Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill

I move, That the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill be now read a second time. This bill is the result of very intensive negotiations between the Crown and 13 iwi and hapū of Auckland between 2009 and 2012. It differs from other Treaty bills in that it does not settle historical claims or provide financial redress. Rather, it takes an innovative approach by providing to the iwi and the hapū in the Tāmaki region collective redress that recognises their complex interconnected interests.

In this way, the bill provides an important component to the settlement of the individual claims of the participating iwi, who are at various stages of their negotiations with the Crown. Some iwi, like Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, are now settled. Many will conclude their negotiations this year, and for almost all other groups, negotiations are under way and are progressing well.

The bill provides collective redress to the 13 iwi and hapū of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau, a body otherwise known as the Tāmaki Collective. Members of the collective are Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Akitai, Te Kawerau-a-Maki—with whom we signed, just a couple of weeks ago—Te Patukirikiri, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, headed by that great New Zealander Naida Glavish.

A key aspect of the redress provided in the bill is the transfer to the Tāmaki Collective of 14 of Auckland’s volcanic cones. These maunga will be held as reserves for the common benefit of the Tāmaki Collective and the people of Auckland. Third-party interests and public access over the reserves will be protected. The maunga will be governed by a body made up of representatives of the Tāmaki Collective and Auckland Council, called the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority, or the Maunga Authority.

If I could put on another hat as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I can say I have been working with Unesco over the last year to see whether it will be possible for the maunga to receive World Heritage recognition. It is a big project, and it is one that will take some time to achieve, if at all, but we are under way on that, as well.

Other collective redress includes the vesting of four islands in the Tāmaki Collective and their subsequent vesting back in the Crown. A right of first refusal for 172 years over Crown-owned lands and certain Crown entity - owned land that becomes surplus is also provided for, and that is a very, very important aspect of the relief.

Last year the Māori Affairs Committee considered the bill and the issues raised in the submissions. It received nine submissions, which it heard in Auckland, and it was very, very encouraging that the overarching message of the submissions was one of support for the bill. I acknowledge the time that that committee spends on Treaty settlement legislation. In this bill, as with other bills, the committee has done an excellent job.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the iwi leaders of the Tāmaki Collective, and I particularly want to mention Paul Majurey, who has a very busy legal practice but provides fantastic leadership to the Tāmaki Collective. I salute him for his contribution to his own iwi, Ngāti Maru, and also to the work of the Tāmaki Collective.

I want to acknowledge the support of Mayor Len Brown and the Auckland Council. They have been very, very supportive of the maunga relief and have worked hard with the Crown so that we could get to this stage. I want to thank Ministers, my parliamentary colleagues, and the departments and agencies that have contributed to this bill. Finally, I acknowledge the tremendous work that was initiated by Sir Douglas Graham in 2009—things were a bit of a mess when we came into office in 2008; he is the one who brought the various iwi together and started to talk about the way in which we could plot a way forward—and more recently, the chief Crown negotiator in the region, Michael Dreaver, who has done a phenomenal job over the last few years in working through both the collective redress and also working with the iwi and hapū, not only of Tāmaki but also extending down right into Hauraki.

This bill provides an important step towards addressing the historical claims of the iwi and the hapū of Tāmaki. I very much look forward to the bill progressing to its third reading to give effect to this innovative and ground-breaking redress. I commend the legislation to the House.

Ā, tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei ata i a tātau ngā kaitōrangapū e wherawhera nei i ngā kōrero kia tūtuki pai ai tēnei pire. Kua pau te whiriwhiri i roto i te kōmiti uiui i whakatūngia ai hei whiriwhiri, hei torotoro ki waenganui i te iwi i ngā take pēnei. Nā reira, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[So salutations to us all this morning as we politicians debate the contributions so that this bill is completed well. The committee tasked to consider and to take matters of this ilk among tribes have completed their part in the process. Therefore congratulations to us all once again.]

I rise to support what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said, but I just want to step back for a moment. Obviously, my colleagues on this side of the House try as much as possible to bring a bipartisan spirit to the task of settling the claims. Occasionally, it does irk us when we realise how quickly the process has gone since the current Minister has been in office, but it would be trivial and churlish to talk about politics on a day like this. We do salute the fact that Sir Douglas Graham and a host of others under the leadership of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations have been able to bring all these iwi together to deal with the issues of stewardship around the landscape, environmental values, and competing interests to do with heritage values.

