Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. Can I begin by acknowledging the gracious and supportive and helpful comments made by my Labour opponents this morning. I particularly acknowledge Louisa Wall and Meka Whaitiri. They were gracious and constructive, and that can be contrasted with the ignorant and gross contribution of Mr Peters earlier today, comments that will resonate in Ruatāhuna and Ruātoki and places like that—most unfortunate, indeed.

This bill will enable the settlement of all the remaining historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. Earlier this year the bill was considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. I have said on a number of occasions, and this morning I repeat it again, that I do appreciate the work that committee did in considering the bill and in considering the issues raised in the submissions. I congratulate the chair and the members on their hard and efficient work. The committee considered 12 submissions from interested groups and individuals. It heard nine submissions and held hearings in Karapiro and Wellington. I am very grateful to those who took the time to make submissions on the bill. They were very positive and very helpful.

Every settlement, as a previous speaker said, is unique in some way. Obviously, with the Ngāi Tūhoe legislation, the unique feature is the issue of the Ureweras. Here the unique feature is that magnificent mountain in the Waikato, Maungatautari. The settlement with Ngāti Koroki Kahukura—and, therefore, this bill—contains innovative redress relating to Maungatautari. It is at the heart of the rohe of this iwi. It is at the heart of their claim, but what they have done is agree to redress over the maunga that accommodates the interests of others, as well.

I recall the period leading up to the signing of the deed of settlement, when there were a number of meetings that I had with various community groups to try to drill down and work out a solution that was acceptable for everyone. The net result of all that work is that the maunga will be vested in the local community as a whole: Te Hapori o Maungatautari. So the bill contains some complex and innovative drafting to provide for vesting an area in a community rather than in a legal person. I want to acknowledge the generosity of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and emphasise that I remain committed to working with them to ensure that the remaining issues concerning the legal status of the pest-proof fence are effectively resolved, and I think they will be.

The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010 provide very important mechanisms for the care and well-being of the Waikato River. The bill before this House is consistent with other Treaty bills in the Waikato in that it provides for the existing manawhakahaere arrangement north of Karapiro to be extended south to the Lake Arapuni sub-catchment, and I am very happy that the settlement facilitates those changes.

The committee carefully examined the bill. It has incorporated a number of small changes. The changes are technical in nature and they do helpfully clarify aspects of the redress. I very much look forward to the third reading and seeing Ngāti Koroki Kahukura move confidently into the future. As I said in the first debate, and I say again now, I hope the fact that I am relatively succinct and to the point in the second reading speeches is not a cause of offence to the iwi. What we are trying to do this morning in extended sitting hours is progress three bills through their second reading. The full speeches, hopefully in the presence of many members of the iwi, will occur at the third reading. I commend the bill to the House.

Labour supports the passage of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill, and I want to comment on three specific aspects that were raised in submissions. I want to thank the people of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura for hosting the Māori Affairs Committee at Karapiro, where we heard a number of supportive submissions. I also want to, I guess, convey with concern subsequent emails that were sent to select committee members in relation to the consideration of the bill. I know for a fact that that particular submitter is well aware of the political process, and although he may not be satisfied, perhaps my contribution in this second reading may explain how some of those matters were considered.

The issue of the co-management of the Waikato River and the point that was raised in the submission by Koroki Kahukura was that it was an expectation that they would continue to assert their role in the kaitiakitanga of the Waikato River because they live right next to it. There was no dispute over that in relation to the Waikato River settlement, in relation to Raukawa, in so far as the interests running from Karapiro to Arapuni. The issue that was raised with the select committee was that in order to carry out legitimate co-management responsibilities as an aligned iwi interest, there was a cost to it. We did pursue at select committee level whether there was an opportunity for some co-management cost to be ascribed to the rights and interests that are conveyed in the legislation. We received advice from officials that this was not possible and that this was to be considered within the context of the Waikato River settlement.

Again, this is problematic for Koroki Kahukura because they have to negotiate within the already set parameters from the ascribing of co-management funds through the Waikato settlement. So we saw the dilemma. The select committee saw the dilemma that if you are going to ascribe rights and functions within a settlement, the cost should be provided for, albeit to make clear, I guess, what the obligation and expectation arising from the river settlement management instruments could be towards Koroki Kahukura. I think partly what they were asking for was to give clarity on how their co-management function could be carried out, and to be able to accept the true cost of this. [Bell rung] Unfortunately, we were unable to achieve that and, again, that was probably what led to the email.

