Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This omnibus bill represents the culmination of a huge amount of work over many years by some very, very dedicated people. The bill is going to give legislative effect to four deeds of settlement signed by the Crown and Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāi Takoto, and Ngāti Kurī. The bill also establishes arrangements to preserve financial benefits from accumulated forest rentals for the fifth of Te Hiku iwi, Ngāti Kahu. The omnibus bill will see one of the largest returns of land to Māori ownership. It was drafted as an omnibus bill because shared redress between the four settling iwi required the bills to be passed into law at the same time. The bill is expected to be divided into five bills prior to the third reading.

At the third reading we expect a large delegation of Te Hiku iwi representatives, and I very much look forward to that historic occasion. That will be the time for full speeches and acknowledgments. For now I acknowledge the excellent work of the Māori Affairs Committee over the past 6 months the bill has been considered by that committee. I appreciate its examination of the bill and the very careful attention it has paid to all submissions. Given the sheer size of the bill I congratulate the chair and members on their tremendous work. I also want to thank other Ministers and departments who have worked on this bill. It was no mean feat.

I am grateful to those who took the time to make submissions on the bill. It was very encouraging to hear submissions from those who support and are looking forward to the opportunities these settlements will bring for the empowerment of the hapū and iwi of Te Hiku o te Ika. Those who opposed the bill raised some important issues, and these have been very thoroughly and carefully considered by the committee. The committee received 25 submissions on the bill, and it heard 19 oral submissions in hearings in Kaitāia. It has recommended a small number of minor amendments to the bill, and I want briefly to address some of the issues the committee outlined in its report.

As anyone who has worked on this settlement knows, the complex whakapapa relationships and highly overlapped interests of Te Hiku have at times made settlements difficult for both Te Hiku iwi and the Crown. Some submitters expressed concern that their iwi or hapū was inappropriately named or included within a settlement. These issues have been addressed at length by the Waitangi Tribunal, by Ministers, and now by the Māori Affairs Committee. Te Ihutai and Kōhatutaka hapū have the opportunity through the settlement to benefit significantly from their association with Te Rarawa.

The Crown and Te Rarawa also acknowledge the Ngāpuhi whakapapa of the these hapū. Both hapū will also have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the future Ngāpuhi settlement. The committee recommended a wording amendment to clarify this important matter. It also noted the letter of commitment from Te Rarawa undertaking to support Te Ihutai aspirations in future with regard to Kohukohu Police Station, and I want to thank Te Rarawa for that commitment.

I need to say something about Ngāti Kahu. Ngāti Kahu is not settling with their whanaunga at this time, but this bill protects their interests. It provides for Ngāti Kahu to participate in the co-governance arrangements over public conservation lands and Te Oneroa-a-Tohe and establishes the Ngāti Kahu Accumulated Rentals Trust. The trust preserves the Crown’s ability to honour the 2010 Te Hiku Forum agreement, and it provides 20 percent of the accumulated rentals associated with Aupōuri Forest to Ngāti Kahu in the future. Once this legislation is enacted rentals will be held on trust with interest accruing for Ngāti Kahu, and I very much look forward to the day when either present or future Ngāti Kahu negotiators will be prepared to come to the table to settle the grievances of their iwi. One has only to visit the rohe of Ngāti Kahu to see that there is much to be done there. Adopting an ivory tower approach to negotiations is not the way forward in my view, and I hope that a spirit of cooperation breaks out in Ngāti Kahu in the not too distant future.

In the third reading I will speak to each of the four settlements. I very much look forward to seeing Te Hiku iwi move into a positive future. In fact, I am very much looking forward to meeting with them in the far north in the next couple of days with my colleague the Minister of Conservation as we give effect to the settlements and meet with them to discuss how things are going in relation, for example, to Te Oneroa-a-Tohe. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi māku e mihi kau ana ki wērā o ngā iwi nō rātou tēnei pire me ngā mema o aua iwi e noho ana kei roto i tō tātou Whare. Nā reira, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e Rick—[Interruption]—e te rangatira Rangitāne aroha mai, koutou katoa mā, tēnā rā koutou. Harikoa ana kei konei koutou e whakarongo ana ki tēnei pānuitanga tuarua.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me is to particularly acknowledge those tribes this bill belongs to and the members of those tribes sitting here in our House. And so I acknowledge you, Rick—[Interruption]—my apologies to you, the relative Rangitāne, and greetings to you all, too. I am really pleased that you are here listening to this second reading.]

I would just like to acknowledge the four iwi who are being settled and also our whanaunga up here in the gallery. I just apologise to Rangitāne Marsden from Ngāi Takoto, for momentarily forgetting his name, and Rick Wītana from Te Aupōuri. It is great to have them here. Although other members of the other iwi are not necessarily here in body, they are certainly here in spirit.

It is great to see Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill progress through the House, because living in Te Hiku area, I agree entirely with what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has just said, which is there are needs up here that need to be met, and the sooner that we can complete this process—get through this second reading and on to the Committee stage and the third reading—the better and the sooner Te Hiku area will benefit from this settlement. I also would like to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. I am not a member of that committee. I did sit in on the hearings in Kaitāia to hear those submissions. I am told that this is the second-largest bill ever to come before the House, and if that is the case it is an absolutely superb undertaking by the Māori Affairs Committee to get to the stage where it is at now. As the Minister has said, this is an omnibus bill that provides settlement of historic Treaty of Waitangi claims, signed by the four far north iwi, Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa, between 2012 and 2014. It is drafted as an omnibus bill because there are shared aspects in the redress that will be passed into law at the same time. However, it will be broken into its separate bills in the Committee stage.

Just some items to note from the select committee scrutiny of the bill—and this is getting into a few specifics. The Kōhukohu Police Station, the land that it sits on, is contested between Te Ihutai and Te Rarawa. If it should ever be declared surplus by the Crown—i.e., should that station ever close—Te Rarawa will have the first option to purchase that land. I believe that the police station at the moment is currently looking for an officer. Whether or not that vacancy is filled may actually mean that this land may be declared surplus by the Crown in the next little while. I am not quite sure what the police’s intentions are for that station. Te Ihutai oppose this and say that it is Ngāpuhi land and it should be included in Te Ihutai’s Ngāpuhi claim. Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa support Te Ihutai’s claim to the police station land. The Māori Affairs Committee was of the view that if the police station is withdrawn from Te Rarawa settlement, there would be no guaranteed protection over it before the Ngāpuhi settlement is negotiated and provided for in the legislation.

