Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This is an iwi with customary interests in Tāmaki-makau-rau, particularly in Hikurangi and in the Waitakere Ranges. The settlement is very important. It settles the longstanding grievances of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, an iwi whose land was gradually alienated from tribal control until its members were rendered landless. The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and has submitted its commentary to the House. I want to thank the chair and the committee for the work that they have done. I also want to thank other Ministers, departments, and officials who have worked on this bill.

The committee has made a number of recommendations for amendments to the bill, and these include an amendment to the timing of the shared right of first refusal between Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Marutūahu iwi, and Ngāti Whātua; the change of name of the Historic Places Trust, amended to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, in line with the 2014 legislation; the increase in size of cultural redress property, and I particularly refer to Te Hēnga site B, from 7 hectares to 11 hectares; and a couple of technical amendments as well. As these amendments are, I hope, uncontroversial and technical in nature, they should be adopted in their totality.

The committee heard submissions in Auckland and Wellington. Most submissions supported the bill. However, some submissions sought recognition of informal interests in Te Hēnga site B, which is a site located near the Waitakere Ranges. The submitters were representatives of families whose private properties adjoin this site. Te Hēnga site B is to be vested in Te Kawerau-a-Maki as a historic reserve, to recognise the customary interests of the iwi in this area. I note the committee’s assessment of the longstanding connection between the neighbouring families and Te Hēnga beach area. I intend to address this issue in a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill, and I will progress that in the House during the Committee stage. The Supplementary Order Paper will make changes to reflect the agreement reached between Te Kawerau-a-Maki and the families, to recognise and formalise the informal interests in Te Hēnga site B. The Supplementary Order Paper will also make necessary technical changes for clarification and consistency with the deed of settlement.

Let me say something about rights of first refusal, because, as is passably obvious to those who have been following this place in recent times, there has been some media coverage and debate in the House about rights of first refusal, and I refer particularly to the affordable housing initiative in Auckland and the rights of first refusal negotiated through Treaty settlements. Rights of first refusal are a vital part of Treaty settlements, and have been ever since the 1995 settlement with Waikato-Tainui. They recognise the importance of an iwi or claimant group rebuilding their landholdings and their relationship to the land as tangata whenua. Sometimes Crown land that is significant to an iwi is not available for immediate use in their settlements, and that is why rights of first refusal are negotiated—to give the iwi the opportunity to buy the land if it becomes available in the future. A right of first refusal is not valued in financial terms or counted against the settlement quantum, but it is simply the right to purchase certain Crown land at market value if it becomes surplus in the future.

Rights of first refusal are reasonably straightforward, but a number of things have to be borne in mind. First, rights of first refusal are subject to existing third-party rights and statutory requirements, the most well-known example of which is the provision relating to offer-backs in the Public Works Act. Secondly, not every right of first refusal is the same, so the provisions of specific rights of first refusal must be examined carefully before the Crown disposes of the land. So, for example, I say to Nanaia Mahuta that she will be aware of the terms of the right of first refusal in the Waikato-Tainui legislation, which is very similar to the right of first refusal in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, in very broad terms. More recently, that needs to be compared with, for example, the right of first refusal in the Tāmaki Collective redress legislation, which is of a different type altogether, and then one has to look at the right of first refusal in this legislation. The fact of the matter is that you have an arm’s length negotiation in relation to these—there is no boilerplate provision. They need to be negotiated carefully and stepped through carefully so that people do not trip over themselves.

The bill provides Te Kawerau-a-Maki with three different rights of first refusal. It sets out an exclusive right of first refusal over certain land—for example, Clarke House and Te Onekiritea Point land. Then there is a shared right of first refusal with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara in relation to the Auckland prison land. Finally, there is a future shared right of first refusal with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Marutūahu iwi in relation to Crown-owned land within a certain land area. Te Kawerau-a-Maki are also part of the Tāmaki Collective, which has rights of first refusal under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. So in relation to any particular piece of land, the first issue is going to be: is it covered by a right of first refusal; if so, what are the terms of that right of first refusal? Do not assume that the terms of that right of first refusal will be the same as that for adjoining land, because they may not be. That is why it is important to pay close attention.

As I have said on a number of occasions to the Tāmaki iwi, and I say it again, I am keeping a close eye on this matter through the post settlement commitments unit because these rights of first refusal—for example, in the case of the Tāmaki Collective—are very valuable. That one will last for 172 years, so it important to make sure that we get things right at the start. This Government is utterly committed to meeting its Treaty obligations, including ones relating to rights of first refusal, and very much wants a positive and constructive relationship with its Treaty partners.

I want to thank Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Te Hēnga families for their goodwill and their engagement through this process. I think that there has been very useful engagement. It is one of those things where informal arrangements may be able to be formalised as a result of this Treaty settlement, and I would have thought that that would suit Te Hēnga families very well indeed. I also want to thank Marutūahu and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua for their engagement on the shared right of first refusal issues. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise to address Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill in its second reading. Initially I would just like to thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his explanation around the right of first refusal. I think it is informative for all of us to know that not all rights of first refusal are created equally, and the Minister did explain that very well. Although I had read in the bill about the different rights of first refusal it just did not really click until he explained it then—such as the exclusive right of first refusal, the shared right of first refusal, or the future shared right of first refusal. So thank you very much, Minister.