There were other issues in relation to land-banked properties, and we have to see the three land-banked properties that were identified in relation to Maungatautari mountain. In terms of Maungatautari itself—and both Louise Upston and Sue Moroney will know quite clearly what the tensions are—the community certainly was very concerned about the transfer of ownership of Maungatautari mountain to Ngāti Koroki Kahukura in and of themselves. In 2011 when all those tensions resurfaced, it brought into question the extent to which the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was prepared to consider the three properties that were identified in Arapuni. This became a problem. This was certainly how it was explained at the select committee level.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, I rang the bell—a 2 minute bell, in fact. When the clock was set, it was set at 5 minutes, so you actually have some more time.

Oh, fantastic!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): So that is my apology. You actually have 5 more minutes—my apologies.

Fantastic. So I can take my time here. As I said, the members listening to the debate have to consider the aspiration of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura in wanting the full title of the maunga returned to them in the context that it was a very political issue. What we have in the bill is an establishment of the Te Hapori o Maungatautari, which is a community-wide, if you like, way of managing the maunga.

I accept that the political tensions have been very high and tense, and it is positive to hear that the Minister says that further negotiation around the fence—in particular, the ownership of it—can continue to happen. It needs to happen because if we want to ensure that Maungatautari is a maunga that everyone can continue to enjoy, have access to, and be a part of, preserving—again—the ecological regeneration and repatriation of native wildlife to that place, then a very fluid and committed conversation has to happen with the ongoing management of Maungatautari.

The three properties that were identified by Ngāti Koroki Kahukura when they went into this settlement did not become a part of their redress package. They did convey to us through the submissions whether this could be reconsidered. We were told that there was an objection by Ngāti Raukawa, their neighbours, and on that basis there was no instrument or provision to reconsider the transfer of these properties because an objection existed.

Can I say that at select committee this started to raise questions about the issue of whether there should be an opportunity to retrospectively reconsider properties when things have moved on. So in 2011, when there were tensions around Maungatautari, and the issues of the Arapuni properties got put on hold because of those tensions, and in 2012, when it came closer to the time to actually complete the legislation, there was no ability to go back and address this. I think that is more a policy issue. We recognise that. But it provided the curious situation where we thought: “Heck, if these two parties can’t agree and they don’t have the ability as time has passed to reconsider whether they can come to some kind of agreement, because time makes all the world of difference, you could get the situation where properties that have been rightly identified with tribal interests could be sold outside of either interest.”, and it just did not make sense to us.

So, Minister, we understand that this is a policy issue. We understand that there was no scope for officials to move this forward, but I think common sense should have prevailed. If, in the event, any one of these three properties goes on the open market and neither Raukawa nor Ngāti Koroki has the ability to buy back these properties, then I think it is a great shame. If, in the event, the way in which Ngāti Raukawa interests to purchase these properties are strengthened because of their objection through a process, then, again, I do not think that the outcome has really served the best interests of the parties who have a clear relationship to those lands. I say this knowing that officials have put their minds to these issues and heard some very abrasive views from Ngāti Koroki Kahukura on the matter. But I am heartened that none of these issues affected the quantum of the settlement that they do have.

There is an opportunity for Ngāti Koriko Kahukura to continue to convey their aspirations as tangata whenua kaitiaki in their rohe. There could be more to be done in this space of Maungatautari. I hope that greater commitment can be achieved and that people do not fear what Ngāti Koroki Kahukura can do for the benefit of—certainly—the maunga, the community, and the river. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to support the second reading of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill.

In 1863 war broke out, resulting in the deaths of some of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and the capture of others, including their esteemed rangatira Tīoriori. Despite their preference for peace, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura were named rebels, and for that had much of their land confiscated. But this iwi still maintained their interests in their homeland, including these areas: from Karapiro along the Pukekura Range and through Rotorangi and Puahue in the west, from Maungatautari 4 and 5 blocks to the top of Lake Arapuni in the south, and then following the Waikato River back to Piarere in the east and from Piarere to the south of the Maungakawa Reserve and back to Karapiro in the north. Ko Maungatautari te maunga, ko Waikato te awa tipuna, ko Ngāti Koroki Kahukura te iwi.

[Maungatautari is the mountain, Waikato is the ancestral river, and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura is the tribe.]