Let us identify why this bill, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill, should be supported by this side of the House. We are still a young country, and, indeed, it was only a year or 2 ago that a relative of my grandmother’s passed away, the sister of the Rev. Māori Marsden, a well-known New Zealand clergyman. I tell you, when that woman passed away, New Zealand lost the last grandchild of a signatory of the Treaty of Waitangi. So that tells us how young our country is. We knew that woman as Auntie Lucy. Her father was the Rev. Hoani Matenga, who was educated at Te Rau Kahikatea. I do not think St John’s Theological College was around then, and I will come back soon to talk about why these Māori names for the college are not in the bill, but that is another matter. The Rev. Hoani Matenga’s father was Paerata. The name “Paerata” came from the transliteration of the word “pilot”. He piloted a number of the original vessels coming up into that part of the north. The name “Matenga” came from when they were baptised as Christians. That also gets me to the name “St John’s”, which is another mountain that has not got the right Māori name, but I will come back to that as well.

When that tupuna brought the missionaries into our rohe, I think that we should remember that that is an example of how we are still a young country. So if we can have institutional arrangements that go down to our mokopuna and that find a way to elevate the status of where our cultural identity meets the landscape, in such a way that it will outlive our politics, outlive us as we move on to either other careers or off the mortal coil, that is a very noble thing to do, not only for Māori, not only for the Treaty, but for the future of Aotearoa. We are wont in New Zealand to be pretty dismissive of aspects of our heritage and our culture because, in the zest of trying to develop and grow the country as a youthful nation, it is often seen as too stuffy or too expensive to spend time and money on. This is one Minister who has placed a considerable level of accent or emphasis on ensuring that that aspect of the Treaty settlement process is not left behind.

Reference has been made in figurative terms to the super-city council and the role that it has played in facilitating this bill. Naturally, we support those remarks, etc. I have been invited to go to a meeting with the Auckland Independent Māori Statutory Board. I will go on the understanding that Naida Glavish is not there. I have not had a good batting average with Māori women over recent years, so I think I might pass on that invitation if she is there. It is not just the Māori side I fear in the woman; it is the Dalmatian side, as well. But let us acknowledge that the super-city has played a role here with the iwi leaders. I do recall how fractious it was in earlier times, and I know that it has not been polite, perhaps, to refer openly to Sir Douglas Graham. Well, I want to stand in this House and say that I saw him at Matua Laly Haddon’s tangihanga in Ngāti Manuhiri. When Matua Laly Haddon, our famous Māori All Black of Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, died, Sir Douglas Graham was there and they had no compunction whatsoever in taking him to sit with our matuas and our kaumātua. He has played a key role not only in this claim but in the earlier stages. Blemishes aside, we should acknowledge the contribution that the man has made.

When this bill eventually is implemented, it is absolutely essential that the Crown in the bureaucracy does not forget about the obligations. I would like some reassurance at some point in time from other Government speakers that the bureaucracy itself will be given a message that the politicians and the parliamentarians do their mahi, but the actual implementation takes place at the executive level of government down in the bureaucracy. It would be a very lamentable day if our kaumātua and iwi stewards find that the politicians have come and gone but there is actually an unwillingness or an inability on the bureaucracy to implement these changes. So I look forward to hearing from the other side of the House that there is some structure to ensure that these obligations, which cannot be managed just by money—they cannot just be monetised—are carried out. The super-city has a problem with its rates and the cost of running the super-city. We should send a message that these issues are matters of priority in terms of the identity of Auckland City, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and in terms of the vitality, the culture, and, quite frankly, the health of the city. So let us hope that when the various rationing exercises take place in terms of the cost of the super-city, these issues are not diminished or deprecated.

I want to come back and read into the record the names for seven geographic features requested by the Tāmaki Collective. They are all beautiful names, and I do not want to talk just about Rangitoto Island, Te Rangi-i-Totongia-a-Tamatekapua. Those of us who spend a lot of time on the marae would know the meanings of these names, but my plea is to our people on the other side of this debate. As I understand it, the Geographic Board will tolerate only one Māori name and one Pākehā name. So, as is the wont with our iwi, they sent nine. If we want our fellow Kiwis to embrace our perspective on these things, please try to sort it out at home. Mount St John I know a thing or three about by dint of having a bit to do with the Anglican Church; Te Kōpuke or Titikōpuke—not a great deal of difference between the two. I only hope that, as St John went around baptising, a political baptism might be visited upon these iwi leaders so that they find some unity.

Puketāpapa—according to Phil Goff, that is the name, because it is Mount Roskill. Phil is no great Māori linguist; indeed, he has raised a few eyebrows with his views about Māori over time, but he says that he sounds definitely polite compared with me, so I guess that is not his problem any longer—Pukewīwī. Māngere Mountain is Te Ara Pueru or Te Pane-ō-Mataoho. Mount Albert is Ōwairaka or Te Ahi Kā a Rakataura. These are names that we know from the matatua traditions. The point is these are beautiful, these are indigenous names, and I encourage the leaders of our various Tāmaki Collective to sit down and choose a name so the Geographic Board can append it to the country’s mapping system. It is a small but symbolic gesture, and I think it will actually go some way to enabling more Pākehā, firstly, to know there is a name, and, secondly, to hazard a go at actually learning how to pronounce it.

