Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill

I move, That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill be now read a second time. Before I give my speech, can I simply record as chair of the Privileges Committee how much I have enjoyed working with the Clerk of the House over the last couple of years. I know that others are going to have their say later in the day, but as a humble worker in the vineyard I will not get that opportunity, so I simply want to record what a tremendous Clerk of the House she has been and wish her all the very best for the future.

💬 Stuart Nash: But when have you ever been humble?

There is evidence of it this morning, Mr Nash; do not be cruel.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill implements the Government’s decision to establish a statutory body called the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. The establishment of this committee gives effect to the commitment made by the Government in the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement and recorded in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū deed of settlement to work with iwi and hapū in the Hawke’s Bay region and with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to agree on details of this planning committee in order to introduce legislation. The bill ensures that the relevant iwi post-settlement governance entities and Crown-mandated entities are entitled to appoint representatives on the planning committee.

At the third reading, I am told, we can expect representatives of all iwi involved in the bill, together with representatives from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. I look forward to that very important occasion.

The Māori Affairs Committee received and considered eight submissions on the bill. The strong support for the bill from iwi and hapū and from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was evident in those submissions. The bill has been developed collaboratively and in close consultation with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the nine iwi in the region over a period of 5 years. I want to thank both the council and the iwi for their vision and dedication in developing a planning committee that reflects the interests of all parties.

I also want to thank and congratulate the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. The bill had its first reading on 4 November 2014, and the committee reported it back to Parliament on 30 March 2015. This is less than 5 months, which is very impressive given the Christmas break, but not surprising given the hard work of the chair and the committee, and I am very grateful to them.

The bill has now its second reading, and I have to say that the committee felt it necessary to recommend only technical amendments to the bill that reflect the repeal of clause 30(9) of schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, and some correct referencing that needed to follow from that. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E ngā mema o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to rise and lead the Labour contribution in support of the second reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. Can I first pause just to acknowledge ngā mate o te hau kāinga, a Reta Hawaiki Rangi, Auntie June Te Moana, kua wehe atu i te pō, haere, haere, haere atu rā [the deaths from back home, Reta Hawaiki Rangi and Auntie June Te Moana, who departed to the void, go forth, travel on, farewell]. In endorsing this bill, I too want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee for giving due diligence to what is a vital piece of legislation for the wider Hawke’s Bay region. It does celebrate the fact that we have hapū and iwi representatives at the table with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and what I hope is going to be an enduring relationship in overseeing the protection and development of our natural resources. And we do have many of those natural resources in the Hawke’s Bay.

For me, this bill talks about and legislates for a co-governance arrangement. As the Minister has acknowledged, its origins have come from a Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty settlement and it is also endorsed by the Maungaharuru-Tangitū deed of settlement. It is important, though, that I do take some time to acknowledge the submitters. Quite rightly, and as the Minister said wholeheartedly, of the eight who made submissions, six clearly did support it. I want to go on record—particularly for our whānau at home, who do not get the opportunity to attend the select committee and hear what is said—because I think it is important that we acknowledge the contributions made by submitters to the select committee, once I find the piece of paper. Is that not always the case? We had Ngāti Pāhauwera endorsing the bill, represented, obviously, by Toro Waaka. Maungaharuru-Tangitū endorsed the bill, represented by Tania Hoffman. I do want to acknowledge that Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa endorsed the bill, headed by Tāmati Olsen, but that they wanted to keep the door open to ensure their own co-governance arrangements, particularly around the resource management of their natural resources, given that they have not completed their negotiations. The other submitter, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, clearly sees the value in it.

I want to acknowledge my first contribution to the bill, around representation, and skills and capability. Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation’s chairperson also submitted to the select committee. I note that the submission was discussed by the select committee. The officials have come back and have noted the concerns that Ngāhiwi put to the select committee, namely around representation and the coverage of this legislation, in terms of the Hawke’s Bay boundary and also ensuring that there is adequate resourcing for specialist advice. This arrangement is not a new arrangement. We have precedence, particularly around the Waikato-Tainui river accord, which gives the legislative power to make decisions over the Waikato River.

It is also quite a costly exercise to ensure that your governance over precious natural resources is fulfilled. In reading the submission proffered by Ngāhiwi Tomoana on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu, he does raise, and did offer, some amendments, particularly around the provision of specialist advice. I know the select committee has considered that, and perhaps the contribution from the chair will give us some comfort that that specialist advice will be provided. We all know the technicality that is required around overseeing natural resources. We want to ensure that independent advice is fulfilled, particularly to the hapū and iwi representatives on that committee.

Our people have huge expectations of our folk when they are on those particular committees, and I want to ensure that those representatives at the table of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are fulfilling their expectations. I note that it has been dismissed, but I have also read that approximately $100,000 has been put aside for the co-governance arrangements. Can I just make the comment that in my previous role, in terms of engaging specialist advice to do an economic analysis of the nine rivers through the Kahungunu rohe, I tell you that you would not have got much change from $100,000. I just say that because specialist advice is not cheap, and so my point about ensuring that specialist advice is available to this committee is that I encourage the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to resource it adequately so that that specialist advice is available to them.

