to submit to this bill and to strengthen it for what it has become.

There was one thing I did pick up in the submissions in Napier. We talk about the relationships that are critical for Treaty settlements, not just between iwi and the Crown but, obviously, iwi with iwi and hapū with hapū. In the submissions of the early submitters to the Napier hearings there were concerns around certain hapū missing out and not being reflected in this bill. I have got to say that for the short 7 or so months—not even 7 months—since I have been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, that seems to be a common thread coming through: where hapū or iwi are in a claim, out of a claim, or in nowhere claim. We heard that through the Manungaharuru-Tangitū but I do want to acknowledge Tānia Hopmans, Uncle Bevan Taylor from Tāngoio, and Petane Marae, who were able to take the concerns raised at the submissions and report back to the select committee.

Treaty claims are a very complex and convoluted area, and only when you know the history of not just that particular claim but previous claims and the previous injustices does the whole picture unfold itself. Clearly, it was important to have the opportunity to sit with Tānia to explain the concerns of Ngāi Tahu—and not Ngāi Tahu from the South Island but the hapū of Ngāi Tahu from the Nūhaka-Mōhaka area of the Hawke’s Bay, who clearly were one of those hapū who felt left out. They were not reflected in the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement, and clearly did not see themselves in the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Claims Settlement Bill. But I was assured, having shared a flight back with Tānia, that that actually was not the case. Again, it just goes to my point around what processes we allow for people who feel that they are not adequately reflected, or whose interests or beneficial interests are not reflected, in Treaty settlements.

The issue for me, having heard those submissions, was to do with knowing that the whakapapa and the genealogical links can go back many, many generations. I recall from both my colleagues the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and our able chair, Mr Tau Henare, that the role of the Māori Affairs Committee is not to determine whakapapa. It is not to determine whose whakapapa is more correct than the others, and I think I have used that—it has been a very good point made several times—as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. This message is not just to the House but clearly to those whose Treaty settlements have not been heard, in order to reflect that it is not and should never ever be the role of the Crown to determine whose whakapapa should and should not be included.

Again, that goes to my point around getting to those points where there are very passionate people when it comes to whakapapa and your mana whenua over areas, but for me it is around creating a process for that to happen and where it should rightly sit, and that is with the whānau, the hapū, and the iwi. But often, for members of the Māori Affairs Committee, it feels sometimes that people who are putting up their cases to be included are looking for some sort of adjudication by the Māori Affairs Committee, so I am proud to be associated with a committee that draws the line that that is not the role of the committee. As I said, coming back to this particular bill—and subsequent ones that the Hon Chris Finlayson has acknowledged—that seems to be a recurring issue.

I really did not want to take too much more time of the House. Clearly the report that was produced by the select committee with very, very minor details has been presented. I do too join with others in the House and look forward to the third reading of the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I am really confident and clear that the passing of this bill, added to the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Act with the other four large natural groupings of the Ngāti Kahungunu iwi collective settlements, is going to do some amazing things for the region of Hawke’s Bay from Paritū all the way down to Turakirae in the Wairarapa. It is with those closing words that I again support the second reading of the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I wish them well and look forward to them all joining us in the third reading. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

It is with pleasure, actually, that I get to stand up and speak to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I am standing up on behalf of my colleague Tau Henare, who could not get here today—and I know he is incredibly disappointed—due to the fog that has kept him in Auckland, I think. I am kind of pleased that the honourable Minister Chris Finlayson has gone, because I wanted to say one thing nice about him, and I do not like doing it when he is sitting next to me. He has done a great job in pulling this work together. I know that the Māori Affairs Committee has put a lot of work in, but I think it is the hapū who get the best recognition for the work that they have done.

Because I am unlikely to speak on this bill in the third reading, I am going to take 2 minutes and perhaps speak differently to the second reading than would normally happen. I had to get myself up to speed with the details in a relatively short time this morning, stepping in for someone else. I actually lived at Lake Tūtira for about 2 years in the early 1990s, which was an interesting time in my life, and fell in love with the area. It was an important part of my life. Reading the historical background to the claims that have been made here, and just acknowledging the grievance and the history, it is just kind of staggering.