Te Kawerau-a-Maki is an iwi, as the Minister has said, with customary interests that extend around the Tāmaki isthmus area and through to the Waitakere Ranges and even further north. It is often thought that Ngāti Whātua were the exclusive iwi of that area. The reality is that there were other smaller groups who also had interests, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki is one of those groups. So in 2008 the Crown recognised the mandate of Te Kawerau Iwi Authority to represent Te Kawerau-a-Maki in negotiating a comprehensive settlement of their claims, and the Crown signed terms of negotiation with Te Kawerau-a-Maki on 7 August in 2008. In June 2009 Sir Douglas Graham delivered a proposal to the iwi and hapū of the Kaipara, Mahurangi, Makaurau, Hauraki, and Coromandel regions that all iwi and hapū in those regions, including Te Kawerau-a-Maki, enter direct negotiations with the Crown.

In February 2010 the Crown and Te Kawerau-a-Maki negotiated an agreement in principle that formed the basis of this settlement. On 12 December 2013 Te Kawerau-a-Maki and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. The deed was then ratified by Te Kawerau-a-Maki community and signed on 22 February 2014.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the circumstances around Te Kawerau-a-Maki are a great case in point in that if you could write a manual that you could send back to the colonial forefathers of what not to do and how not to treat an iwi, this is one of them. Some of the summary to the historical background to the claims by Te Kawerau-a-Maki is this. In the 1840s Te Kawerau-a-Maki had little direct contact with the Crown. However, there were pre-Treaty land transactions between other iwi and early European settlers, and that saw the alienation of certain Te Kawerau-a-Maki lands.

From 1841 the Land Claims Commission investigated these pre-Treaty transactions. There is no evidence Te Kawerau-a-Maki chiefs were involved in these transactions, and when resolving them the Crown failed to consider Te Kawerau-a-Maki’s interests, it granted settlers the land, and it even retained surplus land. Not many people understand the whole surplus land policy. Basically, say someone said that they had a hectare of land and it was eventually surveyed out. It might have been 10 hectares. Instead of the 9 hectares being given back to the tribe, the Crown kept it for itself, and so dispossessed the iwi of the land.

In 1841 the Crown purchased an extensive area around Mahurangi and Ōmaha. Ōmaha, we know, is a very exclusive sort of seaside spot these days. It included land in which Te Kawerau-a-Maki held shared interests with other Kawerau groups. They were not consulted on that sale. The Crown did not conduct an investigation of customary rights when it purchased these lands, nor did it provide adequate compensation in reserves when it later learnt of Te Kawerau-a-Maki’s interests in the area.

In 1848 the Crown commenced a systematic programme of land purchase in the west and immediate north of Auckland to provide land for settlers, and that included 100,000 acres of the Waitakere Ranges. I think it is important to remember that figure—100,000 acres—and that this is in the heart of Te Kawerau-a-Maki’s land. The Crown did not conduct an adequate investigation of customary rights in this area, and dealt with Te Kawerau-a-Maki only after purchasing land from other iwi. So no reserves were set aside for Te Kawerau-a-Maki in the large Hikurangi block. Hikurangi is an area around west Auckland, and it is not well-known that that is the actual name. Also, the Pīhā and the Waitakere native reserves, which were created for Te Kawerau-a-Maki, were not protected from later alienation.

The reason I ask members to remember that figure of 100,000 acres in Waitakere itself, in the ranges—and this is just the ranges; it does not include other areas of land that were alienated from Te Kawerau-a-Maki—is that if we go to some of the cultural redress and some of the sites transferred to Te Kawerau-a-Maki through this bill, it says that nine sites will be vested in Te Kawerau-a-Maki, totalling approximately 31 hectares. So if we consider that 100,000 acres was taken in the Waitakere Ranges alone—we are not counting Mahurangi and Ōmaha and all the other areas—and that nine sites are going to be vested, totalling approximately 31 hectares, we can see, actually, the generosity of the people of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. They are not saying: “We want all that land back and we want everyone who is squatting on our land to pay us rent and to make millionaires out of us.” All they are saying in terms of the cultural redress is that they want recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations Te Kawerau-a-Maki has had with the places and the sites owned by the Crown within their areas of interest.

Just imagine the generosity of that. They are just saying they want cultural recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations. They are not saying: “Give us back all the land.” They are not saying: “Pay us rent.” They are not saying: “Back-pay us rent back to 1841.” They simply want something that will cost New Zealand very little—that is, recognition of their interests. I can only thank the generosity of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and other iwi who have also said similar things, because there is a great conversation out there that Māori are just money-hungry, land-grabbing people who need to get over themselves. I think that this proves that that is absolutely not the point.

There are other lands as well at Muriwai, Parihoa, Opareira, and Wai Whauwhaupaku that will be vested in Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Many of these areas are Department of Conservation lands, and they will come with some covenants and reserve status. So even though they are saying that these lands belong to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, there are covenants and Te Kawerau-a-Maki does not necessarily have full say over what goes on in those lands.

I would just like to mention briefly Te Hēnga Block, which the Minister has also mentioned. There are some families that have lived adjacent to Te Hēnga Block, and they wanted to have some sort of formalisation of land access on to the blocks as well as the delivery of utilities. They have had informal access and utility delivery for a number of years, but they just want that formalised. It is my understanding that the Department of Conservation, which currently administers the public land as a reserve, has offered to grant concessions in the form of easements under the Conservation Act to authorise existing utilities for a term of 30 years, with a right of renewal for another 30 years.

In relation to the vehicle access we understand that Te Kawerau-a-Maki is prepared to grant a right-of-way easement for a term of 60 years. So although the Crown initially proposed that any grant of a vehicle easement be unregistered, given the potential shifting topography of the area it was later agreed, after the request of all parties, that it be registered to provide certainty. Again, I think that is a really nice tidying-up of that particular block for those adjacent landowners.