The other point I made in my first contribution to this bill was around representation and the rohe of Kahungunu. The rohe of Kahungunu extends from Paritu in the north, which is just north of Mahia, right down to Turakirae, which is the very southern coast of the Wairarapa. In noting that we have nine representatives at this table from iwi, hapū, tangata whenua, I noted that we have two non-Kahungunu iwi representatives at the table. I know that maybe, Mr Deputy Speaker, where you come from, everybody gets on well, but when you have a situation where one particular iwi may have a say over the management of the natural resources of another iwi, that is going to lead to some contention, as I am sure you will know. [Interruption] Yes, we all know that, and I note that for a lot of the supporters of this bill, the paramount tino rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi over their lands, their waterways, is paramount. But here we have a particular situation where for an issue pertaining to the heart of Ngāti Kahungunu, we have both a Tūhoe representative and a Tūwharetoa representative at the table. Look, all I want to do is to raise this as a cautionary note to the committee: that when they are sitting, that that is well managed. The last thing we want here is for this bill to unravel when it comes to implementation. So I do make that point, and I encourage the committee to work away to ensure that mana whenua, which is the basis from which this is derived, is exercised to its fullest extent.

When I hear about this bill passing, I do want to commend, like I said, all the select committee members and the participants to this process, which has been, I understand, happening for the past 5 years, to marry out and iron out those implementation challenges. Hawke’s Bay has some clear challenges coming upon it, particularly around natural resources. I want to note all of the contributors to this bill who have gone before me. Gladly I stand again and support the second reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. Kia ora tātou.

E te Kaiwhakawā, tēnā koe. E mihi atu ki te mana whenua o Te Waha o Te Ika, e Te Āti Awa, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei hoki te mihi atu ki a koe, e te Minita o Ngā Whakataunga e pā ana ki Te Tiriti, Christopher Finlayson, ā, huri noa i te Whare, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the mandated tribe of the land at the Mouth of the Fish, Te Āti Awa; salutations to you all. I acknowledge you as well, Christopher Finlayson, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and all of you throughout the House.]

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. This is one of the first bills that we considered at the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament. A lot of hard work had gone into this bill before it was introduced, which meant that the select committee process was quite straightforward. The only amendments we have made are small and administrative.

We received eight submissions on this bill and heard five of the submitters in person. Seven of these submissions supported the bill, and one, from the upper Mōhaka kaitiaki collective, asked that they be represented on the regional planning committee. Although we were certainly sympathetic to the collective’s desire to have its voice heard on the regional planning committee, changing the bill to give them representation would not have been consistent with the way the other groups are represented on the committee. This committee is a form of Treaty redress for large natural groups that have negotiated, or are negotiating, Treaty settlements. The upper Mōhaka kaitiaki collective is affiliated to Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Hineuru, and these iwi are represented on the committee by the Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum and Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc.

One thing that I did note when reading and hearing the submissions was the strong working relationship that has been forged already between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the various mandated iwi and hapū groups. It is clear that there has been a strong focus on the shared goals of Māori and Pākehā in this region and a desire to work together towards these goals. To quote from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council submission, these goals include “the common goals and aspirations of iwi and the wider Hawke’s Bay community”. What they aspire to—and this will really be part of what this bill will do—in partnership is a “clean healthy and economically strong environment”. Much has been said, and much has been written about, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and what the Treaty relationship means in modern New Zealand. A lot of work has gone into the Waitangi Tribunal, the identification of breaches of the Treaty, and the negotiation process that follows here at central government level, but it is arrangements like this—true partnerships based on trust and understanding between the parties—that are the cornerstone of our Treaty relationships as we move forward.

This is why when I first arrived in Parliament I told anyone who would listen that I wanted to be involved in the Local Government and Environment Committee, because it is at this local government level that so many of the day-to-day Treaty relationships actually happen. The details of how the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee works are specific to this region and this collection of iwi, but I believe the way in which these relationships have been forged, the respect that all parties have earned for each other, and the strong commitment they have to continuing an open and positive relationship in the future provide a great example for other iwi and other local authorities around the country. Nobody expects that iwi and the regional council will always agree on environmental issues in the Hawke’s Bay. Likewise, there is no expectation from iwi that every outcome will be the one they actually recommend, but the regional planning committee provides a framework for differences to be resolved respectfully.

I want to reiterate something I have said in this House before when speaking on bills related to the environment. Last night was a really good example, particularly when we were debating the Environmental Reporting Bill, particularly Part 1, clause 4A around Te Tiriti o Waitangi references and principles, and then moving into the second part, which actually acknowledges iwi being an important part of that Environmental Reporting Bill. What I say now, and said even before, was that Māori have a significant, important role to play in New Zealand environmental management.

It is easy to look at this sort of co-governance arrangement and see it as only redress for past wrongs. There is an element of that; this committee was set up as part of the Treaty settlement process and forms a part of the redress for the Hawke’s Bay iwi. But to think of this as only redress suggests that the regional council and the wider community it represents are giving up something here—that they are making some sort of sacrifice. There are those who see this as giving iwi something extra, whether they think this is more than iwi are entitled to or they see it as an appropriate redress for past wrongs. I am here to say that the opposite is true. Yes, this community came about as part of a package of redress, but I believe that everyone in the Hawke’s Bay benefits from this. Every New Zealander who values their environment, who enjoys outdoor recreation, or who draws economic benefit from our pristine conservation estate will benefit from improved management of the environment in this region.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee is an excellent example of local government and iwi working together in partnership. It provides a model of co-governance that may be a useful template—not “may be”, actually: that will be a useful template—in future Treaty settlements. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

I stand in support of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. First of all, let me offer an apology to Mr Finlayson. I did not mean to be churlish. I have been very appreciative of the inclusive way that he has handled this. Whenever I have asked him for a briefing on what is happening in Hawke’s Bay, he has always been very amenable to that. So thank you, Mr Finlayson, for your cooperation in making this sort of thing happen.