It is staggering to think of Māori and the hapū in the mid-1800s going out there in good faith and wanting to seek settlement and seek a peaceful settlement for the wars that were going on at that time. When you read about how they were actually involved in a peaceful end to their involvement in the New Zealand Wars but were attacked in October 1866, which ultimately led to 23 Māori being killed and some hapū individuals being among the 86 prisoners who were exiled to the Chatham Islands, where they were detained without trial for nearly 2 years, it is staggering to think of the effect that must have had on the whole hapū, on all of the whānau—those who were left behind, those who had to go there, and those who were going through that death.

I am just so pleased, and I hope that this bill puts the Crown’s apology in place, that it actually means that they get recognition financially, and that it helps them now gather that strength that they already have to actually see progress happen. So I wish them all very well in this settlement. I hope the third reading comes along quickly so that we can move on with it, and I congratulate all those who have worked so hard to get them to the place where we are at today.

I stand as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee who did not hear submissions on this particular bill, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, but I want to acknowledge the amount of hard work and effort that has gone into compiling the deed of settlement, which was signed last year. In fact, the agreement was reached in May last year. So people can see that the progress from the deed of settlement to legislation through the select committee process has been quite swift. That is the first point.

Acknowledgment has to be given to Minister Finlayson, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, for progressing Treaty settlements where there is a sense of urgency from iwi to get things done—more so in an election year—to give certainty in terms of their ability to take their interests forward. Parliament surely has played its part in supporting the Minister in that ambition.

This is one of the types of bills where you would look to the schedules to get a real feel for what it is all about. You will notice in all parts of the schedules, with the exception of schedule 6, the description of properties that are being returned to the Mangaharuru-Tangitū hapū. And when you go through the schedules, you see that there are lakes, streams, and conservation bits of land, and recreation reserves and scenic reserves—all component parts of this settlement. It gives you a flavour, then, of what it is that these people value the most. What is it that they value the most? Obviously, your local connection to your lands and boundaries form a very important part of how you see yourselves continuing to play a constructive role in your community. But they also give a sense of what identity means, and what whakapapa links exist, for these people within this area.

Lake Tūtira, as was referred to by the previous speaker, Paula Bennett, is a beautiful place. When I was on the campaign trail with Meka Whaitiri, the local candidate for this rohe, she took me past Lake Tūtira and told me some very nice personal stories about the area. But you only needed to look at the place to think “Wow, this is a great place to come and stay.” It is relatively untouched. It still has the natural preservation of the beauty that we all know and love—the New Zealand that we want to preserve—and now, overshadowed on that, there is the opportunity for the local tangata whenua to be able to be active protectors—kaitiaki, if you like—of that area.

I want to acknowledge the work that has gone in to ensuring that the most precious parts of the natural heritage—the lands, the reserves, the lakes, and the streams—are included in this settlement and also that there is an active management instrument tool, if you like, within this bill to give the people of Mangaharuru-Tangitū a role in how these lands are cared for. There is commercial redress, which is a component of every settlement, but I do not get the feeling that that is the overriding objective of this settlement. There are statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition that make up the component parts of this settlement as well.

Can I step back from the particulars and just make this comment with regard to how Ngāti Kahungunu as an iwi has approached its Treaty settlement process. The Māori Affairs Committee is often challenged with the internal divisions of hapū within iwi collectives who may feel either disenfranchised from the process or totally disregarded. The way in which Ngāti Kahungunu has approached its Treaty settlement process for the land settlements is somewhat different from that of other iwi. They have enabled pockets of Ngāti Kahungunu to settle their comprehensive claims within their rohe as a unique collective. If other iwi want to take the learnings from the whole evolution of the Treaty settlement process, I think Ngāti Kahungunu has approached this in a way, given its land mass, and its territory, that preserves the integrity of clusters of hapū that have distinct interests in an area and that does not take away from the centre, from the common identity of the iwi.

Again, this is one thing that I think Ngāti Kahungunu has contributed to the settlement space. They collectively advocated for their fisheries interests as an iwi, and they enabled hapū, for their land and historical Treaty settlements, to continue as unique, identifiable clusters of hapū. I commend them for that, because what happens as a result of that is you get Ngāti Pāhauwera and you get Mangaharuru-Tangitū being able to argue for the way that they want to approach their unique interests in their rohe and administer those interests.