Maungatautari was and remains their tipuna, their ancestral mountain, central to their identity. Yet in the 19th century the land in and around the maunga fell victim to Crown-imposed tenure reform. As a result Ngāti Koroki Kahukura were involved in more than 50 Native Land Court hearings before 1901. Swamps and wetlands were drained and the Waikato River polluted, and hydroelectric power schemes depleted their traditional fisheries and flooded culturally significant sites. By the end of the 20th century Ngāti Koroki Kahukura had become virtually landless. However, the history of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura is yet another volume in the stories of this country that some of us know, yet many New Zealanders do not.

Today this bill seeks to rectify these and other wrongs imposed by the Crown on Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. This bill records a history of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and the Crown apology to Ngāti Koroki Kahukura for the operation of the native land and public works legislation, the failure of the Crown to protect the traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, the Crown’s failure to recognise and provide for their relationship to Maungatautari and Waikato River, and the Crown policies and laws that led to the economic, social, environmental, and cultural degradation of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and their physical and spiritual presence.

Like the other speakers, I say that we have the third reading coming up and I will reserve most of my comments for that time. I would just like to acknowledge that it has been referenced by many people that these histories are not known outside their area. I repeat what I said in an earlier speech, which is we have now begun work with the Government’s Ministry of Education, Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga, to set up a framework so that our histories from each hapū, each area, and each rohe can be provided and then put on to this framework and put into schools. All children will learn about their local marae and the history of it, the hapū, the movement in the past, and so on. Battles that have taken place, which are missing from the plaques here in the Chamber—the big battles that determined how Māori lived for a whole 100 years after that—are very important. I stand in support of this bill today. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I too rise in support of the second reading of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Koroki Kahukura negotiators, the Māori Affairs Committee, and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—of course, well supported by his officials. The Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 20 December 2012 and the deed to amend signed in October 2013 between the Crown and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. By signing these documents the Crown and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura agree to the final settlement of the non-raupatu historical Treaty of Waitangi claims for Ngāti Koroki Kahukura.

As in previous calls I have taken in this House in acknowledgment of the three Treaty bills before the House, I want to draw the House’s attention to the unique qualities of this particular settlement bill. It was touched on by my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. I do not really want to go over what she said, but really to give a bit more emphasis, particularly around the acknowledgment of the co-management of the Waikato River, the seeking by the people of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, and obviously taking care of the river through the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act of 2010, but in this particular case—and as a submitter shared with us at Karapiro—the absolute desire of these people to assist in the co-management in their catchment area of this magnificent river, the awa of Waikato.

We heard their submissions and reflected on what was said before the select committee. Like a lot of the iwi up the Waikato River, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of managing their particular catchment areas, they are wanting more engagement. But we, as the select committee, and with the advice of the officials, acknowledged Ngāti Koroki Kahukura as a representative on the governance of the Waikato River, but I guess the rubber hits the road in terms of being active members along the river where their tribal boundaries are. I do acknowledge the particular submission that came forward, and of course the way that the select committee, with the advice of the officials, has dealt with that. I am trying to get the good parts out of it before I turn to the Arapuni land banking properties and, like my honourable colleague, mention a certain email.

I do want to draw the House’s attention—and it was touched on again by Ms Mahuta—to the lack of mechanisms when we cannot get agreement with cross-claimants on particular properties. It was unfortunate that we could not deal with what Koroki Kahukura were asking around these two land-banked properties in Arapuni. As a result of discussions between both Raukawa and Koroki Kahukura, we could not get agreement to ring-fence those properties until a later point to then come back and negotiate how best to claim those properties. I want to add my weight behind Nanaia Mahuta’s claim that we must forge another mechanism for properties that fall squarely in the boundary of Treaty claims—in these cases Raukawa and Koroki Kahukura.

I, myself, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, could not live with myself if an opportunity to give back property could not be realised simply because the two respective parties could not find a way through. That often happens in Treaty settlements. Parties cannot agree, but we cannot then take it and put it on the open market, which unfortunately is what is happening with these two Arapuni properties. If there is anything to learn from this particular bill, it is about the opportunity to create mechanisms for that very purpose of maybe land banking property that cannot be agreed between two interested parties. I would support the Minister in directing officials to examine that and come back with joint management options that I know are possible and have been used in previous settlements.