So if the police station is declared surplus, in the meantime Te Ihutai could apply for the land to be land-banked, but there are no cast-iron guarantees the application would be successful or that redress would be negotiated in a Ngāpuhi settlement. Therefore, as the Minister has stated, Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa have undertaken to support any changes that would be taken in what would be known as Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Bill to accommodate any preferable form of redress through any future Ngāpuhi settlement for Te Ihutai. The Māori Affairs Committee did not agree with Te Ihutai’s preferred approach, and Te Rarawa have, as the Minister said, provided a letter of commitment to support Te Ihutai, and I thank Te Rarawa for that. There was also some clarification needed to make it clear that Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Bill does not settle any claims of members of Te Ihutai and Kohatutaka through their Ngāpuhi whakapapa. That was just an important clarification.

I would like to touch on the name Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. I am a direct descendant of Tōhe, the tipuna. Many people in the north who do not know their history, who do not know whakapapa, who do not know the significance of that name, say: “Well, why would you want to name the beach Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe?”. Most people up there these days cannot even say it or pronounce the name. Māori do not like to give out their whakapapa just willy-nilly, but let me say Tōhe begat Te Kuranga, who begat Rāninikura, who begat Rahingahinga, who begat Rāwheao, who begat Te Au, who begat Te Hinaki, who begat Waikanae, who cohabited with Hinepapa, who had Puhi, who married Tu Whangai, who had Haki, who married Tautoro, who had Whetu Pōmare, who married Ranginananga, who had Tiaho, who married Henry Davis, who had Hēnare, who married Ngarui Harawene, who had Uru, who married Maora Pānapa, who had Te Wātene, who married Maki, who had Pānapa, who married Glenys, who had me. That is 17 generations from Tōhe. Let me say that for maybe the three generations from me up, my father, and my grandparents, and maybe a fourth generation, may have known Te Oneroa, or have predominantly called Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Ninety Mile Beach. But I can guarantee that for the 13 generations above us, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe was known as Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. I fully endorse the name Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe and the fact that a board is being set up with the name Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board.

I was quite annoyed but not surprised to see that there was a headline in a local paper saying that this new board was going to open a can of worms. What that can of worms may open in particular, I am not sure. It did not say in the report, other than that some people are anxious about the fact that Māori are going to have co-management opportunities for Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe and that the board will be made up of one representative from each of the four iwi as well as four representatives from the community. I believe that four community representatives have been selected, one being Monty Knight from the Northland Regional Council, another being Dave Collard from the Far North District Council, and two other names that, when we hear them, we will know we have not got anything to be concerned about–one being the Hon Dover Samuels and the other being the Hon John Carter. Those of us who know those two gentlemen ask what we can possibly be concerned about.

Just to finish off, the role of that board will be to provide governance and direction in order to promote the use, development, and protection of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe/Ninety Mile Beach management area and its resources in a manner that ensures the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, and cultural well-being for present and future generations. There is scaremongering that this is a way for iwi to close off the beach and to charge for access. I can assure people that there is no way that is going to happen and that they will still be able use that beach for fishing, gathering of seafood, and just for plain recreation, and that those people on that board are going to make sure that it ensures the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, and cultural well-being for present and future generations. It is something that is going to improve and enhance the beach—its health and its wairua—for all of us for generations to come. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i te Whare e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi o Te Hiku, Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri. Nau mai me ngā wawata mō tōu iwi, kia whai hua, kia whai tika, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to you all throughout the House, and to you, the tribes of Te Hiku: Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri. Welcome with your aspirations for your people in terms of securing outcomes and justice. Therefore, I congratulate you all.]

It is indeed my pleasure to rise to speak in the second reading of Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. When I look at this bill, there are 562 pages including translations. The incredible thing is that it is probably also a reflection on how complex it has been and in some ways still is.

This is actually the last stage in which we will be considering this bill as one bill. At the Committee of the whole House the bill will indeed be divided into five bills, which will give effect to the deeds of settlement between the Crown and the four Muriwhenua iwi. This is a hugely important settlement, as they all are, but this one particularly because it concerns four iwi whose past and present are actually very much entwined. That is why the five bills that will follow have been combined into one for most of the process.

As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee it was indeed an honour to actually preside over the consideration of such an important bill. I want to acknowledge the whakawhanaungatanga and the manaakitanga that was extended to my Māori Affairs Committee when we visited Kaitāia to hear the submissions.

When the settlement bill concerns four different iwi, it also affects multiple surrounding iwi. So it is not surprising that there were various issues that arose. I want to cover the issue again—because it was one that has been touched on, but it was one that I think was a very important take, or issue, that we did discuss, and it just shows, I think, the collegiality of the Māori Affairs Committee. This concerns the Kohukohu Police Station. Te Rarawa deed of settlement gives them the right of first refusal over this asset if it is ever declared surplus by the Crown. This inclusion has been opposed by Te Ihutai, who intend to negotiate with the Crown over this land through their Ngāpuhi claim. Te Rarawa are fully in support of this land eventually ending up with Te Ihutai, and have provided a letter of commitment to this effect—a letter of commitment to this effect. That reflects to me and to the Māori Affairs Committee that immense form of kotahitanga that is working there to see this bill through. There are really honest negotiations and discussions and goodwill from all parties.

One of the issues at play here is that withdrawing the police station from Te Rarawa settlement would remove any guaranteed protection over it for either Te Rarawa or Te Ihutai. The Māori Affairs Committee was not entirely happy with the approach to this issue, preferring that Te Ihutai’s interest be included in the legislation. We noted that Te Rarawa do not wish this to be included in the legislation but we were happy with their assurances and the letter of commitment. Therefore, we have not recommended any changes to this arrangement. We have recommended a change, though, to what will become the Ngāti Kurī Claims Settlement Bill to extend the Pines Block—that is, the 1.58 hectares of the Pines Block. This change reflects the further agreement reached between the iwi and the Crown to address the concerns over the road access.

The other point, or take, that was highlighted by the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, was the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board, which is a permanent committee on which all four iwi will be represented equally. This board will develop a beach management plan that will influence resource consents and planning in that area. Again, kotahitanga—working together for a common cause.

Also, we have the Te Korowai redress conservation land included in the settlements, which will be co-governed by the Crown and Te Hiku iwi. The various forms of cultural redress provide also for the vesting of certain properties in the trustees of each iwi and statutory acknowledgments of the cultural, historical, spiritual, and traditional associations of each iwi, with certain statutory areas and protocols for Crown minerals, fisheries, and taonga tūturu.

The commercial redress is a very important part of any settlement. The redress does not try to make up for every wrong that has occurred in the past because, as we all know—and particularly in this one—the dollar value of what has been taken from these iwi would be impossible to repay. But what is important about the commercial redress is that it represents a change in the iwi’s future. It provides an opportunity for an iwi to shape its own future, to look after its people.