We support this bill, these minor imperfections aside, and wish all the kaitiaki of the various iwi up in Tāmaki-makau-rau, along with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and other supporters, including Minister Sharples, the best in terms of implementing this to a level of success that would meet with our seal of approval on this side of the House. Kia ora koutou.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e hui tahi nei i te Whare. E tautoko ana i ngā mihi a Shane ki a tātou, kia hui kotahi ai tātou ki te whakamana i ēnei kerēme kia puāwai ai ō tātou nei moemoeā i tēnei wā, nā reira, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa. Tāmaki Nui, Tāmaki Herenga Waka, Tāmaki Puia, Tāmaki-makau-rau, te pai me te pai rawa o Tāmaki. Ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ahakoa kua puta ana te tokorua rā.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to us all gathered together here in the House. I endorse Shane’s tributes to us collectively and for us to come together to give effect to these claims so that our dreams at this point in time bear fruit. So greetings to you therefore and to you all collectively, Tāmaki Nui, Tāmaki Herenga Waka, Tāmaki Puia, and Tāmaki Makaurau. How really great and wonderful Tāmaki is. So greetings, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively, even though those two over there have just arrived.]

It is my honour to welcome to this House the two who have just left the House, descendents of Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Ākitai Waiōhua, Te Kawerau a Māki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, and Te Patukirikiri. Nō reira tēnā koutou.

In September 2012 the mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau gathered at Pūkawa maunga to sign a collective deed to settle their Treaty of Waitangi grievances with the Crown. I was honoured to take part in what was a milestone achievement for New Zealand’s largest city. The legacy created that day by the mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau is one that will be shared by all of us who call Auckland our home. The legacy created that day by the mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau will live on in other regions as a collective example to others yet to settle their Treaty grievances.

The crucial part of the legacy that we are creating with this legislation is the restoration of the original names of Tāmaki-makau-rau. What is disappointing is that many New Zealanders remain bitterly opposed to the celebration of Māori place names, of our spelling of them, and so on. Look at Whanganui. They say things like: “It will cost too much money.”, “Who cares?”, “What’s in a name?”, and so on. My response to them is that a name is not just a word; a name is our history, our whakapapa, and our heritage. A name is our identity. But the reality is that Tāmaki-makau-rau, the largest Polynesian city on the planet, has few modern Māori landmarks. The ancestral Māori landmarks in Tāmaki-makau-rau carry an incredible heritage, but too often these places have been renamed, and their Māori identity replaced.

The time has come to tell the children of Auckland the incredible history of our city. The time has come for the children of Auckland to know the identity of these lands they call home. The children of Tāmaki-makau-rau should grow up knowing that the footprints of the mana whenua can be found not just in waiata or whakatau; they need to know that the physical footsteps of the mana whenua can be found on Motutapu Island in the Waitematā. More than half a millennium ago, Māori were living around the Waitematā when a massive eruption saw a giant underground volcano surge up out of the harbour, rushing skywards, to form the iconic Rangitoto, Te Rangi-i-Totongia-a-Tamatekapua.

The footprints of those first residents of Tāmaki-makau-rau have been discovered between layers of volcanic ash on nearby Motutapu Island. Their hunting tools and fish hooks have been found buried beneath the ash at Rangitoto. Tāmaki-makau-rau holds an iconic and amazing heritage that all of us should know. Restoring the Māori names of these sites of significance is a practical way that we can help make that happen.

The descendants of those first Aucklanders have acted with honour and generosity in settling with the Crown. They have demonstrated incredible leadership and rangatiratanga in resolving a wide range of mandate interests, governance, and allocation issues. The collective approach they have chosen is already being replicated in other parts of Aotearoa in our claims work. I would like to acknowledge the members of the Ngāti Whātua rōpū: Ngāti Whātua o Ōrakei, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. Without your patience, we would not be here today. The Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei agreement in principle was originally signed in 2006.

I would like to acknowledge Marutūāhu, whose mahi has been instrumental to the collective approach in Tāmaki. In its 2007 report the Waitangi Tribunal acknowledged Marutūāhu’s perseverance.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the members of the Waiohua rōpū. Your commitment to finalising the redress in this deed has been key. Your willingness to receive the redress collectively with other iwi and hapū of Tāmaki-makau-rau has been essential. I also acknowledge the connections to Tainui through Waiohua and Marutūāhu and the blessing of the king and Te Kauhanganui.

The transfer of ownership of 14 tīpuna maunga to ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau is a legislative landmark in the history of Aotearoa. Each iwi and hapū will have the opportunity to record their respective spiritual, ancestral, and cultural associations with each maunga on its land title. Twelve of the tīpuna maunga will be managed by a co-governance body, which will govern and oversee their administration and their management. So mana whenua in Tāmaki will soon be involved in making decisions affecting their tīpuna maunga.