There is one issue that came up that I think I could comment on, and it did come up in a previous settlement under the Ngāti Kahungunu cluster, which was in regard to Ngāti Pāhauwera. There were people of Ngāti Pāhauwera who felt that they had some overlapping interests in this bill, which is currently being considered by the House. In my understanding—and certainly from my reading of the submissions and getting feedback from the members who were at the select committee hearings—that although it is acknowledged that there are overlapping interests here, it is not an exclusionary benefit to just the people of Mangaharuru-Tangitū. So, for example, if someone with connections to Ngāti Pāhauwera had equally strong affiliations and connections and interests in this bill, they would not be prejudiced or cut off from being able to exercise an interest in this space. I felt it was important to mention that because it was one of the areas where the select committee had to consider the extent to which this bill took account of some very real practical issues in the area.

I do not want to take too long on this bill. The substance of the issues will be dealt with in the third reading. There were no significant changes to the bill from the way in which it was introduced to how it has come back to the House for its second reading, except for a change and a clarification—a technical amendment to the date. Therefore, the bill is basically presented as it was tabled, with some very informative discussion as to why the settlement has been comprised in the way it has. I commend the bill to the House. I look forward to a speedy third reading. A lot of effort has gone into it. Kia ora koutou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I want to acknowledge that for Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, the fog has had an impact on the people both in the House and in the gallery. So I want to acknowledge the people who are probably watching this on television. They are the people of Ngāti Tu, Ngāti Kurumokihi, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangoio, Ngāi Tauira, and Ngāi Tahu.

It is my privilege to take a call for the Green Party on the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill for its second reading in the House. I said it was a privilege when I spoke at the first reading in the middle of last year. To be in the House at a time in history when the Crown seeks to right the wrongs and heal the hurts is an opportunity that very few New Zealanders get. It is where we see our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which enables non-Māori to live in this land peaceably, finally honoured after many, many breaches that left the people of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū poor, unhealthy, scattered, and dispossessed.

I was not able to come and hear the submissions on this bill that were made to the Māori Affairs Committee, but I have spent some time looking at the submissions that were made. There were 45 of them. I did that so that I could get a clearer picture of the issues and add to my understanding of the report that the committee has presented to the House. I thank the previous speakers for outlining in more detail what the issues were.

This is the third Treaty bill that the House has heard today for a second reading. Looking at the submissions on this one, there are common themes that appear across those bills. I guess to sum it up, it would be fair to say that a common fear from some submitters is that they will be either included in the settlement, with negative consequences, or, alternatively, that they will not be included in the settlement, with negative consequences. So with this bill there were submissions from those concerned about the claimant definition. Some were concerned that those descended from ancient hapū who were not explicitly mentioned in the bill would not be covered by the settlement, or that they were being subsumed unfairly into another hapū, or that they were not adequately recognised.

The second area where people were concerned is that they would not be included in the settlement because they have connections with both Ngāti Pāhauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitū, and that the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement was enacted several years ago. I guess this highlights the point that was made at Waitangi this year by Maanu Paul from the Māori Council on the paepae at Te Tii during his whaikōrero when we were welcomed on. He said that he was concerned that the settling of historic grievances may set Māori against Māori, and he is right to be concerned. It is one of the reasons the Greens have some unease about these settlements, and why we always say that we do not believe that these bills represent a full and final settlement.

We are also concerned at the fact that it is the Crown that determines who it will negotiate with, that some will be shut out of the process, and that because it is the Crown that determines who it will negotiate with, it perpetuates the status of the Crown and diminishes the partnership with ngā iwi Māori that was envisaged by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So it could have the potential for creating further Treaty breaches.

Of course, our third reason for not accepting these settlements as full and final settlements of historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi is that the historical breaches—what happened in the past—may yet affect generations to come in ways that have not yet been foreseen. I know that Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, in common with iwi across our country, have no wish to short-change the children yet to come.

It is worth noting here in Parliament that for the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, the Crown’s historical Treaty breaches nearly wiped them out. They went from having 100,000 hectares of land to now having just 3 acres at Tāngoio. Tānia Hopmans, the general manager of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, referred to her people as tangata whenua without whenua. With the settlement under this bill, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū will be in a better economic condition, but they are incredibly generous in accepting this settlement when the losses—people killed, detained, and executed, and land taken by confiscation and by other unfair means—were so large.