I want to acknowledge, as previous speakers have, the hard work of all those concerned. But I want to draw the House’s attention to an email. My colleague did refer to it. She is a lot more diplomatic than me. Like many members in this House, I have been both on the side of and the receiver of emails that call into question the commitment of Māori members in this House. I took exception to that email calling into question the desire and the absolute commitment of Māori members of this House to do what is right for their people. I took exception to that email, like I said. I am not going to name that person because that person seems to dine out on the fact that their name is bandied around, but Tau knows him, because I know Tau must be related to him.

I just want people to know that not only the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, in terms of dealing with Treaty settlements, but Māori members in this House work tirelessly, as all members of the House do, to ensure the aspirations, particularly around Treaty bills, are dealt with fairly, constructively, and in good faith. To have somebody who should know better calling into question the decisions of the select committee I think not only does him a disservice but also does a disservice to the people whom he aligns himself with. I have seen plenty of acts where people are prepared to burn bridges and walk away. It is the people, and in this case it is the iwi, who are left to pick up the pieces. My tip is to say to people, in their passion, to get things right. A bit of diplomacy goes a long way, such as a bit of picking up the phone and having constructive conversations. Firing off open-air emails that call everybody’s mana into question I think is not the way to go. I am going to leave it there, in terms of that kaupapa.

Coming back, it is a great day for Ngāti Koroki Kahukura in this second reading. I support the bill wholeheartedly, like all members of this House, and look forward to the galleries being filled with people from Karapiro and Waikato-Tainui in support of the third reading of what is a significant bill, the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Rau rangatira mā tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively in the House. Leaders of a hundredfold, I acknowledge you in regard to the matter of the day. Salutations, greetings, and congratulations to you all.]

It is my privilege to take the call for the Green Party to speak on the second reading of this bill, the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I maintain that it is a privilege. To be in this House at a time in history when the Crown seeks to right the wrongs and heal the hurt is an opportunity that very few New Zealanders actually get, and there are only 121 MPs allowed in this House. This is where we see the founding document of our country, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which enables non-Māori to live in this land peaceably. This is where we see te Tiriti finally honoured after many, many, many breaches that have left the people of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura dispossessed, poor, and scattered.

I was not able to come to hear the submissions on this bill that were made to the Māori Affairs Committee in Karapiro, which is a shame because there is a much clearer understanding achieved when the select committee hears the experiences and notes the concerns of submitters kanohi ki te kanohi—face to face. So I offer my apologies to the people of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura for that. I did, however, have a close look at all the supporting evidence, all the written submissions, 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. Those submissions, and there were 12 of them, include support from neighbouring iwi, from hapū within the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura iwi, and from community organisations with conservation interests in the land that will be recognised as being within the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura domain. There is a submission from the local council also in support of all that the settlement outlines.

I note, though, that no settlement is without controversy, and I must state that the Green Party does hold concerns that these settlements can set Māori against Māori and, in so doing, create possibly more breaches of te Tiriti. There are frequently concerns about competing claims with other iwi who also have links to the wāhi tapu and whenua in the area as outlined in the area of interest in the settlement bill. There are frequently overlapping claims and this settlement is no exception. So I just want to acknowledge what the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, said in acknowledging the Arapuni land and how that has been dealt with. It is an area of conflict and competing interests. But I also want to acknowledge Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, who have worked with their neighbouring iwi to try to resolve some of those differences.

I note that Ngāti Koroki Kahukura maintain their mana whenua status as having dominant interest in their sacred maunga, Maungatautari, although the ownership of the reserve rests with the co-management structure, Te Hapori o Maungatautari, which comprises other iwi and members of the wider community. This is an incredibly sophisticated and quite a difficult set-up. Co-management, which I note Ngāti Koroki Kahukura have also engaged with in the treatment of their awa and their domain within the Waikato River, is not an easy road, but it is a road that gives the status of mana whenua to the tangata whenua of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. That is crucial to maintaining the status of the iwi. Co-management is a way forward, and I understand that, and I wish Ngāti Koroki Kahukura all my best wishes for the work that they will be doing to restore the wairua of the river. We support the legislation because we are aware that Ngāti Koroki Kahukura are looking forward to the settlement in this bill, as it will pave a way forward and place the iwi on a better economic footing. It will never ever compensate for what they have lost and the harms that were done to them by the Crown.