When I was in the north—I did a sabbatical, actually, for a few weeks earlier in the year—I had the opportunity to visit a number of these marae of Te Hiku. When you look at this magazine here, Te Kukupa, and when you look through this, and then you look at these incredible rangatahi—

💬 Peeni Henare: Touchy subject.

—all of that, education graduates, tertiary education; when you look at environmental things that are going on there, particularly with rangatahi; when you look at kaumātua and their days and their health and all of that; and when you look through, you know, with new wharenui being built, this tells you that this is actually on the cusp. And maybe it was, on the other side of the House, around this, a bad example—I do not know—but at least this is a reflection on what is happening and what will happen and what will cause a catalyst with this legislation of that development of our people. That is what this is about: Māori regional development.

So, in looking at this particular claim, it is the second-largest and it is in the far north, which we have heard a lot about. But this is definitely something where we see iwi working together, where the consensus across the country is that they cannot work together. Well, this here, this legislation, this bill actually shows that the far north—Ngāpuhi–can actually work together. We are really all very excited about this, and this is only the second reading.

I have really enjoyed considering this bill, the fabulous people in the north, and working with them. I just want to acknowledge those who have passed on who had a great lot to do with this bill and that their dreams, their moemoeā, will be realised. I have no hesitation in recommending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Ā tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, Reo Māori. Kāti ake te urunga tū, te urunga tapu, te mauri tū, te mauri tapu. Te mauri i whiwhia, te mauri i rawea, te mauri nō hea, nō runga, nō rangi-nuku-tū. Tēnei te mauri ka whakapiki, tēnei te mauri ka whakakake. Te mauri o ngā tupua, te mauri o ngā atua, kia puta ake ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama, tīhei wā mauri ora!

Ka tīkina āke ahau i ngā mihi ki ō tātou tini aituā, ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō, anā, kotahi tonu te kōrero mō rātou, he rāngai maomao, ka taka ki tua o Nukutaurua, e kore a muri e hokia. Nō reira, koutou ki a koutou, kia whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou katoa kua tāmia nei e te taimaha o rukiruki, tātou katoa ngā mahuetanga iho nei e te hunga ora, tēnā koutou.

Anā, ka tautoko ahau i ngā kōrero o te Whare ki ō tātou manuhiri. I te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire, kī pai tō tātou Whare e ngā uri nō Muriwhenua, nō Te Hiku o Te Ika. I te rā nei, ko ngā kanohi ō rātou mā kei roto i ngā tūrū, anā, ko te mea nui, e ai ki te kōrero ā tōku tuakana, a Kelvin, ko te wairua e rere tonu nei. Ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki te Minita me ōna āpiha katoa, nā rātou te tino kiko o tēnei pire i whakarite mō te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori kia aro haehaengia e mātou, kia āta wetewete mātou i tēnei pire mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. No reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a Minister Finlayson me ngā mahi katoa i oti i a ia.

Ka tikina ake ahau i tērā mahi a te Taraipiunara, e meangia ana, ko Wai 45. Koinei hoki te pūtaketanga o tēnei pire e pānui nei tātou i tēnei ata. Nō reira, ka tangi tonu ki a rātou, nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i kawe. Ka mihi atu ahau ki ngā waka katoa kei roto i Te Hiku o Te Ika, arā, ki roto o Muriwhenua. Arā, ko Moekākara, ko Kurahaupō, ko Tinana, ko Mātaatua, ko Ruakaramea, ko Māmari, koutou e ngā waka o te kāinga kē, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker; my speech will be in Te Reo Māori. I enter in an upright and sacred stance, with a life principle that is upright, sacred, received, cherished, from whence, from above in the inseparable heavens and earth. It ascends upwards. It is a life principle of the supernatural and deities from whence I emerge into the world of natural life and of understanding; behold the sneeze of life!

I am physically enhanced by the tributes to the myriads of our misfortunes and to them who have gone and merged into the void. There is only one aphorism for them: a shoal of blue maomao that roams beyond Nukutaurua reaches a point of no return. Therefore, you the dead remain there among the dead while I realign my address to all of us here, the living oppressed by extreme responsibilities. I acknowledge you all the ones left behind, greetings!

Therefore, I endorse the tributes accorded by the House to our visitors at the second reading. At the first reading of this bill our House was filled nicely by the kinfolk from Muriwhenua, from the Tail of the Fish. Today their representatives occupy the seats, but the main thing, according to the statement of my elder kin Kelvin, is that the spirit is still here. I endorse the acknowledgments of praise to the Minister and to all his officials, because they considered the main outcome of this bill for the Māori Affairs Committee to consider and for us to critically discern and examine from its first reading to this point in time. So I commend Minister Finlayson and the work he has done.

I refer now to the work of the Tribunal, namely Wai 45. This, in fact, is the real reason why we are reading this bill this morning, and so I continue to lament them. They were the ones who brought this policy here. I acknowledge all the waka at the Tail of the Fish at Muriwhenua there, namely Moekakara, Kurahaupō, Tinana, Mātaatua, Ruakaramea, and Māmari. You are really the waka back there at home, I salute you.]

It is not a coincidence that this particular bill has come just after the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. It may interest the House and the public to know that the far north and the Hawke’s Bay, or Heretaunga, are inextricably linked. I offer to the House this brief whakapapa, or genealogy, to give weight to my kōrero there. Muriwhenua married Rongokākō. From that marriage came Tamatea Pōkai Whenua, or Tamatea Ure Haea. From Tamatea Pokai Whenua come Kahungunu, who married Hinetapu. From that union come Kahukuranui. From Kahukuranui come Kahukuraariki. So Muriwhenua and the Hawke’s Bay are inextricably linked, because we argue in the far north that the Hawke’s Bay finds its genesis in amongst the people of Te Hiku o te Ika. So I say to my relations, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

I will return to Ngāti Kahungunu, whose whakapapa I have just mentioned, very shortly, but I want to point out that the first reading of this bill in November was my first opportunity to see a bill from the beginning. When I say “from the beginning”, I do not mean just the first reading; I mentioned briefly Wai 45 and the claim taken by our leaders from the far north to the Waitangi Tribunal. So this matter has been in front of our people and, indeed, on the notes of the House for some time now. I want to acknowledge that. It seems, whether by good fortune or proper planning, that I stand here today to speak as a descendant of all of the iwi mentioned in Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill: Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Kahu. So it is an absolute honour to come from the first reading to, now, the second reading.