I want to acknowledge that my comments about the Crown are not in any way to detract from the sense of achievement that Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū should rightly claim as theirs for resolving these historical claims to this point. It has taken decades and decades and so much perseverance, commitment, and resolve to get to this final part, and generosity and patience.

One of the submissions, from Evelyn Ratima, the chair of Mana Ahuriri Inc., which is a neighbour of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, describes their graciousness really well in her submission supporting the bill. She says: “As neighbours of Maungaharuru-Tangitu we acknowledge all the indignities and trials they have endured and in remembering the suffering of their and our Tipuna, which is much, and that is been polite … have maintained their integrity and the integrity of the people … MTI have been transparent throughout the duration of the claims process, they have … been committed and true to the legacy of their and our ancestors and are very deserving of having their Claims Bill heard, supported and passed through Parliament.”

In Treaty settlements the commercial redress offers a chance for iwi to start to rebuild their economic base. The cultural redress is an acknowledgment and restoration of the status of iwi in relation to their land, their rivers, their lakes—and I want to note here Lake Tūtira, which is one of the most polluted in the country—the sea, and their role as tangata whenua and kaitiaki. The renaming of certain sites back to their original names is important in telling the history of the area from a Māori perspective, and again it addresses the mana tangata status of hapū and iwi. The vesting of several thousands of hectares of Department of Conservation reserves, as will happen under this settlement, which Maungaharuru-Tangitū will return to the people of Aotearoa, is a symbolic act of recompense by the Crown, but it is a much larger gesture of generosity by the hapū. All this redress is designed to start the process for Maungaharuru-Tangitū to heal.

After my last speech in this House I received an email from one of the negotiators, which was really nice, I have to say, and I am going to quote from it because it is positive. She said: “I believe there is hope and a quiet optimism among our people that things will get better for future generations.” Later she says: “We are looking forward to putting this chapter in our history to rest, and charting a new course for our hapū, whānau, and marae.”

I reiterate that it is a privilege to speak in the second reading of this bill. The Greens will be supporting it through to its third reading and final passage. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakahaere. Tīhei mauri ora! Whakataka te hau ki te uru. Whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura, he tio, he huka he hauhunga. Ā, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Behold the breath of life! Cease the winds from the west. Cease the winds from the south. Let the breezes blow over the land. Let the breezes blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air, a touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day. So greetings to you collectively.]

The mihi I have just used was the one that I started my speech with in the first reading on the Maungaharuru-Tangitu Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. It has particular relevance because it speaks of a new dawn for Maungaharuru-Tangitū—a touch of frost, which is probably quite relevant today with the fog that is coming through Wellington. It has prevented many of the negotiators and members of the six hapū from coming down to Pōneke, to Wellington, today to be part of this second reading. In that regard, as many other members in the House have done—Denise Roche from the Greens, Meka Whaitiri, and Minister Finlayson—can I acknowledge the presence in spirit, very much, of kaumātua and rangatira from Maungaharuru-Tangitū who cannot be here today. In particular, can I acknowledge Bevan Taylor and Tānia Hopmans, who are two of the lead negotiators, the rangatira, who have led the negotiations to bring the bill to the point that we are at now, where we can reach a settlement for this natural grouping. I say “natural grouping” because there was some debate from some—certainly not from members of these hapū—that they were not a natural grouping. So to establish that fact has been excellent.

To be clear, the rohe of Maungaharuru-Tangitū sits within my electorate—or, should I say, my electorate sits within their rohe. The area starts at Mana Ahuriri, which is the group that sits in Napier. For those of you who know where Napier Airport is, that land there will be part of the Mana Ahuriri claim. But going north from there, it is up along the coast. It takes in Waipātiki Beach, goes up through to Ridgemount Station, through to the Waikari River, which is where Ngāti Pāhauwera and their iwi sit, further north. That claim has been settled since I have been a member of this House, which is absolutely fantastic. Ngāti Pāhauwera are getting on with building an economic base and businesses, and becoming very much a part of the local economy. The rohe goes west from there, to the ranges of Maungaharuru. Interestingly, Maungaharuru talks about the beating of wings. If you go back a couple of hundred years, the Maungaharuru Range—maunga, as in mountain, and haruru, the beating of wings—talks about the petrels and seabirds that used to nest up in what I would not quite call mountains, but in those mid-hill areas. It is interesting to see that the iwi are now working with Julian Robertson, who has put a million dollars into bringing back seabirds to that area, which is absolutely fantastic. This is a wonderful point in time—that we have got to this point, and we can settle.