The mana whenua and their incredible history in this region will be formally recognised by the council, by the Crown, and by all the people of Auckland. The footprints of those tīpuna are set in volcanic stone on Motutapu Island. When this bill is passed, the footprints that we leave behind us will ensure that the history of Tāmaki-makau-rau is set in the laws of Aotearoa. Thank you.

It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution today on the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. It is an innovative approach to look at how co-management of maunga can occur in the Auckland area. Auckland is indeed our biggest city, and the bill will stretch, I think, some of the aspirations that locals have for the ongoing preservation and management of maunga, so it is a very courageous step. We received at the Māori Affairs Committee nine submissions, and we heard them all in Auckland. There are four particular issues that I want to bring to the House, hoping that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations may consider a response to some aspects that I will raise in the Committee stage of the bill.

Firstly, I want to commend the Friends of Maungawhau, who came to the select committee. They demonstrated a great deal of passion and commitment to seeing Maungawhau, which is Mount Eden, restored and preserved so that all New Zealanders and visitors coming to Auckland can benefit from the beauty there. They were integral in campaigning for the removal of cattle and buses going up to Mount Eden, and they should be commended for that. They participate in the life of restoring natural vegetation on the maunga and ongoing protection of the values of that particular maunga. What they represented for Maungawhau I think a number of other groups will represent for many maunga around the Auckland area.

It would be very helpful to the broader interests of Auckland, I think, if the Minister were of a mind to respond in the Committee stage to two issues that the Friends of Maungawhau raised. The two issues were, in particular, when integrated management plans are being prepared for Maungawhau in the co-management arrangement, whether consideration could be given to existing plans. In the instance of Mount Eden, the local board has a plan for Maungawhau. There was some concern that a clean-slate approach might be taken when new plans were developed for the ongoing management of these maunga. I thought that was a really good point, and what it did certainly give insight into for the committee was that we were not approaching this new co-management arrangement with an entirely clean slate, and that there were groups already actively involved and committed to the ongoing management of the maunga. So that is the first issue.

The second issue, again, can be more generically applied, and that is whether, in the interests of transparency and openness to the public about management plans and the creation of them, the consultation provisions could be more overt and express in terms of how the public engage in the creation of the plans through the Maunga Authority.

Upon hearing this particular submission, I felt that public consultation cannot be taken for granted, and that in instances where there is a genuine attempt through the Treaty settlement process to assure the broader interests of New Zealand, this is a step forward, not a step back. The issue of public consultation then becomes one of the litmus tests for good engagement that preserves and protects the values of Māori within a new management regime but also makes clear to the general public that those aspirations that will have a general benefit can also be reflected. This can be done in a tangible way through a public consultation process and reflected in the integrated management plans that fall through that particular process. So, Minister, I am hoping that in the Committee stage you might be of a mind to either give an assurance that the bill will continue to do that or perhaps look to some of the suggestions that were made to the select committee to amend the bill accordingly. We understand, as a select committee, that it is entirely inappropriate for us to change the terms of a Treaty settlement, but I certainly felt that those were two compelling issues that came out of that submission.

The second issue that kind of exercised my mind was the issues brought to the table by Watercare Services. By and large, it had a concern that in the transferring of an administering responsibility to the Maunga Authority, it would be unclear whom it would consult with if it had future infrastructure and easement aspirations for the works that it wanted to carry out. I was sufficiently, I guess, assured through the advice that we received from the officials on this matter that, actually, the trustee and owner, whom Watercare Services would readily identify with and consult with, was vested in the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust. That is certainly my understanding from reading the bill and how I read the officials’ report, so it is very clear that it has a point of contact and that its current interests would not be prejudicially affected. In fact, our select committee basically expressed that in the report. So we did not make any changes to accommodate Watercare Services.

However, I would acknowledge that whereas, for both the purposes of the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, there would be a clear point of contact for Watercare Services, if, on the other hand, Watercare Services invoked the Public Works Act to put a pipeline through one of the maunga. That is a matter of such significant interest to a whole lot of people, not just the iwi concerned, that I think it would be a matter of broad public debate. I would find it hard to believe that Watercare Services would do that, and it would be a matter of such significance that there would be a full range of affected parties who would want to express their concern. So the interests of Watercare Services, I think, are probably well protected under the bill.

