Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill

I will take just a brief call now to explain Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 187 and 186. SOP 187 is in my name and deals with a number of technical amendments. It proposes two very technical amendments to the text of the bill resulting from the very thorough and rigorous quality assurance process undertaken by Parliamentary Counsel Office. First, it proposes the insertion of new clause 20A, which would align the bill with other recent Treaty of Waitangi settlement bills, and, secondly, it proposes the inclusion of new clause 59(6), which is a standard clause in settlement bills where easements may otherwise conflict with the Reserves Act 1977. The second SOP is in the name of Mr Pita Paraone, and it deals with iwi representation on the Taranaki Regional Council’s standing committee. Whereas my SOP was technical and excellent, I regret to say—and I say this with the greatest of respect and affection—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: His is not.

—that his SOP, I say to Miss Dyson, not only is not excellent but is bonkers. I oppose the SOP on a number of grounds—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Is that a technical term, Minister?

It is a very technical term, which one deals with in Treaty settlement legislation.

First, iwi representation on the two Taranaki Regional Council standing committees was specifically agreed to between the Crown and Ngāruahine on the deed of settlement, which was signed in August 2014. Secondly, a lengthy and collaborative process had been undertaken to develop and formalise in writing a document that sets out the iwi representatives’ nomination and appointment process. That document was endorsed by the regional council. It was endorsed by the eight iwi of Taranaki and by me as the responsible Minister. So I contend that the agreed process is robust and appropriate.

Thirdly, of the 12 current policy and planning committee members, four have been appointed from external bodies, three of these from each of the region’s district councils—who are elected to the district councils, that is, and appointed to the policy and planning committee—and the other external appointment is from Federated Farmers and is, in effect, an unelected member. So I really think that what has been proposed and referred to in the deed of settlement and brought into the legislation is a very positive development. I am convinced that the regional council decision-making and the people of the great province of Taranaki can only benefit from having iwi at the table. So they are the two SOPs: my technical one and Mr Paraone’s dubious one.

Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare o te Komiti, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman of the House and of the Committee, and at the same time to us all.]

It is a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill for Ngāruahine. I too want to speak to the Supplementary Order Papers. Labour will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 187, the technical changes to the bill, but we will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 186 in the name of Pita Paraone. We think it is really important that the mechanisms in the deeds of settlement for iwi are maintained right through this process, and for this one in particular, because it is about representation on a committee, not on the council itself—it is a committee for the Taranaki Regional Council—it is important that these mechanisms are maintained.

I think that the iwi of Taranaki, including Ngāruahine, have worked very hard to get to this stage in the process of settling all eight iwi settlements, and this particular one is one that needs to be mentioned in the House. I think it is unfortunate that Supplementary Order Paper 186 has come to the Committee, and I will leave it there for that one.

I do want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for the way that he ran the committee process on this particular bill. There were a number of submissions, in particular from one of the hapū that felt aggrieved through this process. I believe that the select committee exhausted every opportunity that it could in coming to understand the issues that that particular hapū had. I think the report back to the House is a very considered one. I think that the committee has made some very good points around that. I think there are opportunities for all members of all hapū of Ngāruahine to participate in the future of their iwi. So I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations also for the work that he has done in that area.

Apart from those two issues, that is the only contribution I will be making tonight. Nō reira, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a tātou. [So it is fitting that I acknowledge us.]

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to stand and support the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill at this Committee stage. I want to particularly pick up on the representation. There is an amendment to the bill being put before the Committee and I want to particularly pick up on the benefit of having Māori representation at the table at Taranaki regional and local authorities. We will not be supporting my colleague Pita Paraone’s Supplementary Order Paper 186, which, in effect, negates Māori representation at the council table, and I want to support the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in outlining why that is so necessary—why it is essential to the foundation of Aotearoa New Zealand, actually, to enable the true partnership and Māori representation.