Once again, I would just like to acknowledge Te Kawerau-a-Maki, the Māori Affairs Committee, which has overseen this bill, and the Minister, of course, for his fine work in making this all happen. Kia ora.

Ka mihi e te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i te Whare Mīere nei, ka mihi ki ngā mema katoa, ngā mihi.

[I appreciate that, Mr Speaker, and greetings to all the members throughout this Beehive, my thanks to you all.]

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 22 February 2014. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge two stalwarts who were very much responsible for really being the pouwhenua of this claims settlement bill. They were Te Kawerau-a-Maki kaumātua. Haere atu rā e Maryanne Rāpata. Haere atu rā e Eru Thompson. Nō reira, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai.

Looking back at the history of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, I want to cover it just generally, because there have been some specifics already given here. I am sure that the members of the Māori Affairs Committee will actually talk specifics about various parts of the bill. I want to give an overview first of all because the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, did a very good overview. I just want to sort of concentrate on a couple of points there. I want to move into an area, particularly around Te Hēnga sites, particularly Te Hēnga site B and the whānau of Te Hēnga, and also the goodwill shown by Te Kawerau-a-Maki.

Looking back at the history of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, we see that they have been a very disenfranchised people. This iwi, beginning very soon after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, had all of its land systematically stripped from it. The alienation of their land has had a devastating effect on Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Previously they were an iwi secure in their lands, with food resources so plentiful that they invited their neighbours to come and share and stay during the time of seasonal fishing. But after the alienation of much of the land and the death of their chief in 1912, most members of the iwi moved into the settlements of related iwi.

For some time, historians considered Te Kawerau-a-Maki a lost tribe, although that was an assumption born of ignorance. Te Kawerau-a-Maki remains an iwi without a marae, but it is pleasing to see that the plans are in place to establish a marae at Te Hēnga. I hope for that for Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and I am sure that they can see that happen.

Eru Thompson was a good friend of mine. We travelled a lot, particularly internationally. Looking at the vision that he had, along with other kaumātua who drove the settlement process, that vision was actually the fact that they wanted it recognised, first of all, that they were the mana whenua of Waitakere—that was really important to them—and that they soon wanted their marae on their own lands. Looking at those two points, this is what is actually very much in this bill, in this legislation. The final part of it was that they did want to build a financial future for their people.

But moving to the next point, I want to cover off one of the major issues that we looked at in the Māori Affairs Committee during the consideration of this bill, and that is actually around the submission process. We heard the main submissions in Auckland. We heard submissions from the families who have owned land adjoining the land affected by the settlements for a long time. Their issue arises because they historically have used Department of Conservation land to access their own. They have used some of the services and infrastructure on that Department of Conservation land.

The interesting thing about meeting those families during the submission process was we found that there was very little engagement that they had ever had with Te Kawerau-a-Maki. So at the submissions process that, to me, was a catalyst for those engagements to happen. What happened was that it was the officials whom we then asked to be able to facilitate those ongoing engagements with those families from Te Hēnga, the non-Māori, engaging with Te Kawerau-a-Maki. So in doing that, that actually did happen, but we still have to look at what the issue was within it. They had a longstanding arrangement that had never been formally or legally allowed by the Crown. Now that some of this conservation land will be transferred to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, the families involved are seeking to have these access rights formalised.

Representatives of the family, as I said, came to the committee to ask that we build into the legislation a legally recognised right for them to use the land for vehicle access and to continue to use some of the utilities on the land. They explained the longstanding attachment their families have had to this land through their long-term use of the land through several generations and the fact that they scattered the ashes of whānau members there.

It seems, though, that when the land was originally subdivided in 1947, the intention was that access to the sites be by way of the beach. However, this is no longer seen as adequate. So the families, as I said, have asked that they be granted permanent easements for vehicle and utility access. However, the Conservation Act 1987 does not provide for permanent easements. The Department of Conservation has offered to grant concessions for the use of utilities for 30 years, with a right of renewal for a further 30 years. This is the basis of the ongoing discussions with those families and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. These arrangements are not actually included in the bill, and, as the Minister said previously, the fact is that this negotiation of terms is still ongoing and will be picked up, hopefully, in a Supplementary Order Paper.

Since 1840 the story of Te Kawerau-a-Maki has been one of great sadness. So much was taken from them. In every iwi we lost something in the tragic period after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, but there are few who can look back on such annihilation of their assets, their land, and consequently their mana.

The deed of settlement and this bill, which gives effect to it, seek to restore some of what was lost and to provide an economic base for Te Kawerau-a-Maki to move forward. I look forward, in the next stage, which is the third reading, to really welcoming those rangatira of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and their whanau members to this House for the third reading, hopefully to be able to see that the economic, social, and cultural success that they are destined to achieve will be theirs in the future. I commend this bill to the House. Huri noa i tō Whare, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