I have actually got quite a close connection to the area. I happen to be fortunate to own some property at Waipātiki Beach. Just this January I worked very closely with Maungaharuru-Tangitū. We had Bevan Taylor out to the beach. I have got a property that sits right beside the beach—actually about 18 acres there—which had one of the old pā sites around it. So we had the members of the iwi out to look at where some of the dugouts were and just to have a sense of what may need to be protected in future years if that site was to be developed. It was really interesting.

In terms of the settlement itself, as I said on the Raukawa settlement, it actually empowers Maungaharuru-Tangitū not only by returning land to them but there is some financial redress there as well, plus cultural redress. In terms of the redress there, we see the vesting of part of Ōpouahi Station and the Ōpouahi Scenic Reserve, the vesting of the Te Pōhue Domain Scenic Reserve back into Maungaharuru hapū, and the vesting of lake beds at Lake Tūtira, Lake Ōrākai, Lake Waikōpiro, and Lake Ōpouahi. Also, we see the return of the lake beds to the hapū and the vesting and gifting of a number of significant cultural properties, including boundary streams, scenic reserves, the Bellbird Bush Scenic Reserve, and the balance of the Ōpouahi Scenic Reserve and Whakaari Landing Place Reserve.

So all these things come together and have reached what I think is an excellent settlement for the Maungaharuru hapū. It has taken a long time to get to this point, but, as I said earlier, Bevan Taylor, Tānia Hopmans, and the other negotiators have worked hard to get to this point. I think there is definitely hope there for a quality settlement, and, as my colleague in the Green Party Denise Roche said, there is genuine optimism amongst the hapū about the future. I must say that when I was there for the signing of the agreement in principle at the marae, it was fantastic to talk to the people, who were very optimistic and who really wanted to look forward and put behind them the issues of the past, to look forward for their own mokopuna, their tamariki, their children, and to focus on how they could get them really, really well educated so that they could then become significant contributors not only to their own community but to the wider community, and with an understanding of their place in the world in what is now more and more a global community. I think you actually need to have your roots very clearly embedded in some part of the world, which for me is the mighty Hawke’s Bay and very much a part of this area, Maungaharuru-Tangitū.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As I said in the speech on the Raukawa bill, it is a huge privilege to be part of these historical Treaty settlements and a huge privilege to have those settlements from my own electorate taking place and seeing genuine progress being made and huge development in Hawke’s Bay as a result of these settlements. Thank you very much.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi ki ngā whānau o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, ngā hapū o Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio, Ngāi Tahu. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[To the authorities, languages, and esteemed leaders, greetings and salutations to you collectively and to us all. Acknowledgements to the families of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, subtribes of Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio, and Ngāi Tahu. So, greetings to us.]

I would also like to take this opportunity to mihi to my colleague Meka Whaitiri, who represents the area of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, within which Ngāti Kahungunu is a very significant iwi, and also in recognition that this settlement is a settlement of a hapū cluster that affiliates to Ngāti Kahungunu. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Tremain, who represents the area.

I would like to start with a place name that will have official status by virtue of this piece of legislation, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill—that is, Whakaari. Hawke’s Bay will, after this piece of legislation goes through, be able to be called Whakaari. It will be interesting to see whether or not Hawke’s Bay businesses start using “Whakaari”. It could see the introduction of bilingualism within the region.

The interesting thing about the name is that Whakaari is the name that tangata whenua have regarded this area of Aotearoa as. When I look at the history of Hawke’s Bay I want to share it with the House today and with those who are watching, because it is a name that Captain Cook gave New Zealand in honour of Admiral Edward Hawke, who defeated the French at—and excuse my French—the Battle of Quiberon Bay. That happened in 1759. So it is really interesting that we have this place name that comes from France in honour of an Englishman, and that by virtue of this piece of legislation we are actually going to have a name that honours the tangata whenua, the mana whenua, of Aotearoa and it comes from here. So I particularly want to highlight that fact, which will be enabled through the passage of this piece of legislation.