The third point for me was the issue that was raised by Waikato-Tainui, who reached a settlement in 1995. They asserted that the interests around Māngere mountain, in particular, were prejudicially affected by this bill because there was a provision for first right of refusal over Māngere mountain if the Crown ever sold off the reserve part of that mountain. I think the hapū in the collective that really affirmed to me that the bill does not impinge negatively on that interest was Te Akitai, who are situated the most directly near the mountain, but also the other Waikato hapū who are also captured by the Waikato-Tainui settlement. That is Te Akitai, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata o Waiohua, and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. It seems to me that the way in which the bill is intended to work, albeit representing the collective interests of all the iwi in Auckland, is that where there is a maunga in a particular area where mana whenua interests are expressed, they will have a more direct relationship with the issues around the ongoing management of the maunga. That, certainly, was reflected in the submission that came to us from Te Akitai. On that front, I think we were sufficiently able to say that, no, the interests represented by Waikato-Tainui had been taken care of.

As Shane Jones mentioned, the committee did raise with officials the issue of multiple naming. We were told that the New Zealand Geographic Board would not allow for multiple names, but let it be known that in the advice that we received from the officials, there is a table in Appendix B that outlines the multiple names for each of the areas where an English name exists in the bill. I think that, for the purposes of time, in my third reading speech I will come back and recognise the multiple Pākehā names that have been represented in the bill, but this is the one point that I would like to make now: if in the future the New Zealand Geographic Board provided for multiple names to be recognised, the only real challenge is what the common usage name in the area would be. That is a policy matter that I think would have to be further thought through so that we could give the public a general assurance that we are all talking about the same place and so that, at a practical level, on the GPS when you are trying to get somewhere, you are all going to get to where you need to go.

At another level, in terms of telling the history of New Zealand, having multiple names, I think, further enriches the places and the connections that you have to areas throughout the country. All too often it is convenient to not use the right name and to then totally reject the local history that exists in the area.

As this is a second reading speech, I will say that I think the select committee thought long and hard about the issues brought before us. We did make some technical amendments to the bill. They have been outlined. In the Committee stage, I am just hopeful that two of those issues could be responded to by the Minister so that we can perhaps further strengthen the intent, which is good co-management for the maunga in the Auckland area. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia koutou katoa. I am pleased to take a short call on this Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill to affirm the Green Party’s support for it. As the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations pointed out in introducing the bill, this legislation has some features that are typical of other settlement bills. It restores mana whenua, recognises kaitiaki status, and deals with the issue of naming, which I will return to. But it is also unique in that it is addressing and recognising the reality of overlapping claims, a very complex situation, and it creates what, in principle at least, is a very elegant mechanism. It establishes a body that will represent the interests of the multiple iwi and hapū and will give them all an opportunity to be involved in decision making, not just as consulted parties, not just as co-managers, but at the governance level. At the decision-making level these various iwi and hapū groups will be represented. That is as it should be and we are very pleased to see that.

I recall I made the comment at the first reading that given the unique features of this bill, the Māori Affairs Committee might have had its work cut out to bring the bill through. But given the relatively few changes that have been made, the bill has emerged apparently unscathed in principle, and that would suggest that the work was done well and diligently, and I would commend the committee for the work that has been done. Although some of us have chosen to escape Auckland and move to the north, nevertheless we recognise the attractions of Auckland. It is that very appeal of the place, both in the present day and historically, for a broad range of reasons, that means there is considerable overlap of interests and many parties with legitimate claims to be recognised, which has generated this solution—this multipartisan solution, if you like.

It was interesting reading the submissions on the bill. The previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, made reference to it. There are a number of NGOs and voluntary bodies that for many years have worked very hard to protect and restore the quality of the cones, particularly, but also of some of the waterways around Auckland. Friends of Maungawhau has been mentioned, and that is an extremely able and committed body. Friends of the Whau, Friends of Oakley Creek—these typically Pākehā organisations and conservation groups have worked long and hard to maintain, to restore, and to recognise the preciousness of these sites, of the maunga, of the cones, and of the waterways.

In reading the submissions, it occurred to me that there is still a level of nervousness within some of those groups. We have seen this idea, even within the Green Party—within our own membership, historically—that as soon as you introduce a greater level of Māori control, management, and authority, some of the conservation groups, frankly, get a little bit nervous about that. There are reasons for that; they are historical, I know. But I do think that this legislation has the opportunity to quell some of that nervousness when people see that Māori are perfectly capable managers, owners, and guardians of sites and have been for a very long time, in fact. It is returning, in some respect, to a status quo. I think it is a very positive move.

Again, I reflect Nanaia’s comments that one hopes that the relationships will be positive; that all parties will recognise each others’ contributions—historical, present, and future—and that we will get much better outcomes not only for Māori but particularly for Māori, who have been denied a place in these decision-making points for a very long time. This legislation goes some way to restoring that, and that is as it should be. It has to be acknowledged that some of the cones and some of the landscapes that are being returned to a level of Māori control and authority are not in a good shape. They have not been well looked after, and I do see that there is an opportunity in this both to restore the physical landscape and to enrich the social landscape of Auckland, of Tāmaki-makau-rau.

