Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and the iwi, which was signed in December 2015, the closing stages of last year. It provides financial and cultural redress and acknowledges the losses suffered by Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa arising from serious breaches by the Crown of its Treaty obligations. I want to, as I do always, acknowledge the work of the negotiators for Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, my ministerial colleagues, and the Government, and other agencies that have contributed to this bill.

I also want to thank the chair and members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their hard work during the consideration of the bill and for the exploration of the issues that were raised in submissions. The bill was referred to the committee on 13 April this year, 19 submissions were received from interested groups and individuals, and the committee heard 11 of these at hearings in the Waitangi Treaty Grounds and in Wellington in June this year. The committee reported back to the House on 2 September, and it recommended that it be passed with some technical changes to land descriptions.

There is one particular matter I want to refer to. In its commentary on the bill, the committee noted there were several submissions that asked for Stony Creek Station to be transferred to Ngāti Aukiwa rather than Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, and they wanted it transferred as a distinct tribal entity. Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, who are the mandated negotiators, have repeatedly advised the Crown that most marae and hapū have associations with the Stony Creek Station and the adjacent Thomson and Clarke Blocks. For a number of years, certain members of the Ngāti Aukiwa hapū within Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa have occupied the Stony Creek Station.

There have been numerous attempts to repair the relationship between the iwi and the occupiers and have the occupiers leave Stony Creek. It is vital for the success of the Treaty settlement that the iwi can obtain its major Treaty settlement assets unencumbered and that they work together. The iwi is going to need to redevelop a farm that has been neglected and develop their assets for the benefit of all its beneficiaries.

The station and adjacent blocks are going to be vested in the post-settlement governance entity (PSGE) on the proviso that the PSGE is responsible for finalising ownership. The trust deed of the PSGE requires the trust to develop a fair and transparent process, open to all members of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa to review and determine the final ownership of Stony Creek Station no longer than 4 years after settlement date. If the process is not undertaken, any adult member of the iwi can apply to the High Court to have the conditions enforced.

The second reading brings us one vital step closer to concluding all the work that has been done on this settlement over many years, including by Dr Michael Cullen. It is a process where the Crown, with iwi, has sought to identify what is important to the people of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and to reach agreement on redress for historical breaches of the Treaty. I commend the bill to the House.

Ka tū au ki runga i te take o tēnei pire, Te Pire Whakataunga i ngā Kerēme a Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. I te tuatahi, ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki tō tātou Kaiwhakarite i te ata nei, nānā tō tātou huihuinga i whakarite kia aro pū ai ngā take ki roto i te wairua o ngā tūpuna, o ngā mātua kua riro atu ki Te Pō, kia tau tonu mai taua wairua ki roto i tēnei huihuinga o tātou. Ka tautoko anō hoki i ngā mihi ki ō tātou mate, ngā aituā maha o te wā nei, kia kotahi ai te tangi, kia kotahi ai te poroporoaki atu ki a rātou, haere mai, haere!

I tēnei wā, ka huri atu ahau ki ōku whanaunga nō te wā kāinga kua haere mai, kua takahia nei i te ara roa mai i tawhiti ki tēnei wāhanga o te motu, nō reira piki mai, nau, kake mai koutou ki roto i te tātou Whare i te rā nei. Mauria mai ko ngā aituā kai runga i a koutou, ngā aituā o te kāinga, kia tāpae atu ki te tāhuhu o tō tātou Whare, kia tukuna atu te reo poroporoaki me te tangi atu ki ngā mate. Koutou e ngā whanaunga, kua piki te ora, kua piki te wairua o tēnei ki te kite atu i a koutou i te rā nei, tēnā koutou, nau, haere mai!

Tēnā pea me tīmata ake taku aronga ki te pire nei mā ēnei kupu, ka kī atu: “Ko Waimahana te marae, ko Puhi o Te Waka Te Whare, ko Ōkōkori Te Kāinga, ko Mātaatua Te Waka, ko Hīona Te Maunga, ko Ngāti Aukiwa Te Hapū.” Ka pā taku whakapapa ki roto i ngā take katoa o tēnei pire, nō reira, e manawanui ana te kite atu i ētahi o ngā nekehanga kua whakaritea nei e Te Minita me ōna āpiha ki roto i tēnei pire. Ko aua whakaritenga, ko te whakahoki mai o ētahi o ngā wāhi whenua. Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō te wāhanga ki a Stony Creek, me ngā poraka whenua o Tamehana, o Karaka kia whakahokia mai ki a tātou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