I have to make a political point because the Greens always do. We never ever feel that these bills are full and final settlements because the negotiation process is not an even-handed process, and we have seen that. There is really no option but for iwi to take what is offered, even though they negotiate hard. I pay my respects to the negotiation teams who have worked on this bill, but it is a deal. It is the best deal that iwi could get at this particular time, but there may also be further impacts on generations of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura to come. That is why we do not believe that the settlement is final. Having said that, we celebrate with Ngāti Koroki Kahukura the passing of this settlement bill through its second reading today. We will, of course, be supporting it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to be able to stand and take a brief call in the second reading of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. The iwi is, of course, in the electorate of Taupō. Actually, the area where I live is Karapiro, which, of course, is a very significant part of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura’s lands.

This has been an interesting process, working through some very challenging issues with the settlement. I think there have probably been some highs and lows in the process. I will keep most of my comments to the third reading, which is really the opportunity to traverse it in more detail with the iwi here. But I do just want to make the point that I think Minister Finlayson was incredible in coming up with a solution for Maungatautari that some would argue was not perfect, but it was actually acceptable to everybody. It was a very fractious issue. To be honest, I was quite revolted by the extent of what actually occurred and how divisive it became in the community. What impressed me more than anything was the Minister’s commitment to finding a solution that was accepted, and the fact that I would request his involvement at meeting after meeting after meeting and he would come back every single time to find a way through.

The solution of vesting the mountain in the community has never been done before. I really admire the fact that we have a Minister who is so committed—so committed—to endurable and lasting solutions that he is willing to explore all sorts of avenues in order to do that. So I want, at this stage, to commend the Minister for his creative thinking in solving what are some very challenging and fractious issues.

The other thing I want to say is that I was pleased to be able to rejoin the Māori Affairs Committee—albeit only temporarily—for the hearings and submissions at Karapiro. I think it is really important to be able to hear the submitters and understand them, although I do regret that I was not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee in taking the next step of the process to getting to today. But I am very confident that we have got the bill to a place that is acceptable. Yes, there are a couple of issues that potentially we can pursue further, but, more important, we have a solution that the iwi are happy with and that the community can also accept and enjoy. I think that is where we have got to—a really great place. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā me ngā whānau o Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the authorities, voices, and leaders of a hundredfold, the families of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, greetings, salutations, and congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

I would like to talk about justice, because the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare, brought up this concept of justice this morning within the context of my wanting to talk about our Treaty settlement process being about truth and reconciliation. I guess I premise my speech with that because for me the truth is that the facts and the history of our country is now encapsulated within our legislation. I want to pick up what the Hon Pita Sharples has said. The big challenge for the House now is disseminating that history, that reality of our country, so that every young person in our education system knows about the specifics within their rohe, and the specific experience that the mana whenua have had within the rohe of all of our kura in our history as a country. That is the truth part of the process.

In terms of reconciliation, for me it is about relationships and partnerships going forward. I guess if we look at definitions, reconciliation is about restoring relationships. It is about becoming amicable, and fundamentally it is about harmonious and cooperative relationships, which we all want our Treaty settlements to be. For us it is that process that will enable us to forgive what has happened in the past and to move forward with confidence. It is about iwi groups and the Crown working towards a common goal. I guess that is why for me this process is about truth and reconciliation.

I do want to talk about justice. Within the context of this particular Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill, that justice relates back to the 1860s—1863—when 1.2 million acres was taken from Waikato iwi. That was the raupatu of 1.2 million acres. In 1871, 313,364 acres was returned to Māori. So the Crown took 1.2 million acres and it returned 313,000 acres, which was approximately 26 percent of the lands that were taken from Waikato iwi. Then, if I pick up on another point that Minister Sharples made, by 1901 there had been 50 Native Land Court hearings that Ngāti Koroki Kahukura had been specifically involved in. What they got in terms of that 26 percent of lands taken was 800 acres returned, which is 0.25 percent of the 1.2 million acres that was taken from Māori.

What do we have in this settlement? The return of 20 properties. It is 110 hectares, which equates to 44.44 acres. That is 5.55 percent of the lands that were returned to them in 1871. Is that justice? That is not justice. It is absolutely not justice, but it is the honour of our iwi leadership, the integrity of our iwi leadership, that they want to move forward in a positive and constructive manner. So no way should we ever frame this as being about justice, because it is not justice. It is about Māori—our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi—wanting to take control of their lives. It is about mana motuhake. It is about tino rangatiratanga.