As mentioned by the Minister, there were 25 submissions officially, but I can tell this House that there were plenty of other submissions made to us as we travelled around the different marae around the far north. Everybody had an opinion, from the pubs of the far north all the way down to the marae. So there were 25 official submissions, but I gain heart from the engagement of the people in the far north on this particular kaupapa in this particular bill.

So, back to Ngāti Kahu. As a descendant of Ngāti Kahu, I am pleased that the interests of my people are given regard to in this bill. The Minister spoke about protecting the interests of Ngāti Kahu moving forward. At this point in time, they are not at the table when this bill is being considered and in the negotiations, despite numerous attempts from the Minister and his officials to ensure that on this bill, the many waka of Te Hiku o te Ika, or Muriwhenua, would move forward on one waka. I want to commend the Minister for his patience there. My people of Ngāti Kahu—ivory towers, as the Minister pointed out—I want to encourage them to move forward. I want to encourage them to move forward so that the people of the far north can experience the benefits that have already been mentioned by this House.

I, for one, go back to my marae, which belongs to Ngāti Kahu, in a place called Waimahana. My mother would argue it is the centre of the universe, but it is a place where we do not even have power, and the marae and the whare there are in a poor state at the moment. We hope that, as mentioned, the benefits from this bill will flow down to the people.

But, you know, I am not surprised by this kind of contention between Ngāti Kahu and the other members of Te Hiku settlement, as well as the legislation. It is clear to me, sadly, that the restrictions of legislation do not give weight or consideration to our genealogy, and it is our genealogy that allows us to make links across all hapū and iwi. The beauty about genealogy is that it is borderless. In a small place such as Te Hiku o te Ika, it is important to remember that our genealogy is inextricably linked across all iwi, all hapū, and all marae.

Can I pick up the point made about Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board, a joint committee to look after our taonga. I am encouraged by this. If I can echo the words of Kelvin Davis, my tuakana and colleague here, on the matter, scaremongering in the far north is not uncommon. Sadly, it has been in the community for some time now. I visited one of my grand aunts in the far north not too long ago. She has a photo above her fireplace of what looked like thousands and thousands of people all lined up along the beach at Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe, spade and a bucket in hand, and they were pulling out toheroa the size of a size 13 shoe—absolutely huge toheroa. One would fit in one bucket. I am encouraged that these types of initiatives will allow the protection of our taonga. Although we may never see size 13 toheroa again—certainly, I know where some are, but I am not about to explain to the House where spot X is—it is important that we look after our taonga moving forward.

Furthermore, I am encouraged by the establishment of Te Hiku o Te Ika Conservation Board. I picked up what the Minister spoke about earlier. Very soon he and the Minister of Conservation will be travelling around the far north. It is important to acknowledge the relationship that tribes of Te Hiku have with the land and the precious taonga in the north. I look forward to seeing what comes from that roadshow, as well as any of the policies that will encourage the protection of the environment.

The commercial redress has already been mentioned. More important, with regard to the commercial redress, is to ensure somehow that the pathway of those benefits is direct to the people of Te Hiku, to the descendants. I mentioned in the first reading of the bill that I mourned the loss of a young man by the name of Luke Tipene. It is with those people in mind—our young people—that these particular bills come through the House. Kāti ake i konei, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a tātou e hui tahi nei, e ōku tini whanaunga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Enough, I end here and applaud you assembled here collectively: my many kin, congratulations, acknowledgments, well done, and my thanks to us all.]

Kia ora. I am pleased to stand and take a call at the second reading of the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge the four far north iwi—Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Kurī—and the work that they have done to advance this bill, the negotiations. I acknowledge the kōrero we have heard from the other speakers in the House, the to-ing and fro-ing, and especially the kōrero from Peeni Henare, who gave us a good insight into the submissions that we never got but that everybody heard and had an opinion on, and that is what our people are all about.

As my colleagues have said, this is an omnibus bill and does result in four settlement bills—separate bills for each of the iwi—as well as a provision in the legislation to preserve the interests of the fifth Te Hiku iwi, Ngāti Kahu. I too am saddened that Ngāti Kahu are not part of this and that they have not indicated when, or whether, they want to settle with the Crown, because this legislation is about coming together as one group, and you are very strong when you are one group. I can tell you now that you can dictate quite a lot when you are a large group of people negotiating deals.

As my colleagues have said, this is the second-largest settlement bill of land going into Māori ownership coming through the House. I just want to talk about the area, or the rohe, of Te Hiku. Te Hiku means “the tail of the fish”. Obviously, it is steeped in a lot of historical, cultural, and spiritual significance, considering that Te Rerenga Wairua, the leaping place of our wairua, is at the very tip of the rohe. When you walk up on to the land area, it is very significant. I remember taking my children there and explaining to them about the leaping place of our wairua. They looked out into the sea, and we saw over to the Three Kings Islands. They said: “Can you see them, Mum? Can you see them?”. And I said: “Oh, no, darling, but, you know …”. They said: “Is this where we’re going to leap off into Hawaiki?”. And I said: “Yes, it is.” So it is about all of those traditions that come down, are passed down, and you do not have to be a member of Te Hiku iwi to know these traditions—I am Ngāti Porou, Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi, and Rangitāne ki Wairarapa. I was brought up with these ideals, as well.

I want to talk, also, a little bit more about Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. As the member Peeni Henare was talking about the toheroa, I was thinking how I missed out on having a feed of those. It was most probably because my parents could not get hold of that, or there was a rāhui on that, on the beach at the time. But that is a significant place. I have been there, as many have, and it is a very good place for a lot of recreational activity, as well as for customs and spiritual sustenance.

This bill will actually provide to Te Hiku, as I have said before, some decision making, not just over conservation land but also over their economic development. With the commercial redress vesting the Aupōuri State Forest and five farms across the rohe to be returned to iwi ownership, that is actually a powerful position to be in. I come from a farming background, and I know that if you are together as a big group, you can negotiate your land prices, your meat prices, and that is with the works and the agents. That is very powerful to have, especially if you are not part of that group.

There are many aspects of this bill, and I do not want to go on any further on this. I want to save my korero for our third reading. So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Kei te mihi o te rā ki a koutou. And may I also acknowledge, as others have, the representatives of ngā iwi o Te Hiku who are in the gallery, although I cannot see them. Like the Minister, I do look forward to the day of the third reading—when I suspect that it will be standing room only, and even more full than that in the gallery—when we do finally resolve this very difficult, very complex settlement. I am very pleased to take a call in support of this bill, with considerable enthusiasm. It is a large bill. It is a complex bill. It deals with the overlapping and, no doubt on occasions, conflicting interests and claims of multiple hapū and iwi. It is clear that the Minister, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the Māori Affairs Committee are to be congratulated on having brought matters to the point where we can have the second reading, and to indicate that there is considerable opportunity to progress this matter.