Ā, tēnā tātou e te Whare, e tika ana me mihi atu ki a koutou rā o Te Kawerau-a-Maki, ā, e tika ana anō me whakaaro ake ki tērā o ngā kaumātua ki a Matua Eru, nō reira e te pāpā tēnei e whakaaro ake ana ki a koe i tēnei wā. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so greetings to us the House. It is apt indeed that I welcome you, those of you of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and just as fitting that we think about that one of the elderly, Mr Eru, therefore I consider you at this moment oh fatherly figure. My appreciation to us all.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to join in and support the second reading of Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill. Often when we speak on settlement bills, we think: “Now, what salient piece of information can we pass over that gives relevance or a connection to a particular settlement?”. Well, here is mine: when I was around about 12 or 13, we used to have wānanga within our iwi, and we got taken to Te Hēnga for wānanga to learn about our history and to learn about the northernmost iwi that protects the border of Waikato—enough said. There are a lot of competing interests in Auckland, but my salient memories are of going to places in west Auckland and hearing about the connections that Waikato-Tainui have to this particular area, to the tūpuna there, and, more important, about our relationship to the people of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. In fact, Te Wārena Taua used to run those particular wānanga, and one thing that was impressed upon me at such a young age, and continues to impress upon me, was the passion with which he would hold on to those stories of old, and to the places. There were things that he shared with us—that in a place like Auckland you actually have to visit places and get a sense of how our ancestors lived to really gain an appreciation of what it took for those tūpuna of ours to traverse this land, to settle where they decided to settle, and, more important, to live a way of life accustomed to their own environment.

I love the west coast of New Zealand, right from Te Hēnga all the way down to Mōkau. It is my favourite part of the country because it is rough, wild, and ready. It speaks to the resilience of New Zealanders.

Coming back to the bill, when we listened to the submissions—

💬 Pita Paraone: That’s why you won’t go further north—too rough and too wild.

Yes. When we listened to the submissions up in Auckland, there were a few things that absolutely had to be highlighted. I have to say that the chair of our committee, Nuk Korako, should be commended for this particular Treaty settlement bill. He managed, I felt, to steward through the committee some useful discussions on making the recommendations that you, Minister, will be introducing to the House as a Supplementary Order Paper.

One of those discussions that we had was around Kōpironui. It is an area where there is a common interest between Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. The mechanism in the bill enables the Māori Land Court to determine between the two iwi, or across the two iwi, their level of interest, and then to make a determination to a relevant post-settlement governance entity. The submission that we heard was a representation of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, upon the recommendation of the Māori Land Court: was it possible to transfer the ownership interest to the actual whānau rather than the post-settlement governance entity? We erred on the side of caution. We felt that the issue of determination absolutely had to belong to the Māori Land Court, and to try to say, as a select committee, that a third-party interest should therefore have a right as a result of that determination was probably not a prudent course of action to follow. We believe, Minister, in this interest, that your officials gave very good advice around that particular issue that we considered. And this has not been the first time that we have done that. In the Tūhoe settlement bill, the Māori Land Court had to determine levels of interest around the lake, I think, and the mechanism was there to be able to transfer those interests to the ahu whenua trust. What it does, I think, in the reality of the competing interests, is provide an opportunity for a space-saver—for the Māori Land Court to play a useful role in these types of decisions.

The other issue, which the chairman spoke to very well, was the representations that we received from three families: Mr Bellamy’s family, the Lusk whānau, and the Harre whānau. Mr Bellamy had his interests in Te Hēnga area conferred under the Conservation Act, and the Harre family had longstanding interests in Te Hēnga area. We spent some time as a select committee deliberating over the nature of their interests and the covenants that they had enjoyed, in terms of access to the property and the way in which they perceived their connection to the land. It almost felt like that was their tūrangawaewae. There was a lot of empathy in the committee for the way in which they had some natural heritage values that were being practised. I did get a sense that they felt somewhat left out of the settlement process, and their interests had not been taken into account through the negotiations. I am pleased that the select committee was able to address that and make some useful recommendations for the Minister to consider.

Some of those recommendations were around representations we heard that they wanted to have access for vehicles. They had walkway access to their property; they wanted vehicle access, and we had to determine what the extent of that vehicle access was. Was this one vehicle, or was it 50 vehicles? What is the nature of their property? Is this one house, or do they intend to build a few mansions on the property? After considering everything within context, here is a family that has a very small homestead that is visited by members of the family. They buried their mother there—this is the Harre whānau. They are not intending to have infrastructure access beyond what is currently on the property. We considered all of this and we determined that although they wanted permanent easement rights to be granted—we utilised the access provisions addressed in the Conservation Act and discussed the matter with Te Kawerau-a-Maki, who were very reasonable on this front—they had a 30-year occupation-type interest that could be renewed for another 30 years. We thought that was entirely reasonable.

It falls short of their representation; there is no doubt about that. We felt that what would keep their interest alive in Te Hēnga area, and keep their relationship with the whenua and that particular coastline active, is their relationship with Te Kawerau-a-Maki. And, in fact, Te Kawerau-a-Maki agreed as well that when this issue comes up in another 30 years, we would hope that the descendants of those who made submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee will have a mature enough relationship to revisit that discussion, to continue that live relationship with the whenua—the local tangata whenua, Te Kawerau-a-Maki—and then to be able to move forward. This is a practical outcome. I do not know whether it is an approach, Minister, that you have encountered in other settlement legislation, but I think it is a valuable one. I hope you feel that the select committee was being constructive towards an outcome that reflected a Treaty settlement that could benefit everybody and have, at the heart, a settlement that could work to the objectives of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and their longstanding interests in the area, and for other families who have longstanding interests in the area. It will not negatively affect public access to a very popular part of Auckland, and it does preserve the ongoing importance of a relationship with the whenua, with the moana, and with that particular area.

Nō reira, taku kōrero māku hei whakarāpopoto i ngā whakaaro o tō mātou komiti.

[So that is my contribution from me as a summary of our committee’s views.]

Thank you.

Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill. I am pleased to stand here to do this, because it gives effect to the deed of settlement that Te Kawerau-a-Maki signed with the Crown on 22 February 2014.