I just want to mention to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, who has just spoken—it is semantics, but it is actually Hawke’s Bay, not the Hawke’s Bay. We do not talk about the Wellington or the Auckland; we talk about Auckland or Wellington. So it is actually Hawke’s Bay, not the Whanganui.

The other thing I would like to say, also, is that it is great to be speaking with Meka Whaitiri. Meka and I are backing the Bay in a way that no other political party has, and I just think that we have a great team. We have a cross-section of everything and we are working in a way that no other party has for a long time. I will tell you what: the people of Hawke’s Bay really appreciate it. I have been back in the Bay now for, I suppose, 7 or 8 years, and for the first time in a long time the Labour Party in the Bay is absolutely united in the way we do things. It is really good to see, actually, because there is not a Tukituki response, a Napier response, an Ikaroa-Rāwhiti response—we are all working together and coming together. So I suspect it will not be long before once again Hawke’s Bay is held by Labour. Mr Foss knows this; I suspect that is why he is going to retire.

This is a good bill. The purpose of the bill provides for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee to oversee the development and the review of regional documents under the Resource Management Act. There is a tension in local government around how to incorporate the provisions in the Treaty of Waitangi and how to incorporate the provisions in the Local Government Act to give them effect in, actually, a meaningful way. Let me give you an example. As we know, Hawke’s Bay is going through quite a destructive debate on amalgamation at the moment. It will not go ahead—but that is OK—but one of the things that the Local Government Commission has tried to do is to ask: “How do we give effect to the Local Government Act?”. So what it has done, apart from an amalgamated council—this is their proposal; Alistair knows it will not go ahead—is include a Māori statutory board and a natural resources board in a sort of a tack-on to say: “This is how we address the issues.” But that amalgamation will not go ahead and that is what makes this bill so important, because there is that tension between how we incorporate what needs to be done under the Resource Management Act but also give local iwi a say in the management of natural resources.

Let us leave the amalgamation debate aside. There are a couple of other big debates going on in the Bay at the moment that are really important and will affect the future: the economic future, the hip pocket of rates, and all this sort of carry-on. The level of consultation that has gone on is not sufficient, in my view, to come up with a robust result. The first one is bottled water. Hawke’s Bay sits on two massive aquifers, and at the moment what has happened is that there are two companies that have been given resource consent to draw water from these aquifers. It is actually the best water in the country. It has been tested. That is not just me being a Napier boy saying that; it has been tested. But they are drawing this water out and they are going to sell it. The issue I have around this is that, sure, they have gone through the resource consent process, but they are not paying a cent for the water they take out and sell. There is something wrong with that, when people can use a natural resource to make economic gain and not pay for that. This is an issue that is resonating around the Bay. I have brought it up a lot and people are shaking their heads and saying: “Things need to change.”

The other thing, of course, is the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, known as the Ruataniwha Dam. There is going to be a cost to the Government, to the local council, and also to the landholders, if this goes ahead, of around $500 million. There is a lot of debate and contention about whether this should go ahead, but, in my opinion, I do not think that the voice of Ngāti Kahungunu has been heard in a way that gives it meaning. I do know, speaking to the Ngāti Kahungunu representatives, that they have a level of disquiet about this, but at the moment they have been what is called “consulted” in a way that I do not think gives true effect to their purpose, and certainly not to kaitiakitanga.

The thing, also, about this bill is this: let us hope it is a model for co-governance going forward. Let us hope it is a model that does give true effect to the partnership that—we must move together in this country if we are going to get things done, because the last thing we want in any area, and certainly in resource management governance, is continued infighting and acrimony. We have got that in the Bay at the moment, over a couple of these processes I am talking about. It is not healthy and it does not breed trust in the way the processes are being undertaken.

But Meka Whaitiri is right. We can legislate for this. It will pass through the House because we all support it, but the thing about this is how it is actually operationalised. If it is not given effect, if it does not have the mandate to actually give effect to the legislation, then it will not be successful. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I can tell the people in the House that Meka Whaitiri and I will certainly be backing it. We will absolutely make sure, within our powers, that it does have the mandate to have a strong voice around the table when it comes to these resource planning and management issues. We do support this bill, and let us go onwards and upwards into effective co-governance of the resources of the Bay. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe. I am pleased to stand to take a short call on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. I want to acknowledge our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who tirelessly works on these bills, pushing through over 45 into legislation and over 75 altogether working on these bills. He is a good Minister, a good Minister for the Treaty of Waitangi settlements, and a very good Minister overall for this Government.

I want to acknowledge also the submitters on this bill—the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Mana Ahuriri Inc., Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc., Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust, Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, and the Upper Mōhaka Kaitiaki Collective. These submitters put in a lot of work over time to end up bringing this bill in its form back to us, after the select committee had taken all their discussions and submissions and came out with the bill in the form that it is today.

I also want to acknowledge our select committee, the Māori Affairs Committee, and its members. We work in a collegial way. We are the only select committee in Parliament that does this. Therefore, we are able to debate the issues respectfully with each other and still go away as whānau ki whānau.

This bill is a stand-alone bill, and it gives effect to the Crown’s commitment to introduce legislation to establish the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. The Crown’s commitment was given in the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement, and recorded in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust deed of settlement, to introduce legislation to set up the regional planning committee. The Crown’s commitment to the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement would see an equal number of council numbers and iwi representatives having input into the planning processes of the natural resources that affect the region—something that my colleague Nuk Korako so eloquently described in his kōrero just recently.