There is a word I came across when I was endeavouring to teach landscape architects: the word “palimpsest”. Originally it referred to documents, and particularly parchments, that would be written on, and then, because parchment was precious, those words might be washed or scraped off and new words written on. But the original script would remain, albeit with a very faint imprint on that document. That word can be usefully translated into a landscape as well. As each succeeding generation makes its mark and makes its impression on the landscape, nevertheless the marks of the previous generations, of the people who came before us, remain there that people with the right eyes can understand and can interpret. That is the opportunity in Auckland, I think, with this new model, with the considerable Māori influence and control now over the development and the enhancement of those landscapes. We can still see, if people are educated and given the insight, the imprint made by previous generations, both physically and socially. We can celebrate that.

Auckland does have a longish history, in New Zealand terms at least—clearly, the pre-European history, and then the post-contact history, the 19th century history. It is rich, it is colourful, and it is extraordinary. It is something we should celebrate and acknowledge—that harm was done, but some good was done as well. I do see that there is an opportunity now with this new governance and management structure to bring to light some of that history and to enrich the understanding of Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders, of tauiwi, of everybody who now lives in that city, and to celebrate its history and reflect on the lessons we can learn from the past and carry them forward to the advantage of everybody who lives in that place and will continue to live there.

This is not new. Some of this work has been done already. I acknowledge, particularly, Ngāti Whātua and individuals like Ngārimu Blair who have worked very hard and long to install and reveal in the landscape the richness and the significant markers that are the imprint of the history, the historical use, the historical importance of the various cones and the waterways, and so on. I think this will create an opportunity for much more of that work. People can live for a very long time and spend a lifetime in Auckland but not be aware of the history and the colour and the excitement that has historically focused on some of those cones—the volcanic cones, particularly.

As this new structure beds in I am sure it will not be seamless. There will be a few speed bumps along the way, no doubt. But I think with goodwill and good leadership they can be overcome and we can get a much more positive approach—a much better outcome and a much richer outcome for people. The opportunity—both the social and, indeed, the economic opportunity—to reveal Auckland’s very rich history and to celebrate it is now able, and much more likely, to come to fruition under this new structure than previously, when Māori were very much alienated both physically and socially and in every other way. Recognising the centrality of the Māori history of this place and the mana whenua rights of the various iwi and hapū to these environments, to these landscapes, I think will take us to a much better place.

The question of names, of course, has been brought up and is central to this legislation. Names are important not only for reasons of recognising mana and identity but also, as I said, because Māori names do have a history to them, like Te Puke Ōwairaka. A lot of people do not know about the ancestor Wairaka, an extraordinary woman in her time, with links back to the Bay of Plenty and right through to Auckland, back to the waka. It does unite our country. The simple act of restoring an original name to a site can be very inclusive, very enriching. It can be an action that unites people rather than divides them because it unites our history, it gives us links to other places, other people. So the naming will be complex. It will not be easy, but I think the effort will certainly be rewarded many times. Again, we are pleased to support this bill. We look forward to it moving through the House and giving the new structure an opportunity to bed in and produce very positive results. Kia ora.

I too want to support the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makarau Collective Redress Bill. It is really good that there is unanimous support right around this House. It is a very important step in the steps towards completing final and durable settlements of Treaty of Waitangi claims. This bill covers 13 iwi. It covers a large area of our major city. It has significant claims and counterclaims and overlapping claims and it has been a very complex process to get here, so it is very pleasing to be standing in the House today.

The National-led Government is pleased to see another step on the way of settling these claims; 43 deeds of settlement have been passed by us since November 2008. I think each and every single one of these deeds of settlement has a long history and a valuable story to be told for both Māori and Pākehā. These settlements recognise and right the wrongs of the past and they strengthen the partnerships between the Crown and Māori. It is really important, also, to realise the potential in these settlements—the potential to unlock economic situations of regions and areas. I come from Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island, and Ōtautahi, Christhurch. That is Ngāi Tahu country, of course, and there is no doubt that we have seen enormous positives out of their settlement, which was one of the very first settlements. Now Ngāi Tahu are in a position to be one of the corner stakeholders of the rebuild of Christchurch, and what would we have done without that process? So it is very pleasing to see this happening today for Auckland, our largest city. I think it is important because it is not just for the well-being of Māori but for the well-being of all New Zealanders.

We have heard about how innovative this bill is and how this collective has worked long and hard together. There was an enormous amount of discussion, of argument, of debate, and of generosity of spirit in sharing ideas, moving, and making negotiations, because this went on from 2009 to 2012. So it has been a long process, and we are very hopeful that because the gestation has taken time and people have gone through a thoughtful process, it will be long enduring.