I also want to highlight that the deed of settlement for this piece of legislation was signed on 25 May 2013. Of the 5,000 registered members of this hapū grouping, 62 percent voted, and it had 98 percent support. It is one of the highest engagements that has been seen through the Treaty settlement process, so I do not underestimate how important and how engaging this settlement process has been for the Maungaharuru-Tangitū whānau to be involved in.

What I do want to do is share an article from Hawke’s Bay Today that was written by Doug Laing. It was written on 27 May 2013 and it starts: “The Crown has made one of its most profound Treaty settlement apologies in redressing grievances of four Hawke’s Bay hapu decimated by the military invasion of their marae almost 150 years ago.” What this article acknowledges is that in 1866, 20 people were killed at Ōmarunui and Pētane and 13 others were incarcerated on the Chatham Islands for 2 years. The other thing that is highlighted in this media reporting is that land confiscations happened within the context of the time that resulted in the hapū becoming a landless people.

When we look at the settlement processes that we are engaged in, we always have an opportunity to look at New Zealand’s history. I think that we should be very clear, in moving forward, that the generosity of our hapū and iwi means that we should always acknowledge the atrocities of the past. We do so today actually fully embracing that history. We do so today honouring our hapū and iwi groups. All of them have endured stories like this. But we do so today honouring the generosity of the hapū and iwi in enabling us as a country to move forward. So I always want to thank our hapū and iwi groups—leaders such as Bevan Taylor, Joseph Reti, and others. As well, there are leaders such as Ms Hopmans, who, if I read the article that I quoted from earlier, decided as a university student that she wanted to write a piece of research that Dr Richard Boast is now going to turn into a book, which is going to be called Forgotten Raupatu. So the other part of this Treaty settlement process that I think has been enabled is the telling of our stories, and telling of our stories in a way that not only will we never forget what has happened in the past but it actually provides a really solid platform on which to move forward.

The other thing that I wanted to highlight within the context of this settlement is actually the kawenata—the relationships that this piece of legislation will enable with our hapū and iwi. For example, there will be a partnership agreement with the Minister of Conservation within the context of this piece of legislation. There will be a relationship agreement with the Ministry for Primary Industries, so that the Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation and other hapū that wish to participate will have a direct and formal relationship to discuss fisheries, which are a major asset for the hapū and iwi. They will also have a relationship with the Ministry for the Environment. I will not go through the list of statutory acknowledgments, but, again, that formal relationship enables the whānau within the Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū collective to for ever have a say in how those specific sites of significance will be managed. The other thing worth highlighting is that a protocol will be developed to facilitate a working relationship with the Minister of Energy and Resources in respect of Crown minerals, and also with the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in respect of taonga.

The legacy that these Treaty settlements are creating will enable Māori to move on. I truly believe that, and I do truly believe in this Treaty settlement process and the way that it has been, and is being, managed by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson, and I want to acknowledge him in his absence, again.

It is these statutory acknowledgments—it is the relationships—that we are forging within these Treaty settlements that actually give our hapū and iwi a rightful place to stand and a rightful place in terms of the development of our country as we move into the future. They really are truth and reconciliation documents, and we in this House should all just take the time to read some of the histories. I know that, depending on where we come from, a lot of us engage in these processes on a daily basis, but what I see is that these pieces of Treaty settlement legislation are actually creating the Treaty partnership that was envisioned when Māori signed the Treaty. They are making that partnership a reality as we move into the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hapū o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, e ngā iwi o te motu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the authorities, languages, and subtribes of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, and to the tribes of the country, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgements to you all.]

It is indeed a great privilege to speak on the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, the purpose of which is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. May I specifically acknowledge the hapū and their six component hapū, their ancestors, those who are living now, and those who are going to come in the future. As my colleague Louisa Wall mentioned, it is hugely important to recognise the great harms that have occurred in the past. Hopefully, this is indeed one way of seeing reconciliation take place and a very positive and constructive future for those who are going to be born in the years ahead.