I just want to talk a little bit about the membership of the regional planning council and the tangata whenua members. One member is appointed by the trustees of each of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust, Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua, Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum Trust, Mana Ahuriri Inc., Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc., and Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa; two members are appointed from He Toa Takitini; and one member is appointed by the appointer for Ngāti Ruapani ki Waikaremoana. I just wanted to talk about the appointers, because in order to disestablish the regional planning committee it has to be a unanimous agreement by the appointers, so the appointers have a very key role in the regional planning committee.

This legislation is necessary. It overcomes certain provisions in schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. It allows the regional planning committee to become a permanent committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

This is a good bill. It is a stand-alone bill. It is a bill that demonstrates that this National-led Government stands by its commitments. It is a Government that listens to what the people are saying—the people whom the bills stand for. It is a Government that says what we are going to do, and we do it. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. He mihi nui ki te Whare Paremata ko tēnei rā. I would also like to start my contribution by acknowledging the Clerk of the House for her wonderful work over many years and for her dignity and mana, appropriately during this particular extended Treaty sitting. Dignity and mana is not exclusive to anyone, but it is always magnificent when it is seen. So kia ora to you, Mary Harris.

The Green Party is supporting the bill. It is essential that we do so because we supported the settlement bills that it came out of. Therefore, we have to acknowledge that these settlement bills created this particular bill.

I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee and I found it extremely interesting, but, actually, I found it quite complex. I do not think it was as simple as some of the speakers have implied. Certainly, the support from the nine hapū that were represented was very clear, but there were some interesting debates and interesting submissions that, when I read the detail of the bill and the functions of this committee, I do want to touch upon.

So, although supporting the effort that was made and the flow-on from the settlement process that has created this, I do think this is one of the weaker regional planning committees in terms of co-governance that I have ever seen because if you read the bill, there is no reference to co-governance. There is no reference to decision-making power. If you look at the 10 functions and powers of this committee—which already exist, and I have been reading its minutes—they are to “consider the RMA documents and recommend to the Council”. So this is not comparable with Waikato-Tainui or Maniapoto and co-governance.

We actually need to be upfront and say that these are not words that we can just float around and play with. Co-governance is not article 2, and co-management and co-governance are not reflected through recommendations, but through shared power. This is not a decolonising piece of legislation. Laudable as it is that we give statutory recognition—and it is important to do that for an existing committee—we actually need to talk about what co-governance is.

Ngāhiwi Tomoana’s submission on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu, although they ended up supporting the procedure of this bill and their relationships locally—which are not business in the sense of this House but the business of Ngāti Kahungunu me iwi katoa o te rohe—actually raises some really interesting points about this. Ngāti Kahungunu raised some concerns that true partnership frameworks reflecting tangata whenua’s kaitiaki are not the same as just having the ability to recommend on natural resources. To quote the letter they wrote to the select committee: “Ngāti Kahungunu is concerned that the opportunity for the best and most meaningful sustainable and robust co-governance and/or co-management arrangement will be missed and tangata whenua will be left with something weaker than what other iwi and other people have in the region, including Ngāti Kahungunu’s relationship with the Greater Wellington Regional Council.” They ask how this is different from a glamorised Māori Authority committee, and, I mean, painful as that question is, I think it is a fair question to ask when you look at the statutory powers that are there.

Regional planning committees are important, but not if they have no real power. When we look at the issues in the rohe around water, which is one of the hot topics on the regional planning committee, it was Ngāti Kahungunu that had to take the regional council to court for its failure to sustain the aquifer’s future. An existing committee is now being confirmed for legislation, but that existing committee was unable to do exactly what is required in terms of kaitiakitanga in section 6 of the Resource Management Act.

It does make the point that Ngāti Kahungunu are already worried that they have to use an instrument—an expensive instrument like the Environment Court—rather than being able to resolve these things through the regional planning committee. So, much as I support the bill in terms of the aspirations of iwi and hapū katoa across the rohe and the need to fulfil the agreements in the settlement, I have to raise these issues in terms of those two points.

What is co-governance? It is not a woolly, fantasy term where we just say: “We will put some people on a committee.”, and that is co-governance. That is not robust co-governance, and it is not meeting the ability of people to be kaitiaki if they have to then take the regional council—the very body that they have now got this committee with and have had for some time—to court over issues to do with water.

Water is a central issue in this field, and if you look at Ruataniwha—or the dodgy dam, as we call it—and if you look at the stresses on the aquifer, not to mention the nitrate issues in the rivers, and if you look at Tukituki and the other awa in the rohe, it is a huge challenge that faces the whole region, and ideally it faces it collectively. But the concern of the Greens remains that in this bill the functions and powers of the regional planning committee is to implement a work programme for the review of Resource Management Act documents. Having spent, I do not know, maybe 20 years of my life on Resource Management Act issues, it does really concern me that there is no power to do more than recommend, when water is at a crisis point and when, supposedly, no one owns water but a water-bottling company is allowed to export it out of the aquifer in the rohe.

Also, it does concern me that at the bigger picture level we should play with terms like “co-management” and “co-governance” and “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” without being clear. I am not from the area and I do not like to hazard a guess, but maybe it is because the Pākehā community—and I have received a few emails from them—does not understand. That would not be a first. It does not understand and, therefore, once again, tangata whenua have generously allowed what they might hope to be a first step towards a transition towards article 2, but the problem is you do not get that many shots in legislation, and this is their shot. I can see why Ngāhiwi Tomoana and Ngāti Kahungunu raised the concern, not to oppose it, but to ask: “Is this a glamorised Māori advisory committee?”.