Within these settlements the vesting of opportunities for our hapū and iwi to be involved in the Maungatautiri Mountain Scenic Reserve is incredibly important. What that does is say to our communities across Aotearoa that Māori have a significant and special status that is over and above citizenship status or status that is conferred on us through the democratic process. What it says is that, by right, Māori—tangata whenua, mana whenua, specific iwi—have rights and responsibilities to ensure that these geographically identified taonga will for ever have their kaitiakitanga over them. Actually, these are the significant parts of these Treaty settlements that I think going into the future will provide that platform for partnership that this process has enabled. In the future that is what we will be held to account for the most. It is that. It is the implementation of these Treaty settlement partnership opportunities that we as a Parliament will be held to account for more than anything else.

I am not going to speak for much longer other than to again acknowledge Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and their mandated negotiator, the Taumatawiwi Trust. It is the leaders within our iwi groups whose settlements these are and to whom we have to pay the ultimate tribute, because without their leadership we would not move forward. I look forward to the day when they have their third reading, when they have their piece of legislation that will enable them to move forward with the pride and positiveness that they had, because what we do know is that our iwi groups were prosperous. They were flourishing. We had lands. We used our lands in constructive ways. We fed ourselves. We clothed ourselves. We did not need intervention from anybody else. That base, which was taken from us, actually needs to be recognised. But we also need to recognise that as the Government moves forward the relationships it has forged, specifically those with iwi and hapū, are really going to be the testament to how committed it is to this Treaty settlement process. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Of course it is about justice. Of course it is about justice, not some sort of fanciful notion that this is about truth and reconciliation. Like I said—

💬 Louisa Wall: It’s my words.

—no, I did not interrupt you—this is about the steps towards justice. I never said this is about justice. I said—and I used the analogy of a 100-metre race—that we are in the very first steps of that race to justice. Somebody’s definition of justice is somebody else’s definition of something else—and I accept that that member may have different ideas about what this is—but this is essentially about righting a wrong. This is essentially about the beginnings of justice. This is about justice. Somebody took something from me, I have gone to court, and I have sought reparations. Those reparations may not be what you might have wished for, but at the end of the day it is the beginning of a process. If what I hear from a number of members of Parliament today is that it is not enough and we should not be doing it—

💬 Louisa Wall: No one said that.

Actually, if you listen to some of the speeches from my Green colleagues, that is what they hinted at—that is what they hinted at. It is about getting to a place where you say: “Yes, we agree on the historical events. Yes, we agree on reparations.”—whether they are monetary or they are cultural redress. That in itself is the start of a justice process. It is not the be-all and end-all, and it never will be, but at the end of the day it is part and parcel of a justice process, because that is what it was always about.

When somebody or an organisation takes something from you, there have to be consequences. Whether it is war, whether it is financial settlement, or whether it is the return of land—whatever—that is always up for negotiation. So I take my hat off to those who have been involved in the negotiation process, and I take my hat off to those people who have been able to get to a point where the two sides can sit down and sign it. Nobody forces people to do anything. Nobody forces people to accept what is on offer. At the end of the day it is about a process, and we have got to a point in that process where the two sides are reasonably happy. It will take, most probably, another 100 years to get to another point in the 100-metre race, but that is for other people to decide, long after we have gone from this place.

I want to make a quick mention of Willie Te Aho, who is a firebrand, who is uncannily like me, who jumps in where most probably angels fear to tread, and who goes off like I do. In fact, he is so much like me it is scary. We should not get too worried about people like that, because they add to the mix. They add to the whole part of Treaty negotiations—and people’s passion. Without passion we will not get anywhere. Without belief we will not get anywhere. So I do take my hat off to people like Linda Te Aho and Willie Te Aho, who have put all of their lives on the line.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Linda’s not like Willie.

Oh, no. I will tell you what—if we cannot handle a few criticisms in this place, and I know that I have had a few over the 15 years that I have been here, we need to harden up. We really do need to harden up. This is a brutal place. It can be brutal within our own Parliament but also the criticisms from the public, for whatever reason—whether they are right or wrong—are brutal, but we should know, the day that we come in here, that that is going to happen. I hear what the sister is saying, and I appreciate what she is saying.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: I worry about the cost to the iwi.