Settlements are designed to recognise and right the wrongs of the past and to strengthen the partnership between the Crown and Māori. Hopefully, this is indeed a quality settlement. Settlements also help unlock economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas, in keeping with National’s priority to build a more competitive and productive economy. We do indeed want to see Māori and young Māori totally involved in the economic progress of this country and to be able to participate fully.

I remind myself so often that when I went to university down in Otago, less then 0.05 percent of the students at that time were Māori; now it is in the order of 9 percent, and growing. It is through education and it is through economic power that the practical ability to move forward and create high standards of living is effected.

I was not on the Māori Affairs Committee. Indeed, it is a great privilege just to be able to make some comments regarding this settlement. I understand the committee recommends the bill be passed. I am told a number of submitters expressed dissatisfaction with the way Maungaharuru-Tangitū claimants have been defined in the bill. The concern centred largely on two issues: the entitlements for claimants with connections to both Ngāti Pāhauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, and those individuals descended from ancient hapū who may fall between the two settlements.

I want to mention Ngāti Pāhauwera. It is an important part of the settlement process for claimant groups to have the opportunity to set out their whakapapa as they see it, and this is done in the deed of settlement. Although different approaches to self-identification have been taken, the select committee is confident that this has not resulted in any entitled individuals being excluded from benefiting from one or more settlements.

With regard to ancient hapū, the committee also heard from submitters who believed that as their ancestral hapū were not explicitly mentioned in the deed of settlement, they could not benefit from it. The committee, I am told, is satisfied that between the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and Ngāti Pāhauwera settlements, the people and hapū in the region will be fully represented, and after the enactment of this bill no outstanding claims will remain to be settled.

As I said before, it is a great privilege to speak on the second reading of this bill and I, like many others, commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā tangata o te wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is the first time I have had the pleasure of speaking on a Treaty settlement bill, and I take great pleasure in doing so. Can I acknowledge the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and all of those who have worked on this settlement in getting it to this point. I think that, for me, having the opportunity to say a few words on this is important. It is important, obviously, to the hapū concerned, but it is also important for all of us in this country. As a Pākehā New Zealander, I want to acknowledge the importance of Treaty settlements for our nation. One of the inspiring times in this House, really, is when we debate Treaty settlements and we have strong cross-party support for this process in moving forward as a country.

One of the things I am also clear on is that when I was a young person, the history that I got taught in school did not include the history that we are now all learning and seeing as a result of the Treaty settlement process. I think that that history is a taonga for us all. It is important for us to all know and understand the real history of this country—the good, the bad, and the ugly, really. In the case of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, I have looked at a summary of the historical background, and there are so many things that are truly unfortunate, tragic, and just downright wrong that happened to the hapū. This is a hapū that tried to negotiate a peaceful end to their involvement in the New Zealand Wars, but were attacked and then exiled to the Chatham Islands and detained without trial.

This is not something to be proud of as a country—prisoners summarily executed, confiscation, and then deforestation and the development of pastoral farming in their area, which has significantly increased erosion and pollution there. These are not things to be proud of as a country; nor are the infectious diseases and diseases of poverty that cost the lives of so many of that hapū. Obviously, living conditions and health services have improved, but, as we all know in this House, there is still a significant gap between what is experienced by many Māori and many Pākehā in this country. So we have a long way to go.

I do not record these things to be negative at all, but just to say that this is part of the history that we need to understand as a country so that we can move forward. I want to pick up on the point that my colleague Louisa Wall made about generosity. Each and every one of us, wherever we live in this country, benefits from the generosity of the local iwi in our area. Many of the public places and many of the open areas that we all use are there because of the generosity of the local iwi. So, again, that is something that I believe we as New Zealanders should all know and acknowledge.

This settlement bill—again, I was not part of the Māori Affairs Committee—has three components. It has the apology and the cultural redress, and I understand from talking to my colleague Nanaia Mahuta that one of the really interesting parts of this settlement is around the active guardianship of the natural environment that the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū will gain as part of this settlement. That active guardianship role that they will play in our natural environment will benefit us all.

I just conclude by saying that settlements like this one and the other two that we have had in the House today are an important way for us in the whole of New Zealand Aotearoa to move forward. Again, can I acknowledge the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū for their work and I congratulate them on this settlement.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 12.15 p.m. (Thursday)