We would like to see this bill be stiffened in its strength, be more explicit in its acknowledgments, and be more directive to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council that it actually needs to accept the recommendations of the committee, rather than have the option of not accepting them. This is about all the planning instruments that will affect all the resources, not just water, but all the resources that te Tiriti guarantees very strongly in terms of the rangatiratanga of iwi katoa, to become something that can only be recommended about.

So I am glad to see that the people of the rohe want the bill to go forward and that no one has come back to us at the select committee and said: “Don’t support the bill.” The Greens were approached earlier on not to, but that position has changed. I am glad to be able to say we have not heard that. But at this second reading stage, I am asking whether this is the best we can do in terms of the functions and powers of this. Are we actually handing this community a real understanding of change, a real direction in terms of article 2—a real co-governance—or are we actually setting this up for, yet again, a disappointment for the nine hapū and iwi involved, so that they will be at the table and will hear: “Thank you very much, we really appreciate that you’ve travelled through the rohe to come to this meeting, but we’ve decided not to take any notice of what you’ve said because other vested interests in the community are just as important to us and, therefore, you are not going to get your ability to exercise section 6, section 7, and section 8 of the Resource Management Act.”?

I would love to be proved wrong, but when the legislation is as weak as this, I am not quite sure that we are going to be proved wrong. It is disappointing, because I recognise the work that everybody has put into this and that the select committee has put into this. It is an important bill, but the Greens will not muck around. We are not interested in recommendations as a substitute for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When we look at the other bills that other iwi have negotiated through this Parliament and they have explicit co-governance—and co-governance is already a compromise—our doubts remain. But more of this to come at the third reading. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te ata nei. Ēngari i mua i te haere tonu o aku kōrero, e hiahia ana au ki te tautoko ngā kōrero, ngā mihi hoki a te tuahine, a Meka, ki a rātou mā i wehe atu ki tua o Paerau. Ēngari, korekau kē e hiahia ana au kia waihotia ngā mihi ki a rātou nahe ēngari, ki ngā mate katoa, puta noa. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to us as well sitting here in the House this morning. But before I continue with my speech I want to endorse the sentiments expressed by the sister colleague Meka to the ones that have gone beyond the veil. But not to them alone: to all the deaths throughout the nation. Leave the dead there to themselves while we remain here amongst ourselves; acknowledgments, salutations, greetings, and thank you once again to us all.]

I want to join with those who have stood before me to acknowledge the Clerk of the House. Although I did express my sentiments in another forum, at least my sentiments in this forum will be recorded in Hansard. Therefore, I want to acknowledge the work that you have done not only for this House but, as a consequence of what emanates from this House, for our country. Like the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said, we are so far down in the pecking order that we probably will not have this opportunity again, so on behalf of my party, New Zealand First, I want to again extend our appreciation and offer best wishes for the future. Tēnā koe.

Getting back to the kaupapa for the day, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill, it is my pleasure to stand on behalf of the New Zealand First Party. Can I say that although I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and New Zealand First supported the bill up to that point, we do have some reservations, many of which have been articulated by the previous speaker, Catherine Delahunty.

I note that this bill will confirm in legislation a committee that already exists and that has been operating for the last 4 or 5 years. Members may recall that during the first reading of this bill, I queried whether or not the decisions already made by the committee would still have the same standing as if it had been established by way of legislation. The concern we have—although the committee is a consequence of a Treaty settlement—is how the members of that board are selected. That is where New Zealand First has some issues. We have always believed in one franchise and that any decision or appointment to such a body as is proposed in this bill should be subject to an election—an open election, not just by particular groups. So therein lies the nub for us.

The second part is that I want to query the effectiveness of the committee. If this bill had been passed, would the committee have made any difference to the two recent resource consent applications that were granted to two bottling companies? I suggest that it would not have. So I ask myself how effective this proposed committee would be if the committee that exists cannot even watch what is happening in its own area at the moment. It is really a concern for iwi in that region to see two groups be granted consent for 364,000 cubic metres of water to one group and just over 400,000 cubic metres a year to the other group. That is a lot of water, but the crux of the matter is that these companies are actually selling this water offshore. Where is the benefit to the local people, whether they be iwi or non-iwi?

💬 Marama Fox: Corporate welfare.

Yes, corporate stuff, but are we not talking about protecting the rights of not only iwi but the local people as well? Where do the benefits of that export go to? Certainly not to the people of Hawke’s Bay. We know they go offshore. The profits end up offshore and are of no benefit to our local community. So we in New Zealand First query the effectiveness of the establishment of this bill.

Another issue for us is that not all iwi supported this bill. They have concerns about representation. We should not be surprised that when there are so many hapū within iwi, some will feel disenfranchised. I just want to have that on record on behalf of those iwi who feel they are not represented, to have their view noted.

The other point is that the Labour spokesperson Meka Whaitiri mentioned that the proposed Māori group included two representatives who were not of the hau kāinga—of the home tribe. Although we might think that it is good that we include all Māori who are living in the Hawke’s Bay area, I know for a fact that even in my own tribal area that is a major issue. You cannot talk about tangata whenua if you are not tangata whenua. I just want to pick up that point.

I do not need to go on any further other than to say that the concern that New Zealand First has is that this bill certainly does not support the notion of a single franchise, and New Zealand First believes, as one of its principles, in a single franchise. Nā reira, kua nui waku kōrero mō tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Therefore I have said enough for now, so thank you and us collectively once again.]