Some years ago I actually wrote about the importance of Māori representation, which I want to expand on a little bit more tonight. It was because at that time, particularly at local authority and local government levels, there was a big debate and—as we in this Chamber can imagine—there was quite a bit of backlash and opposition, particularly to Māori representation. I am particularly proud of the way that iwi of Taranaki are maintaining and upholding their kaitiaki responsibilities over their whenua and their hapori, marae, and hapū to maintain iwi representation at the local authority table. I do want to acknowledge, therefore, what that means. I relate to my own iwi in Ngāpuhi in Hokianga where, for over 30 years, the local hapū and the community—Māori and non-Māori working together—have been trying really hard to improve our waste-water sewerage systems for our Hokianga Harbour and various inlets. Had that been managed properly 30-plus years ago, particularly upholding the Te Tiriti partnership in Hokianga, I think we would have seen, firstly, better community involvement, but also better protection over the Hokianga Harbour and the waterways where waste-water sewerage is concerned.

Here you have an example where, as with many of the examples, it would have benefited everybody to have that iwi and hapū representation at that local government table, thereby truly honouring the partnership, because, essentially, representation is focused on our kaitiaki responsibilities and our whakapapa to our whenua. So nothing in that relationship—as here with the Ngāruahine settlement bill—is about maintaining power for the purposes of individual people or even individual hapū. It is actually about maintaining kaitiaki responsibilities to ensure that the community is well and that the waters and the whenua are well for all of the generations to come—all of the generations, not just the mokopuna tamariki of those hapū and iwi.

So I did want to particularly focus on and outline why we will not be supporting my colleague Pita Paraone’s amendment. I am very aware that New Zealand First has a particular and a different political point when it comes to Māori representation, but the Green Party has remained, and always will remain, very clear and very strong that the No. 1 benefit for upholding our Tiriti relationship and partnership absolutely was always supposed to be about an equal share of power and affirming the sovereignty of Taranaki iwi.

One final point is that that does not necessarily mean the best representation—I am going to ask for some more time. It is always found just at the table in terms of local government representation. Yes, Māori representation is important and vital. Is local government representation at the table the best way of upholding that? That is for iwi to decide. I want to acknowledge that in some places some iwi have chosen not to have to campaign to be at the table. That is for iwi to decide, but where iwi have had a tradition of having their voice at that table, then this House should absolutely support that. I do not make a claim to say that that is the best way to uphold the Te Tiriti partnership, but, certainly, it is an important way to be able to affirm what iwi themselves are wanting. So I did want to focus this particular contribution on the fact that the Green Party will be continuing to support local government representation for iwi. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Can I say that I will be talking to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 186, which the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, really wanted to describe in such wonderful terms. But his kindness overtook him, and so he kindly said that it did not make sense. I just want to give some background to the SOP from New Zealand First.

One of the issues that has come about, not only in this particular bill but in a number of similar bills where Māori have been appointed to subcommittees on councils to represent their views, is that there has been an opposing view from some members of the public, saying that Māori are gaining access to these positions without being elected. I think that that argument has some validity. However, in this case, I did a bit of research and I understand that there are representatives from other bodies who are not elected and who are not Māori.

So we have got to exercise a sense of fairness, and I thought if that was the case then I would recommend to our caucus that we would withdraw that Supplementary Order Paper for that particular reason, in that there are other organisations being represented on these subcommittees that have not been elected. I would suggest to those who have been responsible for us putting forward the original Supplementary Order Paper that they ought to consider the reality of the situation. So, on behalf of New Zealand First, we will be withdrawing that Supplementary Order Paper. I just want to thank my colleagues on this side for the wonderful support that they have given—yeah, right! Tēnā koe, Mr Chair.

I just want clarification from the member, Pita Paraone. Is it the whole Supplementary Order Paper 186 that New Zealand First is withdrawing, or is it just part of Supplementary Order Paper 186?

💬 Pita Paraone: No. No. Yes, the whole.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is the whole of Supplementary Order Paper 186.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.