Te Kawerau-a-Maki are descendants of the youngest son of their ancestor Maki, named Tāwhiākiterangi, who also took the name of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Te Kawerau-a-Maki, an iwi from Tāmaki-makau-rau and also an iwi that is part of the collective of Tāmaki-makau-rau, have a number of historical grievances. This is because the extensive Crown land purchases after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 left them landless. Even the reserves that were supposed to have been set aside for Te Kawerau-a-Maki were never protected, and so that also added to the alienation of this iwi from the land, their whenua. This is an important bill because it is settling the grievances for Te Kawerau-a-Maki and is a significant step towards settlement of these historical claims. We acknowledge here that the Crown can never fully compensate for the wrongdoings done to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, but we are making steps towards that and we are helping to develop for them strong cultural and economic futures through this bill.

To do with the cultural and financial redress: there is $6.5 million that will be used to assist Te Kawerau-a-Maki to purchase Riverhead Forest, which is land at Te Onekiritea Point, or Hobsonville, as well as a contribution of $300,000 for the establishment of Te Kawerau-a-Maki marae. Other cultural redress will include vesting of significant cultural sites to the iwi. This is a very good start for Te Kawerau-a-Maki, because with this they will be able to grow their economic base and, again, contribute towards the number of iwi that have already been settled and contribute towards economic development not only for themselves but for the region, or the rohe, that they are in, and that contributes to the economic development of this country.

My speech is going to be very short. I am going to finish off very shortly because we have a third reading on this bill. Time is of the essence. We need to get this very good bill, sponsored by the Hon Chris Finlayson, our outstanding Treaty negotiations Minister, passed. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou e te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a call for the Greens on the second reading of Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill.

I am not a usual member of the Māori Affairs Committee, so I feel incredibly privileged to have sat on that committee to hear the submissions on this bill and, in fact, to speak on this bill as well. It is a committee like no other committee in Parliament. I want to pay tribute to Nuk Korako, the chair of that committee, and to the members, who took great care to listen very carefully to the submissions that came through and to the advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements and our officials, so that we could come back to the House with a bill that we can be proud of and that the iwi can be proud of.

I went with the committee up to Auckland and listened to most of the submissions that were heard up there. I think there were a total of nine submissions that were heard orally and there were about 16 that were received as written submissions. I want to use my speech to acknowledge some of the issues that were raised during the submission process.

I want to start off by acknowledging the issues that others have spoken about already that were highlighted by the Lusk family, the Harre family, and the Bellamy family in relation to the return of the land known as Te Hēnga site B to Te Kawerau-a-Maki. It is fair to say that the select committee really did consider the issues around the families’ requests for easements to access their service utilities and to access their land, and others have spoken about this. I support the conclusion that the select committee reached, which was summarised in the report that came back to the House. I am going to read from it. It says: “We have empathy for the families concerned and recognise the family ties with the properties; however, we consider a 60 year duration for the vehicle access and a 30 year duration with a right of renewal for the services access to be reasonable, in line with similar provisions in the Conservation Act, and to provide for future-proofing.”

I would like to add that this provision enables the families to engage with Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and other speakers have talked about this as well. We would like to see them develop a relationship, and this provision allows that. It would be similar to the relationship, I guess, that some of the submitters talked about having with previous landowners whom they had these informal agreements with—they were farmers, for example. But I would certainly hope that as a result of this settlement, they would develop a neighbourly relationship with Te Kawerau-a-Maki as the new landowners, and I would say that that would be a very sensible approach. We also note that there will be amendments put through that sort of formalise the informal arrangement, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said.

Like others, I also want to touch on the aspects of the bill that talk about the right of first refusal. In my first reading speech on this bill, I outlined my concerns about competing claims between iwi. The Greens have an ongoing concern that settlement bills may set up iwi against iwi and hapū against hapū, and I have commented before on the Crown’s role in potentially creating new Treaty breaches as a consequence of settlement processes. But I think it is also important to note that we did receive submissions from other iwi. Some, like the submissions of Waikato-Tainui and Ngāti Manuhiri, were submissions of congratulations to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, but others—like, for example, the submission from Tracy Wīremu Rēweti on behalf of her whanau—outlined their concerns about their exclusion from the Kōpironui Block in Woodhill Forest. That was from the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara settlement.

Our colleague Nanaia Mahuta has already explained the restrictions that the select committee has and the fact that this was an issue that we felt needed to be dealt with, and should have been dealt with, by the Māori Land Court. We did receive good advice from our officials on it, so we do have to accept that it was outside the scope of the Māori Affairs Committee. But I did want to highlight that there is the potential for more grievances to be established as a result of these processes.

The Māori Affairs Committee, in the report back, has also tried to clarify other aspects of the bill. I note that the bill returns to the House with some small amendments in an attempt to clarify the issue around the right of first refusal over land and properties in those shared areas with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara in relation to the Auckland prison property and the periods for when that right of first refusal will apply. A similar clarification has also been sought for the shared right of first refusal with Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and the Marutūahu iwi with regard to the area of land on the Mahurangi coast.