I rise in support of this bill, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill, alongside many others in the House. I support this bill for a number of reasons. This bill formalises the deed of settlement that was signed on 17 December 2010. It ensures that the committee, which we have talked about already, is guaranteed not to be dissolved, which currently, today, the regional council does have the ability to do. This formalises the role of that committee. I support the make up of the committee as well.

Tangata whenua has a unique position in our community, in the catchment that we are talking about in the Hawke’s Bay, and it is only right that the tangata whenua contribute in equal number to this committee on the natural resource planning issues.

I hear what the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, talked about as far as the representation, and Meka Whaitiri also talked about representation. We know that in all situations, in all committees, in all groups, in all subcommittees, and even in select committees we cannot all be heard all the time. We cannot please all the people all the time. But it is important that we are included, that there is collaboration, and that there is listening, which I think was the point that was made earlier.

I also appreciate this, and support this bill because it talks about the Hawke’s Bay region—the regional planning involved in the Hawke’s Bay. It does not talk about the Napier planning, or the Tukituki electorate planning, or the Central Hawke’s Bay planning. It talks about the region’s plan, and it works with the regional council.

Although Mr Nash has always talked about amalgamation as being a bad thing, I take the opposite view. It is a view that I share with my colleague, Minister Foss, that the Hawke’s Bay should be united. It should be united, as this committee relates to the region. So this committee will look at all things in the Hawke’s Bay. It will not prejudice Napier or prejudge Tukituki or Central Hawke’s Bay. It will take the place as a whole. That is a very important and, in hindsight, a very interesting angle that it has taken, because it could have taken a much narrower and exclusive view of the role of this committee.

This bill is also important because it talks about natural resources and we have got a big project in the Hawke’s Bay, or in Central Hawke’s Bay—in Hawke’s Bay, not the Hawke’s Bay, Mr Nash—that relates to the Ruataniwha Dam. Again, Mr Nash was a little ambivalent around whether he supported that project or not. I say, categorically, that I do support this infrastructure project because it will create jobs, it will improve productivity, and it will increase exports out of the Bay. This is where this committee can contribute, and I am sure has contributed, to the debate that has been going on around the Ruataniwha Dam and the effect that it has on the waterways.

I see the tangata whenua input into this committee, the committee input into the regional plan, and the regional plan dictating or governing the issue around the Ruataniwha Dam as being inclusive and collaborative and necessary, so that the community does buy in to the water quality, because that is what we are talking about, at the end of the day—the quality of the aquifer, mentioned by a member of New Zealand First, Pita Paraone, and the quality of our waterways above ground and below ground.

There has been a pretty vicious and strong debate around the issues of water. We talk about the ownership of water; that has been on the table. The Prime Minister has said categorically that no one will own water, and I support that. For a number of reasons, a number of threads that are in the public domain at the moment, this bill, despite the fact that it has been ongoing since the deed was signed in December 2010—the timing of it is quite unique, if you like, in that it draws together in the second reading today all of those things that are on the table. I commend this bill to the House.

I understand this is a split call—Su’a William Sio.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I will take a very short call and rise to support the decision of the Labour Party in supporting the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill at its second reading. I want to commend, firstly, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the parties to this, because this is really a follow-on from the commitment made at the Treaty settlement of 2010. I also want to commend the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. I think it was an important step that it came on board and that it be consulted on this, and I commend it for its commitment that this regional planning committee be formalised. That is really important going forward. I then want to turn to my colleagues here, Meka Whaitiri, Rino, and my Māori members in the Labour caucus, who have been vigilant in driving this and in voicing the concerns expressed by Māori in that region, the iwi and hapū concerned, and say that although we are sort of patting each other on the back at this stage, we have got to acknowledge that the pathway for iwi and Māori, particularly those concerned with this Treaty settlement advancement, has not been easy one. Although we are moving forward and asking that we embrace this regional planning committee, I have also got to acknowledge that the voices and concerns raised by the Green Party and New Zealand First need to be raised, But we have got to still move forward and accept the fact that Māori do have a say. That is important, or even more important, in regional development when it comes to the environment.

If we look at the Resource Management Act, a lot of what that incorporates in the various sections is as a result of the contribution of Māori and the recognition that our indigenous people do have a significant say in how to protect our environment and protect this land. It was the Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk who, 40 years ago, recognised that one of the unique features of New Zealand and one that he was proud of, and we ought to be proud of, is the existence of Māori, their culture, their traditions, and their language, which make us unique. He used a phrase, which I refer to: a bleeding thread in the fabric of our society. That recognises the hardship, the pain, and the blood that Māori have given up. They have been constant in their pursuit not only of addressing the wrongs that have been committed against them in the past, but also of addressing that we have only one land and that when we recognise land as mother Earth and we dig up that land, we are actually creating scabs in the land. When we drill the land, we are hurting the land for future generations. Therefore, I think the establishment of this committee and the involvement of tangata whenua in this committee is an important aspect of New Zealanders recognising that their input is critical if we are to ensure that we pass on the land and its environment to the next generation for them to be able to have a sustainable life in the years to come. That is my contribution, acknowledging all of those who have participated but more so those who have gone before us who have been involved in those discussions and those debates, and on whose shoulders we stand today. Tēnā koe.

Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā. Tuatahi, e hiahia ana au ki te tautoko i ngā mihi kua mihia ki a rātou kua wehe atu ki tua o te ārai, i ngā wiki, i ngā rangi, i ngā mārama, kua pahure ake nei. Kua mōhio, kua kite mātou i te hinga ō ērā o ngā kaumātua, ngā kuia, ngā hākoro o te rohe o Ngāti Kahungunu. Nā reira, e tika, me mihi atu ki a rātou kua wehe atu ki te pō. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want endorse the tributes to those who have departed beyond the veil in the days, weeks, and months just past. We know of and have seen those older people, elderly men and womenfolk of Ngāti Kahungunu, who have passed away. And so it is appropriate that we pay a tribute to those who have departed to the void. Allow the dead to remain there amongst themselves while we the living remain here; thank you to us all.]

I am proud to stand to speak on this bill. It is a bit of a mixed bag, actually, but there are a few reasons why I am proud of it. Tuatahi: “Kua āta tirohia e Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori Te Pire a Te Komiti Whakatakoto Mahere ā-Rohe o Te Matau-a-Māui, ā, ka tūtohu kia whakamanahia me ngā whakatikatika kua oti te whakaatu.” Now I will translate that, just in case we did not catch up. That is the very first sentence in the report from the Māori Affairs Committee. In essence, it reflects the collective view of the Māori Affairs Committee that the House should support this bill. And we do. I think that has been clear here today, but there are a couple of other reasons why I am proud to support this bill. That is because today we put into law a statutory body called the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. I would have liked it better if it had been called the Heretaunga Planning Committee, but then we might miss out Wairoa, Ahuriri, and Waikaremoana. It is a little hard to put a name on something that includes such a vast area.

The second reason why I am proud of this bill is that it allows iwi and hapū to have representation. Is it as much representation as we would like? No, I do not think so. I do not think it goes far enough. There are no voting powers here, but there is the opportunity to advise, and it is not just a portion of an opportunity; it is a fifty-fifty split. Some people have made a lot of that.

The third reason why I am proud of this bill is that we have taken the opportunity to have this legislation written in Te Reo. At the end of this month, the nation will celebrate Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. The theme for this year is “Whāngaihia te reo Māori ki ngā Mātua”—supporting the language development of our parents so that they can feed their children. Having the Māori Affairs Committee report in Te Reo is just one way the House can encourage and promote Te Reo as a universally acceptable means of communication, and as a taonga and resource for our nation as a whole. So that is why I am proud of it.

I am also proud of the members who have come together to support this development in regional council and the planning committee, our mana whenua. I am going to read out the trustees because I want to make sure I do not miss anybody—the trustees of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, the trustees of Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust, the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua, the trustees of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum Trust, Mana Ahuriri Incorporated, Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Incorporated, Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, He Toa Takitini, and Ngāti Ruapani ki Waikaremoana. So together all of these collective groups have put their trust and their faith in their representation as mana whenua, in this regional planning committee.

I have had emails in the last couple of days, as many of us may have had, from people saying that this is indeed separatism, that this is undemocratic, and that this is a race-based piece of legislation. I want to say to those people who call this separatism that actually that is rubbish. It is absolutely rubbish. This is not separatism. This is unification. This is two people coming together. [Bell rung] One minute, no way! I will cut straight to the point, then.

Let us talk about some water rights, because it seems to me you are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. The Ruataniwha Dam is not fiscally responsible. There is not the ability to put money and a value on water. When they say that water cannot be owned I say that is rubbish, because regional councils across the country act as owners of the water when they allocate that water. And how have they allocated it? They have allocated it 100 percent to farmers and corporates all over the country. That is called corporate welfare. In fact, that is a benefit. When those people then go on to pollute our waterways I think we call that benefit fraud, and then we use taxpayer dollars to pay for the clean-up of those waterways. I am going to get that in, right at the end, because I think we need to acknowledge that unless we have voting rights we cannot say that this is a perfect piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. As has been discussed already by the Minister and other speakers, this bill fulfils an undertaking given by the National-led Government in the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement, and it is recorded in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū deed of settlement, to introduce legislation to establish the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee.

I suppose the only point I could make is that this is a Government that makes clear what it sets out to do. It makes agreements in good faith, and carries out those agreements through legislation. It does what is says it is going to do, and that is what this legislation achieves. It is about setting a framework for the committee, which is necessary to ensure that, post-settlement, iwi in the Hawke’s Bay region are entitled to appoint representatives on this committee. The committee is to oversee the development and review of the regional policy statement, and see that the regional plans in the Hawke’s Bay region are prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act.

The bill before the House is the outcome of a great deal of hard work and cooperation amongst all the parties involved, and it represents a positive approach for future engagement between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and iwi and hapū in the Hawke’s Bay region. On that basis I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou ngā rangatira o te Whare. Ka huri tū, ka huri ake ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, haere, haere koutou, haere koutou. Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you esteemed ones of the House. I turn my attention now to those who have passed away: farewell, depart, and go forth. And back to us all now the living: greetings, salutations, and accolades.]

I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill. Having been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, we listened to a range of submissions, which were all very supportive. I know that we have had other things that have been brought up in the debate today, but there has been a lot of support for this bill and for the establishment of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. I think we need to go back to the foundations of this bill, which are in Treaty settlements. So we are here today implementing Treaty settlements that have been agreed between tangata whenua groups, iwi, hapū, and the Crown. This is merely following through on those commitments.

I had the honour of being involved with the Ngāti Pāhauwera legislation when that came through the House, and that of Maungaharuru-Tangitū as well—all in the Hawke’s Bay region. I am looking forward to the Ngāti Hineuru legislation, which has been introduced into the House. Again, that is another hapū group or iwi group that is a member of this planning committee. I think we do need to acknowledge the fact that this committee has been established with the agreement of nine groups, plus the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Crown. That is no mean feat.