The particular issue that has been mentioned already about the relatively small piece of land in Kohukohu that is, to some extent, disputed between Te Rarawa and Te Ihutai, and the fact that the matter has been resolved, essentially, based on trust is, I think, indicative of the quality of the negotiation that underpins this bill, because if trust is built and maintained, trustworthiness and mana go hand in hand. If we can negotiate in good faith and get outcomes based on trust and mutual respect, then those are the agreements and the settlements that will endure over time.

As is the case for these bills, there is, of course, commercial redress, and there is also an apology from the Crown for the multiple breaches of te Tiriti that occurred virtually from day one after the Treaty right through the 19th century and into the 20th century. I think it is important to acknowledge that the harm done by those breaches takes a long time to heal. I believe the disadvantage experienced to this day by Māori communities in the north can be sheeted back, to a large extent, directly to the harm done in the course of the breaches of the 19th and 20th centuries. The loss of the economic base for iwi and hapū, the loss of the cultural knowledge of the language, the separation from manu whenua—all of these, I believe, are the disadvantage still experienced by Māori in the north. And, indeed, the inability to realise the potential of the society generally—the Māori and Pakeha communities—can be sheeted home to some of the breaches of the 19th and early 20th centuries. So to the extent that these bills contribute to resolving that, they open up the opportunity to realise a potential. I routinely visit schools around the north. You see those kids who are growing up in some pretty tough social and economic environments, but you also see the potential. In returning some of the resource to iwi and hapū, we will contribute, I think, to making sure that those kids have better futures. And for that reason alone, I think these bills would be worthy of support.

Again, as has been noted, one of the provisions of the bill establishes Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board, a permanent joint-committee with equal numbers of local councillors and representatives of Te Hiku iwi responsible for preparing a beach management plan. I think that is a very promising step forward. It is unfortunate, as others have noted also, that it has—inevitably, perhaps—resulted in some outcry. One that does concern me is that an elected councillor who should, arguably, know better has come up with a notion that this board: “effectively giving responsibility for management of the beach to iwi would likely see public access restricted, and not only on 90 Mile Beach.” He goes on to complain about the fact that Ngāti Kurī, apparently, are benefiting financially from the transition of tour buses up and down Te Paki Stream. I mean, would that not be a terrible thing if people with a long and enduring right to that site were getting some financial benefit from a commercial operation using their land! I fail to see the indignity in that, I have to say. It is unfortunate that this councillor chooses to see that management of the beach ought to be retained by council, by the community board, with no engagement with the iwi. I think that is a very short-sighted, very narrow view, and I hope it is a view that over time we will see much less of.

I think the management plan is a wonderful opportunity to take a very hard look at the ecology of that beach, because we know that it has been degraded in terms of the kai moana—the toheroa, particularly—and that has to be sheeted home to mismanagement, to overuse of the beach, and certainly to the impact of vehicles on the beach. I do think that through a survey of the beach that combined mātauranga Māori—Māori knowledge and understanding built up over generations of time–and allied it on an equal footing with Western science, we could find a position where we could restore that beach to the point where you would walk past a size 13 toheroa in order to get a bigger one. Here we look forward to that day.

💬 Marama Fox: Past that to Peeni’s freezer.

Indeed, yes. I do not think he would get as far as a freezer, either.

It is good to note too that the commentary made by some rather short-sighted people has also been opposed in the local papers and in comments around the place. One comment noted that in 1957 some Muriwhenua rangatira took a claim—as far back as then—noting the degraded condition of the beach and the fact that it no longer had the richness, either ecologically or culturally, that it once had. So these things take a long time to come around, but, ultimately, good sense and common sense will prevail.

I would also note the establishment of Te Hiku o Te Ika Conservation Board—again, a co-governance board that will look to the governance of the conservation land in the area. I do think that is very positive; I do like seeing that word “co-governance”. Co-management is a fine thing, but it is important that iwi and hapū are represented alongside other interests at the decision-making point, not just in the management or at the point of implementation. So I do think that is a very positive step. It is one we commend, and we look forward to seeing that produce very good outcomes over time.

The final comment I will make is to acknowledge again the assigning of official geographic names that reflect the traditional names—dare I say it, the real names—of some of those places. We heard a very eloquent contribution from Kelvin Davis about the significance of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. I mean, once one understands what these names represent, they give an incredible richness to the people living there today—dare I say it, both Māori and Pākehā—not only culturally but also economically. In my own experience with the tourism industry, it is utterly compelling for visitors to the north and elsewhere if the names are explained to them, to the extent that they do reflect an extraordinary history, some remarkable people, the actions of those people, and their time. It does give a unique quality and flavour to the experience of the manuhiri, and that is something that we do seek, not just for the economic benefit—not least of all for that, it has to be said. There is enormous potential there to reveal the richness of the past, present, and, indeed, the future of Northland. On that note, I think I will bring my contribution to an end and look forward to the third reading. Kia ora.

Ā tēnā anō koe, Mr Speaker, ā, tēnā anō hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te wā nei. E tū ake tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e waku tūākana mai te Rōpū Reipa. Tautoko hoki i ngā mihi ki ēnā o ngā rangatira o te hau kāinga, e Rangi, e Riki, nā te mea, kei runga i a kōrua i taka mai tēnei rākau i kawea atu i te wā kua tau kē tēnei kerēme. Nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki a kourua. Tino koa te hari o te ngākau ki te kite atu i a koutou e noho tahi nei ki ngā kaimahi o te Karauna. He tohu pai tēnā! Nā reira, e pā ana ki tēnā kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e ēnā o ngā kaikōrero ki te Minita nā reira, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you once again, Mr Speaker, and acknowledgments to us once again seated about in the House at this point in time. I rise to endorse the tributes that were accorded by my elder colleagues of the Labour Party. I also acknowledge the tributes to those two esteemed ones from back home, Rangi and Riki, because the responsibility in regards to this claim has fallen upon you two now. And so I acknowledge you two as well. My heart is absolutely full of joy to see you collectively sitting alongside the officials of the Crown. That is a good sign! As a consequence of that I endorse the accolades that were accorded by those speakers to the Minister, so thank you.]

I acknowledge the presence of a couple of representatives from those iwi that this particular bill affects. We heard from the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, that this is the second-largest bill to come before the House in terms of the number of pages—almost 600. I am just hoping that the quantum equates to that as well. I am not quite sure whether, in fact, it will.