At this point, I also want to mention the submission from the Auckland Council about Te Onekiritea Point and the return in the deed of settlement of what is actually only 2,800 square metres of land at the place that was previously known as Bomb Point, and that is for building a marae for Te Kawerau-a-Maki. The balance of the land on this peninsula is Crown land, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki have the right of first refusal to buy that land, although Auckland Council has the option to buy it first. So if Auckland Council does not want it, it has to put it up for sale, with the right of first refusal going back to Te Kawerau-a-Maki. I guess what makes me nervous about the right of first refusal in this instance is that the land is right next to the housing development by Hobsonville Land Co. Ltd. The council, in its submissions, said that it has had some discussions with the company and the iwi over the future development of Te Onekiritea Point, and we are already seeing issues where the right of first refusal over housing land is being challenged in the High Court. So I just wanted to get on record my nervousness about this, but others have stated previously their nervousness about rights of first refusal, as well.

It was good to hear the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations say in his statement that his Government does have a commitment to ensure that these settlements go through—including the right of first refusal provisions—and to ensure that they are upheld, so I take some comfort from that. I appreciated his explanation that not all right of first refusal provisions are the same.

We look forward to seeing this bill progress through the House in its final stages. We look forward to the fact that this does actually settle the claims for Te Kawerau-a-Maki. We do have to state for the record that we never see these settlements as being full and final. However, having said that, we will of course be supporting it. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi nui ki ngā iwi o Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ā, tēnā anō koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā anō hoki tātou e te Whare.

[And so greetings once again, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings once again to us the House.]

It gives me pleasure to stand in this debate, the second reading of Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill, and to signal that as with most settlement bills New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this. The bill gives effect to the deed of settlement that was signed in February last year. I am not quite sure whether there is some form of record, given the point that this bill has reached in less than 12 months, but suffice to say that we certainly welcome it. I want to also thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his explanation of the right of first refusal. Until my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta had mentioned it, I thought that I would wait for the Committee stage. But given that she commented on it and her response, I thank her for that clarification, although I have no doubt that during the Committee stage comment will certainly be made about that issue, for obvious reasons.

The bill makes reference to part of the quantum going towards the establishment of a marae. From my experience, particularly on my home marae, just to build a wharekai costs almost a million dollars so I am not quite sure whether $300 is going to go very far to the establishment of a marae for Te Kawerau-a-Maki.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Flash kai.

You get that, but you do not get pigeons. And you do not get size 13 toheroa either, but you certainly get size 13 tuna. But I digress.

Coming back to the bill, I notice that the bill does vest nine cultural sites to the iwi, and I think that is good for Te Kawerau-a-Maki. They could have been described as the lost tribe, given all the land transactions that were happening around them—yet they were ignored. I think that this bill goes a long way to re-establishing Te Kawerau-a-Maki on the landscape of iwi development, iwi location, and everything iwi in Aotearoa. I think part of that is due to the efforts made by one Te Wārena Taua. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta alluded to his knowledge of the history of his people, and in one so young—I must say that in him you see the benefit of people spending time with their grandparents and Te Kawerau older people. As a consequence the history of the tribe gets transmitted through them, and it is incumbent on them to ensure the transmission of that information to the next generation. I really believe that the consequences of this bill are as a result of the teachings that Te Wārena Taua was raised on.

The Māori Affairs Committee—as has already been referred to—looked at it, and I must say personally that one of the issues that I was quite surprised about was the issue surrounding what we have come to know as Te Hēnga families. The process of settlement had gone so far that this particular land, albeit conservation reserve land occupied by a number of families who had a contract between themselves and the Department of Conservation, had been overlooked and their first notice, or awareness, of this bill was as a result of an advertisement in the local paper. I listened with great intent as to their position, and although initially they may not agree with the findings of the committee, I think that it does cement in concrete for them over the next 60 years their right to occupy that part of Te Kawerau-a-Maki claims settlement. I have no doubts that they should not fear any repercussions from this settlement, and their following generations will certainly be able to continue to enjoy the benefits of their present contractual arrangements, not only with the Department of Conservation but with the iwi of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Can I say that the ongoing right of access to the three holiday homes will certainly be more secure for them, and the families will find comfort in the arrangement that has been reached.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations does intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will address a number of the issues that came up during the select committee process, and I look forward to seeing that. If I have read the Minister correctly, that will certainly get support from this quarter. There is not much that I can add that people have not already referred to. I do not think I need to repeat what they have said, other than to say that I commend this bill to the House, and look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading of the bill. Kia ora.

It is my great pleasure to commend the Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill to the House.

Kia ora. E te Mana Whakawā, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou ki te Whare.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, here is my acknowledgment to you, the House, collectively.]

In the interests of time, because we want to ensure that this bill passes into law with due haste, I am going to cut my comments short. I just want to touch on a few things. One is that the Māori Affairs Committee did work very hard to ensure that the views of all the submitters were taken into consideration, especially those of the families, as has been mentioned well and covered off well by everyone here. I do want to say, though, that is it very hard when you consider the amount of land that has been taken by dubious means, leaving this people virtually landless, and to give up one more inch, one more metre, or one more centimetre becomes very difficult for us to agree to. So I am actually very pleased with the outcome that has come about from the select committee process and I look forward to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is going to bring forward.

Also, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations often has lots of praise heaped upon him for his tireless work and the work of his officials—well-deserved, I am sure—but I do want to actually just quote, if I might, from Te Wārena Taua: “There were many elders who fought hard to retain our ancestral taonga. They fought hard to see our grievances brought before the Crown and now today it is all about them and our grandchildren to come, I’m happy.” So I want to remember those people who actually, for 175 years, have been trying to bring their grievances in front of a body that will listen to them, and finally we are able to do that. This is the second reading and I am sure that there will be plenty of time to articulate exactly what those grievances have been.