The Māori Affairs Committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with a few minor amendments. We met in Auckland, we heard the nine submissions, and it was a very positive experience. There were some issues raised, and I would like to echo the Hon Nanaia Mahuta on the comments of people who had been working on the maunga and the motu—the mountains and the islands—and had been looking after these very special places for Aucklanders. It was really good to be able to recognise their work. Equally, the question of names came out, and that has been canvassed quite a lot in the House today. I can only say there was unanimous support for keeping multiple names. I think it is just an operational exercise of how we do that, because certainly we want to know where we are going when we talk about a name of one of these special places.

As I have said, the Tāmaki-makau-rau region recognises 13 iwi and hapū. Their settlements cover this area. But really a lot of the bill, particularly its cultural redress, is about the mountains and the islands. It recognises the history, the cultural significance, and the local connection to all these very special areas. There will be the vesting of the 14 maunga—those are the volcanic cones in the Tāmaki Collective—and that is on the condition that they are held in trust not only for the common benefit of the iwi and hapū of the Tāmaki Collective but for all the people of Auckland. They will be vested as reserves, and public access and third-party interests will be protected. As an interesting aside, this is the first time that a proper legal definition of the maunga and some of the easements that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was talking about have actually been recognised. They have tended to be put there in the past and sometimes we did not even know they were there, but now they have all been mapped and we have a really good, accurate description of the maunga and the easements around it. That in itself was an interesting legal exercise.

The bill also vests the four motu to the Tāmaki Collective: Rangitoto, Motutapu, Motuihe, and Tiritiri Mātangi. Again, I think that that is recognition of the generosity of the Tāmaki iwi and hapū to all the people of the region. Parts of the area of Rangitoto will be retained in ownership of the Tāmaki Collective, including the summit, but Rangitoto will remain in the administration of the Department of Conservation, again with all public rights of access.

The bill also provides for co-governance arrangements over the motu, and a relationship with the Minister of Conservation and three seats on the Auckland Conservation Board for the Tāmaki Collective. So this is a really important day. The bill covers such a large part of our country. It covers a large number of people. It covers a significant group of iwi, and they have worked long and hard to get to this stage. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi aroha ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau. Tēnā tātou.

[To the authorities, languages, and the many esteemed leaders, salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to you all. Fond regards to you, the local tribes of Auckland, and greetings to us.]

It is my pleasure on the second reading of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill to stand in support of this piece of legislation, which is an incredibly innovative piece of legislation. It will enable the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau to participate in processes that reaffirm their status. For me, that is one of the major points of this piece of legislation—that, in fact, this bill will rightfully name the mana whenua across the Tāmaki-makau-rau sites of significance—the maunga and the motu. They will now have a formal role in the administration and management of those particular sites across Tāmaki-makau-rau.

I want to acknowledge the goodwill of the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau to get to this point. I think it was an incredibly pragmatic move and I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and all the officials involved. But, first and foremost, it is because of the mana whenua themselves that we come to this point in time where they can create a solution and then look positively to the future.

What this bill also does is provide a tool for councils and the Crown to work together with the mana whenua in a manner that does recognise their special status. What it does is elevate Māori, our iwi groups, to the position that they rightfully have. So I do want to highlight the formation of a co-governance entity in recognition of that status, and that co-governance entity is the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority. The significance of the formation of that entity is that mana whenua across Tāmaki-makau-rau will sit at the decision-making table with the Crown, with the Auckland Council, and they will oversee the governance of maunga across Tāmaki-makau-rau. That recognition in legislation is incredibly important. For me, it is the foundation for Māori going into the future, playing a formal role in how Tāmaki-makau-rau will develop into the future.

They will also have three seats on the Auckland Conservation Board. The collective itself will enter into a relationship agreement with the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General of Conservation. So this really is fulfilling the partnership that the Treaty guaranteed to Māori—that it guaranteed to the hapū and iwi who signed the Treaty. So, again, this is a very significant step in terms of the status that Māori have not only in Tāmaki-makau-rau but across Aotearoa New Zealand.

I also want to highlight the vesting of four motu: Rangitoto, Motutapu, Motuihe, and Tiritiri Mātangi. The collective will have a responsibility with the Department of Conservation to develop a management plan for how Aucklanders, how New Zealanders, can enjoy those motu. Again, this is a very significant step. It is a status that we will have by right of being mana whenua. Standing side by side with the Crown is incredibly significant, so I want to highlight that.

I have got just two more points. In terms of these co-governance relationships, what they really do is give effect to the Resource Management Act. I want to highlight section 8 of the Resource Management Act and the fact that we now know which iwi and hapū groups people across Tāmaki-makau-rau can consult. So the other importance of this piece of legislation is that it makes it crystal clear which iwi groups have mana whenua and which iwi groups should be consulted by right in respect of any developments, in this particular instance, around maunga and motu.