I have to put in a plug for my relatives of the far north. We have heard about the poor socio-economic status of the far north, and this settlement will go a long way to addressing that, but, having said that, I hope that this settlement is not seen as an opportunity for the Crown to not meet its responsibilities to its citizens. It does concern me a little bit when we read about the comments that are made in the local press about how good this will be for the economy and all that. I just want to make the point that people should not see this as being the panacea of solving the economic problems of the far north.

This bill does embrace claims from a number of iwi, and, although reference has been made to one iwi who have yet to settle their claims, I just want to say to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that comments like “standing or operating or viewing this settlement from their ivory tower” certainly will not help the road to resolution between the Crown and that particular iwi. I say that because I know of the personalities involved, and I say that with respect.

But having said that, and seeing representatives of the north, I am mindful of those people, those elders, whom I had the privilege of meeting and whose counsel I had the privilege of listening to when I started out in my Public Service career. As I talk in this House at this time I can see them, and I know that they are very happy to see that we have come to this stage in the history of this claim. When the Māori Affairs Committee met in Kaitāia we heard from every submitter without exception that they wanted to settle, not because the quantum was right, and not because the terms of settlement were what they agreed to, but because it had taken 30 years to reach this stage. I just want to place on record on behalf of the claimants that in getting to this stage of the history of their claim, although they are frustrated about not getting their full entitlement, they do accept that given the time it has taken to get to this point in the history of this claim, they need to move on. I just repeat, on behalf of them, their concern that was articulated at those hearings.

No doubt the people of Te Hiku have extended their arm, their hand, to the Crown. I made reference to that during the first reading when I referred to a waiata that is synonymous with the people of the north, “Toro Mai Tō Ringa”—extend your arm. And they have certainly done that in accepting this bill, knowing full well that this settlement will go nowhere near to fulfilling what a lot of us would consider their entitlement. Just in reviewing some of the submissions and the issues that were raised, the submitters felt that the settlement process was unjust. Treaty partnership had yet to be realised. Of course, the process was unnecessarily long. They thought that the co-governance and Treaty-based partnership may be under-resourced.

Clause 577, “Meaning of Te Rarawa”, as defined by the bill does not reflect changes believed to have been made by the Te Ihutai hapū in the Te Rarawa settlement. We have heard references to that particular hapū and their claim for the Kohukohu Police Station to be returned to them. We should not be surprised at the position that Te Ihutai took on this matter, and we should not be surprised by the position that Te Rarawa took on this matter, because it really is a case of mana whenua. It is the land upon which the police station stands that is the defining matter that determines which tribe has mana whenua. I can understand Te Ihutai wanting to acknowledge their Ngāpuhi ancestry, and seeing the possible return of the police station to them under the Te Rarawa settlement may indicate to generations to come that that part of the Hokianga is, in fact, Te Rarawa land.

I just want to make a comment about the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board. I think it reflects and represents the people of the north, and any criticism that may have been levelled against it by a sitting councillor I think was just politicking on the part of that particular councillor.

I cannot say enough in terms of commending this bill to the House. I say that we will certainly be supporting it to the next stage, towards legislation. Kia ora rā.

Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā. I stand to support this piece of legislation—this bill, I should say—as it comes before the House, because the bill gives effect to a deed of settlement in which the Crown, Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa agreed to what we have often called in the past a “full and final settlement”, but what I would like to think of as cementing an ongoing partnership for long-term engagement between iwi and the Crown. In doing so, once again Treaty settlements are leading the legislative way in terms of breathing life into this omnibus bill format.

It used to be that omnibus bills were reserved for a specific set of circumstances—that they would be used as finance bills or confirmation bills, or to validate authorised action and regulation. They might be used in form for Māori Purposes bills—one or more Acts relating to Māori affairs—or they could be applied to statutes amendment bills or Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills. But Treaty settlement legislation has given a whole new meaning to omnibus bills. As we have heard, it has taken some 30 years to bring these four groups together, and for some who have not taken the opportunity to get involved, the provision has, as noted by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, been left there for them to do so when they are ready.

The bill is expected to be divided into five parts in the Committee of the whole House. Beyond those technicalities, these four iwi have come together, and that must be appreciated. E te Mana Whakawā, you have often heard or you may have heard me speak about my relationship to Papawai Marae. Through Papawai Marae, my ancestor the kuia Niniwa-i-te-rangi was able to stand on marae around the country to progress something called Kotahitanga, or the coming together of peoples to speak up for the causes of Māori. Also in my maiden speech I spoke about the confederation of Ngāpuhi chiefs. Those rangatira congregated 180 years ago at Te Hiku o te Ika to literally fly their own flag, to declare independence, and to celebrate this land as an independent nation in its own right—a nation rich in our own customs, language, culture, and systems of social and economic support. That is rangatiratanga.

I referred to the late Ērima Hēnare in my maiden speech. He spoke of that declaration. He said the words of the declaration come right from the heart of Māori, from the eyes, from the mind, the face of Māori. I chose to repeat those words today in respect of my colleague, to highlight that his words may in fact have been prophetic in the coming together of these groups in Te Hiku at this time. If ever we are able to advance in this land, the spirit of partnership must be realised, not just in terms of this legislation but for culture, integrity, and moral, political, spiritual, social, and economic independence as Treaty partners.

I want to refer to one particular aspect of this bill as highlighting the unique demonstration of kotahitanga between Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa. That is the commitment under the korowai to the respective partners establishing, maintaining, and strengthening their positive cooperative and enduring relationships, guided by some principles. I want to refer to those principles here. First and most fundamental is the intent to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The second principle is to respect the autonomy of each party and its individual mandate, role, and responsibility. I think this is a really important acknowledgment—that unity can be achieved through diversity. That means standing side by side and not one on top of the other.

The third commitment is that the four far north iwi and the Crown will actively work together, using shared knowledge and expertise. This active working relationship will be facilitated through the fourth principle, which is to cooperate in partnership in a spirit of good faith, integrity, honesty, transparency, and accountability. The fifth principle is a timely reminder to us all that respectful relationships do not allow space for conflict to grow. That principle is to engage early on issues of known interest to any other parties.

The sixth principle consolidates the importance of cultural capital, enabling and supporting the use of Te Reo Māori and tikanga Māori. This set of principles concludes with an acknowledgment that the parties’ relationship is evolving and provides room for those who are yet to come on board. I want to acknowledge this. Te Hiku o te Ika has in fact gifted a set of unique principles to the legislature and indeed to the nation.