I look forward to the future, when Te Kawerau-a-Maki are able to set out their pathway and their plans to put their redress package to good use. So I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mana whenua o Te Waitakere ki Kawerau-a-Maki; te pō ka awatea, whiti ao, whiti ao, whiti, whiti ao! Ngā mate rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou.

[Greetings, accolades, and acknowledgments to you all of Te Waitakere Kawerau-a-Maki with the mandated authority over the lands there; listen, light comes to the night, it increases, increases, and increases ever rapidly, and behold, it is daylight! Allow the dead to be with the dead while we remain here in each other’s company.]

I would like to acknowledge the passing of our tīpuna of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Te Wārena Taua, Eru Thompson, and many others. I want to register the honour that I have been given, as one of the Pākehā members of the Te Kawerau rohe, along with my colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Phil Twyford, to acknowledge this proud, small iwi, and to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his work, and that of his officials and the chair, to bring this bill to the House. Can I also acknowledge the work of Sir Bob and Lady Harvey, who, in Waitakere City, gave great impetus to this settlement and to a new generation of Te Kawerau leaders like Rewi Spraggon and others, and of the urban marae Hoani Waititi Marae, which has been greatly supportive of this bill. Can I also acknowledge my colleagues Peeni Henare and Kelvin Davis, who have been instrumental in their support for this.

My tūrangawaewae, my new home, is in Titirangi, and as I look in the morning eastwards I see land that was gifted to Auckland by Ngāti Whātua in great quantities. When I look west out of my other window I see land that was confiscated from Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and we are here today to acknowledge the redress in cultural terms, the restoration of the mana relationship, even if much of that land remains vested in what is now the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and Auckland Centennial Park. We do recognise those areas that are acknowledged by statute all through the Waitakere area—set out in schedule 1—places as important as the Waitakere and Kūmeu Rivers and the Whatipū scientific reserve, which are of historic significance. I will not belabour it, but I was once walked around the Karekare area by Sir Bob Harvey and shown the caves where Te Kawerau sheltered during some of the tribal conflict of yesteryear, and I know how sacred those sites that we are now recognising in this legislation today are to them.

As others have said, there is economic redress conveyed through parts of the Woodhill Forest and a range of other sites set out in schedule 3. Time does not permit us to register them by name. I will say this, on behalf of our colleagues: we acknowledge the great importance of providing a home marae, and the provision of Te Hēnga land for that marae base will, I think, be of enduring significance not only to Te Kawerau-a-Maki but to the other iwis of the Tāmaki isthmus, and nationwide, as this part of the broad fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand is woven back into its place to the benefit of us all. I suppose it is with that feeling of satisfaction that the spirits of our tīpuna can now rest more in peace. I acknowledge the Treaty, I acknowledge our Kāwanatanga, I acknowledge our tīpuna, and I acknowledge the future that is for all of us in this beautiful shared land of Aotearoa.

Ā, tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama, tīheiwā mauri ora! Ka haere tonu ngā kōrero i te ata nei mō te āhuatanga o ngā take Tiriti kei mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tēnei wā.

Nō reira, kei roto i taua kōrero ko ngā tangi tonu ki ō tātou tini aituā, nā, kua whakawaha nei i tō tātou Whare mō tērā kaumātua rongonui ki roto i a tātou, i ngā mārama kua pahure ake nei, arā, ko Eru Thompson tēnā. I takoto ki runga i tōna marae o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki roto i te wāhi e kiia nei ko, Ihu Mātao, te Ihu o Mataoho. Nō reira, e tangi tonu ana ki a rātou, nā rātou tēnei huarahi i takahia tae noa mai ki roto i tēnei taima, anā, ko tātou tēnei e hui tahi nei.

Te mahi nui, kia kawea tonu i tō tātou kaupapa ki mua tonu i tēnei Whare. Nō reira, kāti ake ngā mihi tonu ki a rātou, ngā mihi tonu ki a tātou, āta orooro ahau i ngā mihi ki tō tātou Minita, te hōnore Minita Finlayson, mō āna mahi katoa ki te whakatutuki i tēnei āhuatanga, i tēnei take Tiriti kei mua i te Whare i tēnei wā, nō reira, ka haere tonu ngā mihi ki a ia me ōna āpihā katoa. Kāti ake ki a tātou katoa e hui tahi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[So thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, let the essence of life come to the natural and enlightened world, behold the breath of life! The contributions continue this morning in regards to Treaty matters before the House at this time.

So embodied in that statement are the laments that continue for the myriads of our misfortunes, which were expressed in the tributes in our House for that well-known elder there amongst us, Eru Thompson, who passed away in the last months. He lay in state on his Auckland marae, at a place commonly referred to as “Ihu Mātao”. Its correct name is te Ihu o Mataora, the Nose of Mataora. Therefore, I continue to lament for them. They were the ones that walked this path that has finally arrived here at this moment, and behold, here we are assembled together.

The important thing is that we continue to address this issue of ours that is at the very forehead of this House. So the accolades going backwards and forwards to them and to us should cease, as I want to pay a tribute to our Minister, the honourable Minister Finlayson, for everything he has done to bring about an outcome to this situation in regards to this Treaty issue that is before the House at this point in time. So accolades to him and to all his officials. Therefore enough about us assembled together here, greetings and accolades to you collectively and congratulations to us all.]

In the previous bill I mentioned the link between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill and Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. It should now be of no surprise to the House that it is only fitting that this bill be considered on the same morning as Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. Why I say that is because Ngāi Takoto genealogy comes from the waka Moe Karaka, which I mentioned in my last speech in the House. It just so happens that on board that waka was the tupuna we know as Kawerau. Of course, right now we are discussing the Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill. I am encouraged to know that all of these bills were considered on this one morning, and I would like to thank the House for its patience on the matter.