With regard to other issues, around the issues of effects there is quite a bit of talk at the moment about cultural impact assessments. Again, what this piece of legislation does is be very clear who the mana whenua groups are. Sections 6(e) and 7(a) of the Resource Management Act ensure that it is mana whenua who will write these cultural impact assessments. This is not generic. It is not for Māori outside of Tāmaki-makau-rau to come into Tāmaki-makau-rau and say what the effects are. What this bill, again, reinforces is that is it for mana whenua to undertake that role.

Finally, what I want to highlight is that I hope this bill will now lead to councils, the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and the people of Aotearoa New Zealand actually fully understanding and accepting the role that mana whenua have in the future governance of our region. So, for example, in section 33 of the Resource Management Act there is an opportunity for our councils to transfer powers to hapū and iwi groups, for us to become the decision makers in some of these resource management decisions. The opportunity for us is there within the legislation. I see this legislation as providing a clear pathway to that type of governance opportunity for mana whenua. To date, barring a joint management agreement between the Tūwharetoa Trust Board and the Taupō District Council, there has not been a transfer of this joint management with iwi and hapū, but I see the opportunity that this piece of legislation provides. I see the opportunity for Māori to become a greater stakeholder in Tāmaki-makau-rau, and, in fact, across Aotearoa New Zealand.

I am happy to be part of this debate today. I wish the whānau and the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau all the best in terms of this legislation, and I know that it is the beginning for the 13 mana whenua groups across Tāmaki-makau-rau. Some of them have settled, Ngāti Whātua being one of them, but there are, in fact, Treaty settlements that will take place progressively over the next few years. From my perspective this is a wonderful foundation for the enactment of mana whenua status for the mana whenua across Tāmaki-makau-rau. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill at its second reading. This is indeed Tāmaki Makaurau Mātā Waka, Tāmaki Herenga Waka. I stand as a proud child of Tāmaki Mātā Waka. In my generation I was classified as one of the children of the cones, because in my time, where we had Mātā Waka coming into Tāmaki-makau-rau, we were housed in the shadows of Maunga Puketāpapa, Mount Roskill, and Ōwairaka, Mount Albert. It is gratifying to see that the mana whenua of those areas, the 13 iwi and hapū, are now being recognised in this bill. The 13 iwi have been broken up into three rōpū, which make up this collective: Ngāti Whātua rōpū, Tāmaki rōpū, and Manu Tuahu rōpū. They negotiated to have the maunga vested in their interests.

It is interesting that some of my colleagues have brought up the fact that the maunga have several names. That would be quite correct as well, because each of their mana whenua have their own pūrākau around those maunga. I think we also need to remember some of the stories of the rūaumoko beneath those maunga, which are still sitting there, and remember that every single one of those maunga links to each other. In fact, on Ōwairaka, Mount Royal Avenue, every single household that borders the base of Ōwairaka has caves that go into the crater of that maunga. And all those craters also link to Maunga Tāpapa and into Maungarei as well. They were used as exit points for some of the waka coming down from Ngāpuhi, from Ngāti Whātua, on their way down to Ngati Porou and further down as well. So they are not only very significant in terms of their ingoa—their names—but also very significant in terms of their history of Māori.

So with that is the vesting of the 14 maunga and, as we have heard, the trust for the common benefit of iwi and hapū and for all the people of Auckland as well. I do think that there may be issues with some of those organisations that have felt in the past that they are the kaitiaki of these maunga and that they will need to go into discussion with the mana whenua to progress the development of those maunga going forward for the benefit of all of Auckland and for the people of New Zealand, and for our visitors overseas as well. Now that this bill has come into the House, we are looking forward to seeing what the mana whenua will do in One Tree Hill on Maungakiekie, and whether or not they will replant or what they will do now that we can move forward, after we lost that pinus radiata off that maunga. The legal descriptions around this maunga have also been implemented into this bill, and that is a great step forward as well.

There is no financial redress for iwi and hapū in this bill, as that will be provided individually in each group’s deed of settlement. However, the deed and the bill provide resources and opportunities to assist iwi and hapū to secure and grow their own economic base. There is the right of first refusal for the Tāmaki Collective over Crown-owned land and certain Crown entity - owned land in the Tāmaki area that becomes surplus, and the second right to purchase any deferred selection properties not purchased by individual iwi through their own settlements as well. The following matter is not directly covered under this bill, and that is Maungakiekie after the tree was chopped down in 2000, but we are hoping that with the settlement of this claim, something will be done about that.

This National-led Government is making great progress on the completion of the Treaty claims. So far we have signed 43 deeds of settlement. But this settlement is quite significant in that it does address about a third or a quarter of all settlements thus far, which are the ones that are in Tāmaki-makau-rau itself. So this bill’s coming into the House is quite a significant way to address the remaining settlements under this National-led Government. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.