Finally, I want to mention the importance of the customary materials plan and wāhi tapu framework, which has been set out in Part 4 and Part 5 of schedule 20. It is beholden on all New Zealanders to appreciate the significance of the protection laid out in this bill for the spiritual and cultural integrity of Te Rerenga Wairua as a reserve. This bill recognises the significance of Te Rerenga Wairua, meaning the leaping place of the spirits, if you want to give it a translation—I would rather not. It is from here that the spirits of the dead are believed to depart, and as we tread carefully we must always acknowledge the mana whenua in guiding us on how we are to act in these times. The coming together and the unity that has been displayed by these groups, these iwi, this mana whenua, who have come together in supporting this piece of legislation, is indeed an example for the rest of this nation to follow. We can do things together, side by side, not one on top of the other, whilst respecting each other’s diversity and mana at the same time. That is my contribution to today’s debate. Everybody has highlighted the importance of this, and I want to stand and support it. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ā, tēnā koe e te Māngai o te W’are, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki ngā iwi nei o Te Hiku o Te Ika, a Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa. Anei ahau e tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou i ’ara mai nei ki te w’akarongo ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ka nui te mi’i atu ki a koutou e kaha ana kia tae ake ki tēnei rā. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so thank you, Mr Speaker. It is fitting indeed that a welcome is accorded to these people of the Tail of the Fish, Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa, and I do so by welcoming you who have come here to listen to the address about this bill. Your efforts to be here today are greatly appreciated, and so congratulations, indeed, to you collectively and to us all.]

It is a real pleasure to speak on this bill, and indeed on any settlement bill that comes through this House. To get to the second reading or to get to the stage of processing legislation through this House is without a doubt a huge journey. It has been a long journey for these particular iwi, and I want to acknowledge them again today. I also want to acknowledge the negotiators from the iwi and the Crown officials as well who have helped put this bill together. I want to acknowledge the Minister for his work on creating these enduring settlements so that our iwi can move forward after going through some traumatic experiences—historical and traumatic events—that have happened over a very long time. These settlements are instruments to recognise that and give the opportunity to move on, and I will speak further on that later on.

I want to focus on two particular areas. The first is cultural redress, and in particular statutory acknowledgment, and also the elements of the deeds that do not appear in this bill. I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for the work it has done on this omnibus bill. As I understand it, the reason for having this omnibus bill is that much of the redress across the four packages is shared. It overlaps, and I have seen the maps of the areas of interest. They are huge overlapping areas, and some of them are entirely overlapping.

These claims settlement bills have been put together as omnibus legislation to ensure that each bill is enacted on the same day. The four elements will therefore be implemented at the same time, allowing the provision of shared and overlapping redress to happen at the same time. I think it is important for the House to note that that is the reason why. Then, of course, this particular bill will be split into five different Acts of Parliament. The other area that I want to speak about is the elements of the deeds that do not appear in this bill.

So statutory acknowledgments are where the Crown will consider giving a statutory acknowledgment over defined sites or features on Crown-owned land that are of high significance to the claimant group. They may include rivers, lakes, wetlands, mountains, forests, islands, coastal areas, and other such areas traditionally of high importance to iwi in that group.

What is the purpose of these statutory acknowledgments? They give the opportunity to participate in such things as the Environment Court and to cite the statement of association for any individual whānau, hapū, or iwi as part of their submission to such groups as the Environment Court and Heritage New Zealand, and to have that recognised or considered within those processes. That is what the statutory acknowledgments in all settlements are about.

In this settlement Ngāti Kurī have four statutory acknowledgments, Te Aupōuri have six, Ngāi Takoto have nine, and Te Rarawa have areas of significance, as well, within these bills. For me, that gives a really important acknowledgment within those authorities to have that importance recognised when dealing with those pieces of land, and I want to acknowledge that redress mechanism as part of the cultural reconnection that is evident throughout this particular bill.

I want to spend some time also on the elements that are not in the bill. First of all, I want to look at the financial redress and the social—I will do the financial redress first. We have a settlement here with a value of more than $97 million. It is a huge amount of money—more than $21 million for Ngāti Kurī, $21 million for Te Aupōuri, $21 million for Ngāi Takoto, and almost $34 million for Te Rarawa.

These are significant amounts, but like all settlements—and it has been said before in this House—it is but a fraction of the value of what was lost. It is not compensation; it is redress, and there is a significant difference between redress and compensation. If it were compensation it would bankrupt our country, probably, and, having said that, why would you do it? Having been in that position myself before, I suspect that every iwi claimant negotiator asks themselves: “Why would you settle for a fraction of what we have lost?”. It is an important question to ask oneself. I think the answer to that is that it provides opportunities for future generations to move from a place of grievance and of historical and intergenerational trauma to a place of being able to address all of those things that we bear because of the breaches and because of the omissions of the Crown. So I want to congratulate all of the iwi in this settlement bill, Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa, on having the courage to go to this place and to take this pathway to settling these historical grievances.

Nō reira, e ngā iwi o Te Hiku o Te Ika ngā mi’i ki a koutou katoa, kia ora rawa.

[So my acknowledgments to you, the people of the Tail of the Fish; it is appreciated very much.]

Tuatahi, he mihi ki Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kurī, e te iwi ngā mihi ki a koutou.

[First of all, I acknowledge Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Kurī, greetings to you the people.]

Today is an important day. It is a significant day. I was just hearing other speakers reflecting on the 30 years that have gone into this process. It must feel like a really long car trip with the kids in the back saying: “Are we there yet?”, and today it feels like it might be the day that it might be OK to say: “OK, tell me, who’s the first who is going to see the ocean?”, because we are almost there. We are at the second reading of Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill and there are only a couple more stages to go before this is settled. So it is an important day. It is a significant day, as it has been for 46 other claimants over the last 7 years, and it has been great to see so many of these outstanding issues being settled. I think that what it does is it allows each of these parties to be able to find a place from which to move on and—as Adrian Rurawhe, the previous speaker, has talked about—there is a significant financial component to this settlement that will, in part, allow, I guess, the iwi of Te Hiku to be able to start to move on and be able to invest in Northland again. I think that is a positive thing for Northland. It is a positive thing for the whānau and the hapū and the iwi of Te Hiku.

But what is also critically important is the cultural aspect of these settlements. It is not just about money; it is, for some, about the restoration of mana. It is about restoration in order to put right some of the things that have been wrong over a long period of time. So, without wanting to repeat all of the words that have been said so well by so many this morning, I do just want to commend the great work that has been done by the Hon Chris Finlayson. I think it is fantastic to hear the acknowledgment from all around this House today of the great work that he has done. I just want to commend this bill to the House, and I wish the iwi of Te Hiku the very best for the rest of this process and for your future once settlement is reached. Thank you.