Well, actually, I think if you are going to individualise it to Willie himself, Willie has done a huge amount in getting a number of settlements to the closure stage. This is really the first time that he has actually gone off, in terms of a Treaty settlement that he has been involved in. I am not going to besmirch his reputation. Everybody knows that he got settlements throughout the motu, and that was what he was paid for and that was what he was passionate about. So cut some people some slack if they now and again tend to go off.

Anyway, those are all related matters. The fact is that we are here at the second reading. We are here at that part of the settlement process. I look forward, before the election and before the House pulls up sticks, to our getting to the third reading of this bill, the Ngāti Hauā bill, and the Tūhoe bill at least. I think that will be a satisfactory point where we get to in this Parliament, and it leaves whatever comes next for the next Parliament. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is an honour to rise and take a short call on the second reading of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. This is a bill that has been given a lot of serious consideration by the Māori Affairs Committee, and I wish to congratulate the members of that committee and the officials who have worked on this bill on getting it to this stage. As the last speaker, Tau Henare, said, I very much look forward to the third reading of this bill because, again, this is an area that is close to my heart. Geographically, it is very close to where I live. I know of much of the hard work and challenges that have been going on with discussions in this area. I want to particularly acknowledge the cultural redress part of this package with Maungatautari, the importance of that maunga to many people living in and around the Waikato area, and the foresight of various community representatives.

Again, I want to put forward my utter faith in the ability of the people who will have governance to ensure that this maunga, which is groundbreaking—if I can use that term about a mountain—in terms of being an ecological island, continues to progress forward as an ecological island. I was certainly present on the maunga the day the Rt Hon Helen Clark, in her role as the then Prime Minister, ensured sufficient State funding went into helping to bring about that ecological island. It was a very proud day for many, many people. I know there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the management of that maunga, but I feel confident about the approach taken with this settlement bill and the way in which the iwi will ensure their guardianship of the land. Those things will stand us in good stead as we go forward.

The only other thing I really want to comment on here is how much I am looking forward to seeing the Te Manawa o Matariki tangata whenua facility that is to be developed at the Lake Karapiro domain. I think that will be something that will be a cherished taonga for many people living in the area, and, obviously, many visitors as well because Lake Karapiro is, of course, an area that attracts many tourists and many visitors. I think that will be a wonderful development, and I really look forward to seeing that as it develops.

As always with Treaty settlement bills, there are many stories that need to be told. There are many stories yet to be told. There is the reflection of this House across parties that needs to happen in a very thorough manner at the third reading. I will, in recommending this bill to the House, now resume my seat so we can work towards that third reading taking place before this House rises for the election.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I want to touch on several aspects that were found during the select committee process.

The Māori Affairs Committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with the following amendments. Regarding the land-banked properties at Arapuni, the select committee considered whether a mechanism is needed to preserve future interests of any iwi in two land-banked properties at Arapuni. When it came to the time to sign the deed of settlement, the Crown felt that the positions were irreconcilable and there was no available mechanism for the parties to find a resolution. When the Raukawa and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura settlements are completed, these properties will be sold on the open market and both iwi will have the opportunity to purchase them if they wish.

In relation to land subject to the right of first refusal, the select committee recommended amending the bill so that that land could cease to be subject to the right of first refusal in circumstances where the governance entity waived or varied its rights in relation to the land. This would then allow the land in question to be transferred in accordance with the waiver or variation.

I wanted to raise those issues because in and around that there was a lot of discussion, challenges, and push back on both the Crown and the select committee. I would like to acknowledge Linda Te Aho for leading the negotiations. I would also like to acknowledge Willie Te Aho as well. Willie and his contribution to the economic and social development of Māori over the years is very well-known and very well respected. The Māori business economy is worth around $38 billion. The return to GDP is between $8 billion and $12 billion. In and around that has been the work that Willie Te Aho has done on behalf of iwi to ensure that rangatiratanga is met, to ensure that motuhake, according to the definition of the iwi and the hapū, is adhered to, and to ensure that kotahitanga, the relationship between the two Treaty partners, is enduring.

Although we as individuals may not like the challenges, or may not like the comments or criticisms, at the end of the day we are here to serve. We are here to serve the people of New Zealand. We are here to serve Māori, Pākehā—all New Zealanders. If we do not like those criticisms and if we do not like those challenges, then we should not be here. This is the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 11.54 a.m (Thursday)