To the bill. We are encouraged by the cultural and commercial redress in this bill. Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā, or the Waitakere Ranges, is a place of historical significance to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and in more recent times the rest of Tāmaki-makau-rau. I point that out because we want to make sure that these types of taonga are for all the people, while acknowledging the special place and historical significance of these areas to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and I want to touch briefly on the Hillary Trail—it is legendary. If you come from Auckland, or certainly from west Auckland, you will know of the Hillary Trail. The famous athlete of our past Arthur Lydiard would run those hills and he trained Olympic champions such as Sir Peter Snell. I wanted to say that, so that I could point out the significance of this place to all of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and indeed the country, while still acknowledging its historical significance to Te Kawerau-a-Maki.

It has already been mentioned in the House about the goodwill shown from all sides on this bill. The other tribes that are involved in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Marutūahu and, of course, Ngāti Whātua—it was fantastic to listen to their submissions in support of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and their pursuit of settling Treaty grievances. That is important because what I think it does is it shows the willingness and goodwill to work together, and we will see further on in the bill, when it comes to particular points of contention, where Te Kawerau-a-Maki are able to sit down and discuss them with the Office of Treaty Settlements and, of course, with Ngāti Whātua, and that is to be commended.

I mentioned the combined efforts, but it is also important to acknowledge—and it is fantastic to have the member the Hon Maggie Barry in the House at the moment—the work that the conservation board and the Office of Treaty Settlements have done on this particular bill. There are sites of a lot of significance, as I have already mentioned, to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and indeed all of New Zealand, and it is all incorporated in this bill. It is fantastic to see that cross-ministerial responsibility working together for the betterment of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and indeed all parties concerned. So I want to acknowledge her and, of course, Minister Finlayson for their work on the matter.

My colleagues Kelvin Davis and David Clendon spoke on the last bill about the importance of a name, and therefore the work with the Geographic Board to realise a long-held dream of Te Kawerau-a-Maki to call the Waitakere Ranges by their proper name needs to be noted. What we do know in the Māori world is that when there is a personal connection like that—and Mr Davis spoke recently about his genealogical link to Tōhe, which Ninety Mile Beach is named after. He feels a significant sense of responsibility and duty of care for a place like that. So I applaud the Geographic Board and Te Kawerau-a-Maki for changing the name of the Waitakere Ranges to Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā in the hope that, of course, like Mr Davis and many of us in this House, we have that personal affinity and duty of care and responsibility to such an important place.

I want to touch briefly on the right of first refusal issue. It is an issue, and I do thank the Minister for his explanation. It certainly cleared up some of the questions I have, but there remains, internally, some questions with regard to the right of first refusal. I want the House to cast its mind back to the Ngāti Apa settlement, where the right of first refusal was extended for only 50 years, and now, in this particular bill, I know that for Te Kawerau-a-Maki it is for 171 years. Possibly there could be some further questions, but we look forward to exploring that as this bill progresses through the House.

So, from one grey area to a place of shifting sands—and this has been mentioned in the House—in the submission by the families who have property out at Te Hēnga. It is important to mention the submissions by the Bellamy, Lusk and Harre families. I do not want to labour the point too much, but what I do want to point out is that—and this is actually a congratulations to the Māori Affairs Committee on dealing with the particular incident I refer to—at the time of the hearing of the submissions in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the families who made their submission, and, of course, Te Kawerau-a-Maki and other tribal interest groups, were all sitting in the same room and did not know that they were. And I want to point out that perhaps this was an oversight by officiating officers or in administration, but that is a concern, because to make this settlement a robust one for all parties concerned, I would have thought that at least those groups would have had the opportunity to meet before those submissions came to the Māori Affairs Committee. But I do want to congratulate the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, and the committee as a whole, on the way that they dealt with that.

Finally, in my previous contribution to the House I spoke about whakapapa—genealogy—and how it is all-important in the Māori world. My grandfather Sir James Hēnare used to say that without your whakapapa you are nothing, and that if you do not have tamariki—children—you are of no consequence. Although that may sound really harsh, if you listened to my contribution about the importance of whakapapa, you will see how it is relevant not only to yesteryear but also, of course, to today and to the bills in front of the House.

Sadly, the framework of legislation—and this has been the case since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi—forces us as Māori to limit our view of our ancestry. It forces us to pick one eponymous ancestor and group under that particular ancestor. And although I acknowledge, as a descendant of Rāhiri and, in this case, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, that they group under one eponymous ancestor, it is important to remember, for the descendants of Kawerau, that he had more than just one child. So I want to lay this challenge before the House and, indeed, Te Kawerau-a-Maki: to acknowledge all of the descendants of Kawerau and to make sure that all of the descendants of Te Kawerau-a-Maki are looked after as the bill progresses through the house. Kia ora.

Ā, tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā; tuarua, ngā mihi ki ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa.

[And my appreciation to you, Mr Speaker; secondly, acknowledgments to the members of the New Zealand Parliament.]

It is a great pleasure to rise and take a very brief call on the Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill in this second reading debate. As a member of a very small iwi, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, I take great pleasure in seeing some of the other smaller tribes in New Zealand receive the settlements to which they are entitled.

This bill contains $6.5 million worth of commercial and financial redress, but also, and more important, the cultural redress and the re-establishment of mana, which I think is incredibly important. For these reasons, I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

I want to thank members for their contributions and for their collegiality. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Wednesday)