E ngā iwi o Te Hiku o Te Ika, tēnei e tāpiri atu aku mihi ki ērā i whārikihia i mua i tō koutou aroaro i tēnei wā. Kua tae ki tēnei wāhanga ki te whakamārama ētehi o ngā tīnihanga e pā ana ki ō koutou tutukitanga, ahakoa he iti, tēnā pea he wāhanga anō hei whaioranga mō ētehi o ō koutou nei hiahia i mua i te aroaro o te komiti whakahaere, e tika ana me mihi atu ki te Minita, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To all the people of Te Hiku o Te Ika, I add my acknowledgments to those accorded before you at this point in time. We have arrived at this stage to explain some of the amendments relating to your settlement, and although they may be minimal there may be a part, as well, of benefit to some of your aspirations before the select committee. It is fitting that I acknowledge the Minister, and us all as well.]

It gives me great pleasure to follow my colleagues and support the comments that they have made in relation to this particular settlement bill, Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. I was on the select committee that travelled to Kaitāia and listened to the submissions. I thought I would share some insight into how we deliberated over the issues that were brought to us—this is a second reading, not a third reading. It will explain some of the reasons why the changes that have been made were made, but it will give a context to the limited extent to which the Māori Affairs Committee can, in fact, change settlement legislation, and we are quite acutely aware of that around the select committee table.

We are also aware, as we go out into the rohe to listen to the Treaty settlement claims interests within iwi of hapū and of whanau, that there are a number of things that it would be wrong for us to try to address. We cannot address internal whānau disputes that have often arisen as a result of this type of process, we are not there to arbitrate on whakapapa, and we have a limited ability to make extensive changes to a negotiated outcome between the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the respective iwi. Once we have got that out on the table when we go around through the submission process, I have found that the response may not be altogether tolerant of the role of the Māori Affairs Committee, but submitters are understanding in terms of how we could add value, and this is one way that we have been able to achieve the intent of what is in the legislation being reflected in the deed.

My colleague Adrian Rurawhe actually highlighted it quite subtly, but he did a very good job at identifying that our role is to ensure that what is intended in the deed is reflected in the legislation. If we feel through either the submission process or the information coming back from the advisers that that is not sufficiently clear, we will ask questions and we will seek to ensure that what is in the legislation that protects the interests of those iwi who have got their settlement is actually what is being expressed.

With that said, the submissions that came to the select committee were, on the whole, very supportive. Nobody from any other iwi is going to make comment on how challenging this task is and how difficult this road is to walk.

I listened with a significant sense of not knowing the full circumstances of the relationships and whakapapa to the interests to Te Ihutai, for example. In fact, when we pursued some of their concerns around the Kohukohu Police Station, we did ask questions of the officials as to whether it would be easier to put this particular property out of the settlement and wait, or to leave it in the settlement. We asked Te Rarawa: “Have you consulted sufficiently enough with Te Ihutai and assured that their interests will not be prejudicially affected?”. We gained information that gave us the level of confidence to say that the manner in which the Minister has negotiated and proposed a way forward around Kohukohu and the amendment that we were able to achieve around the definition of historic claims do give that level of protection. But also there was a letter of confirmation from Te Rarawa around the prospective interests of Te Ihutai that might be addressed in another claim. These are quite complex issues and we are kind of skimming through them in the second reading process, but it does underpin the level of detail with which the Minister, his negotiators, the advisers, and the respective iwi have to try to work these types of things through.

I also want to make a point around the Ngāti Kahu submission. We got a very strong submission to say that those interests in themselves should be left separate from this particular claim for a number of reasons. When we, again, distilled through what was actually being preserved in Part 14 of the bill in relation to the Wai 1695 claim, we felt that the way in which the interests in the accumulated rentals have been preserved was the right way to go and, in fact, that does not prejudicially affect the comprehensive interests of Ngāti Kahu. I suspect that some of us may be criticised for continuing down this process, but again, on judgment and on balance, we felt that there had been sufficient consultation to be able to preserve those types of interests.

We made minor amendments in the bill in relation to the change of names and things like that with regard to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act. They did not change the substance of the intent of the bill.

Where I want to focus my contribution in this second reading is actually on the mechanisms to make this particular settlement work in its entirety. There are a number of interlocking bits of legislation that would have regard to what is being achieved in each of these settlements: the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, the Conservation Act, the Fisheries Act, the Land Transport Act, the heritage Act that I referred to earlier, the Reserves Act—to name just a few. It is absolutely critical for those iwi under Te Hiku claims settlement that those interlocking bits of legislation are able to help achieve what is intended in their respective Acts.

The reason why I comment on this is that the proof is always in the pudding. We are debating the legislation, but not its application. When we have the third reading and then we will go away and celebrate what iwi have achieved, they are left with having to work with Government departments, local government, and officials in ways that do not give them direct access at a ministerial level to ensure that the intent and the integrity of the agreements are being delivered in these other areas.

I think, Minister, one of the innovations that you have been able to achieve in your time in this particular portfolio is the post settlement commitments unit within the Office of Treaty Settlements. I am sure, certainly from when I have heard you speak about the review of how the legislation is being implemented and things like that, it is in this space that the integrity of what has been agreed to in the legislation can be monitored, and I welcome the ongoing role of that.

So, not to be too trite, but I have to say that events in the last couple of weeks have made me look at the right of first refusal clauses with a lot more diligence. Minister, this is no reflection on you personally—you have been absolutely robust in your efforts to continue with Treaty settlements. But can I foreshadow in the Committee stage that it will be of some interest, I think, to pursue the intent of what is written with some of the realities of its application, and I will give just one example. In Hamilton East, Housing New Zealand onsold a particular house that was under right of first refusal back to Tainui. There has been court action around that particular process. This is not a reflection on any one Government; this is a reflection on a process where, although it was protected in legislation, it became the subject of court action. That is because, I think, at that particular time people just were not aware that they had other obligations under other bits of legislation.

So I am foreshadowing that in the Committee stage—if it is not going to be too onerous for you, Minister—some questions on the right of refusal may just come up. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to be the final speaker and the last humble voice in this debate on the second reading of Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. It is for me to sum up and just thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, as most of the speakers have, for his mahi, his work, on bringing this bill to the House. I also thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Debates like this are a real privilege to listen to, because as a Parliament we are almost speaking with one voice, unified in addressing the wrongs of the past and the grievances of the past. I just want to acknowledge the select committee members.

I also acknowledge the 25 submitters who took the time, the effort, and the energy to submit on this bill. Thank you for helping with this process. It makes you proud to be a New Zealander when you see this process come to fruition, especially after the struggles of getting this bill to the House.

Finally, may I just add that we cannot really address the grievances of the past, but this bill and the resources that will flow from it will be for the rangatahi, for the kids, the children, and future generations. It is for the cultural, spiritual, and social development of the four iwi that are represented within this bill. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.