It has had a long history in the making. It started over 5 years ago, and to have that broad range of groups in support to all come together and to have this group functioning—it has actually been in place and in operation for the last 2 years. So I think we should not be quick to put over disparaging remarks and say “Oh, it is not as good as it could be.”, or, you know, it could be doing more, or it should be doing this or should be doing that. The fact is that this is based on Treaty settlements, and all the tangata whenua groups involved have been supportive, and they came before the committee to acknowledge that, as did the Crown and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. I do think we need to acknowledge the uniqueness of that.

Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach for Treaty settlements around the country. We know that there are different types of arrangements in terms of integrating iwi views in the natural environment, through things like co-governance and co-management arrangements, which probably is the top type of arrangement you could get at the moment, to a planning committee arrangement. So there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Every iwi, every takiwā is different, and I think we just need to go back to the fact that this committee has been formed for the implementation of undertakings that have been agreed with the various groups and the Crown, and the regional council. That is why we are here today.

I know that there have been a lot of comments around the fact that Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc. has not been given a seat on the planning committee. I do acknowledge that it does support the bill. It made some very valid comments in its submissions, but I think—and I mentioned this in my first speech, and it came through in the submissions as well—that Ngāti Kahungunu is represented because it is represented through all its hapū. It is represented from up in Pāhauwera and all the other hapū of Ngāti Kahungunu as well. So there is representation there. You know, as Māori, we like to think and we like to speak in metaphors—

💬 Peeni Henare: But never unclear.

No, no, never unclear—never unclear. Because this is the natural environment that we are talking about in terms of this planning committee, if the river is an iwi, then it is the streams and the little creeks that flow and feed into that river that make the iwi, and the big, lofty mountain is made up of the hills, and they all hold up that lofty mountain. Likewise, the great kauri tree—well, there would be no great kauri tree; it is nothing without the branches. Those are the hapū that make up all the great iwi around the country. That is evidenced through this bill and in the creation of this planning committee. All of the hapū of Ngāti Kahungunu are there to hold up the mana of Ngāti Kahungunu through their participation.

Let us not forget that it is the people—the hapū—who have been leading these settlements and have entered into these settlements with the Crown. There is an egregious history that has taken place. I recommend that everyone read the Waitangi Tribunal reports and read the settlement legislation just to get a sense for the loss of all of the hau kāinga groups and their connection to their ancestral landscapes. So this is an important step, as my colleague Su’a William Sio mentioned in his speech before—it is a very important step. The fact that these hapū groups, having had lands taken away and slashed and burned, and having had the degradation of their environment over generations—to have had that inflicted upon them—now have the opportunity to be part of a permanent body, a permanent committee, on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, is a significant step. I know that they are really proud of that opportunity and they are making a contribution.

So let us not sort of be critical in terms of saying that they have no power and that they are a toothless type of committee, because they are not. It is a very important committee, and it is made up fifty-fifty with representatives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. It even has a dual chairmanship, which I think is a another gesture of the partnership between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the tangata whenua groups in the Hawke’s Bay.

This is a very good piece of legislation. We are implementing the solemn arrangements that have been put in place through Treaty settlements, and I acknowledge Minister Finlayson and the work that his team does in putting through these important settlements right across the country. Let us give these planning committees and other co-governance bodies that are created under these settlements time to actually bed themselves in and do their mahi. I know that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was very aware of the importance of this committee and I certainly hope that it will be resourcing the committee adequately to do its important work in reviewing all of the important planning documents under the Resource Management Act 1991 that they are responsible for putting in place. I commend this bill and I also acknowledge the work that all of the representative groups on the committee are doing at this time. I am looking forward to passing this legislation so that that undertaking, which was made in the Treaty settlement, is complete. Kia ora tātou.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e te Whare. I wonder whether the House would indulge me for just a few seconds if I might announce some very happy news, and that is that there is a new member of the Government whips’ office after Lucy and Jami-Lee Ross welcomed their daughter, Charlotte, into the world at 10.53 last night. I know that she is a very welcomed sister for big brother, Henry, and that she will be a dearly loved member of the family. I am sure that all members of the House would like to join me in sending congratulations to Lucy and Jami-Lee.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Did you give him leave?

I have given him leave, yes, I am delighted to say. Even though I am not known for being overly generous, on this occasion I have given him a whole 2 days until the adjournment, and then he can do with the adjournment what he likes.

In the spirit of goodwill, could I thank all who have contributed to the debate on this bill in its second reading. I do have a Hawke’s Bay connection in that my wife was raised for some of her childhood in the Hawke’s Bay—or Hawke’s Bay, as Mr Nash would prefer I should say it—and was educated at Karamu High School. In fact, Anne and I—

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Woo hoo!

Oh, so I see that Meka Whaitiri obviously was there, as well. My wife and I were married in Hawke’s Bay and, in fact, my parents-in-law still live in retirement there. So I do always take an interest in the items affecting Hawke’s Bay that come through the House.

I just want to say that, as previous speakers have noted, this is a bill that fulfils undertakings that were negotiated in good faith. It is the outcome of a great deal of hard work and cooperation between all the parties that were involved, so I want to acknowledge the serious consideration given to the bill under the leadership of the very worthy Māori Affairs Committee chair, Nuk Korako. In particular, I want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe he will go down in history as one of the finest Ministers in this Government. His work in this area is truly historic and it is something that I am very proud to support.