E kōrero ana te pire nei mō ngā tātai whakapapa o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, ā, anga atu ki te tupuna rongonui, a Kahukuraariki. He āhua āwangawanga tēnei ki te kite atu i tēnei āhuatanga ki roto i te pire. Kua roa rawa ahau e mea atu ana, ko ngā tātai whakapapa o Te Iwi Māori, me kaua e whakakohatungia ki roto i ngā pire pēnei nā, ko te kī atu tetahi, he uri koe nō Kahukuraariki, nō wai atu raini, ka kī atu koe ki tēnā, ka poroa i ngā tātai whakapapa o tētahi atu. Koinā te pai o te whakapapa, ko ōna hononga katoa ka tuituia i te katoa, kaua ko te kī atu, ko koe me ō uri anake!

Mehemea ka kite atu koe i te whakapapa ō ōku matua tūpuna, ā, nā, ko ngā whānau o Kahukuraariki, nā, e whātoro atu ana ki roto i te rahi o Te Tai Tokerau ēngari, mā te pire nei e whakarite ana, anā, ko ngā uri a Kahukuraariki anake me ōna pānga, me ōna hapū katoa. Ko au tetahi o ngā uri o Ngāti Aukiwa ēngari, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki tērā taha o te puke kei roto au o mea—Te Whānau Pani, koia tērā, Te Whānau Pani! Aroha mai, ē, kua roa rawa ngā kōrero i te ata nei—ki roto i a au o Patunga, ko Te Whānau Pani. Mehemea ka kite atu koe i ngā whakapapa, anā, he tātai hononga ki ngā hapū katoa o taua wāhi. Koinā taku e mea atu ana, me kaua e whakaritea nei te whakapapa ki roto i te pire me ngā ture o te Pākehā, ko reira tātou ka raru ai! Kāti, ka haere tonu ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire.

Ko ētahi o ngā kupu ki roto i te pire nei, ko te hiahia o Te Kāwanatanga ki te whakarite i tētahi mahere whanaungatanga ki waenganui i Te Karauna me ngā uri o Kahukuraariki, me te hiahia kia whakaritea mai i taua mahere, i taua whanaungatanga ki runga i ngā uara, kua roa rawa tātou o Te Iwi Māori e mau nei. Ko aua uara, ko te pono, ko te tika, ko te aroha. Koinā ngā manako i roto i a au, i a au e pānui ana i tēnei pire me te kī, ko te hiahia o Te Karauna, ki te whakarite i tētahi whakawhanaungatanga hou ki waenganui i Te Karauna me ngā hapū o te kāinga. Āe, pai tēnā whakaaro, me whakarite i tētahi mahere ka āhei ngā rōpū katoa ki te kōrero, ā, ka totohe i ngā take o te wā ēngari, ko tāku e kī nei, me ū tonu ki ngā uara kua kōrerotia e au. Arā, he aha te tikanga o te mahere whanaungatanga ki waenganui i ngā rōpū mehemea, horekau ngā āhuatanga Māori kei roto. Kua kōrero atu ahau mō te pono, mō te tika, me te aroha. Mehemea ka haere mai Te Karauna ki roto i tōku marae, anā, ka tū ngā marae, ngā Māori o te kāinga rā ki runga i aua uara. Ko te hiahia, kia kite atu i tērā āhuatanga ki roto i Te Karauna. Hoi nō, he whakaaro noa iho!

Ka huri atu ahau ki tetahi ture tawhito i whakamanahia e tēnei Whare i roto i te tau 1874. Ko taua pire, ko te Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act. I whakaritea ki roto i taua pire, ka hoatū te wāhanga o Taimāro ki ngā uri e ono. Ka huri atu ki te kāinga o Waimahana, ka whakamanahia ki ngā uri 10, aua whenua. Anā, e whakaaro atu ana ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga. I ngā mahi māminga a Te Karauna ki te wehewehe i ngā hapū me ngā whānau nō rātou te whenua. Kua whakaritea ko te 10 anake ki roto o Waimahana, ko tokoono anake ki roto o Taimāro. I āianei nā kua kite atu, kua āhua raruraru tēnā whakaritenga. Ko ngā whānau katoa e hiahia ana kia whakahokia atu ki ō rātou ake whenua, nā, ka whai wāhanga rātou ki roto i aua kāinga. Nō reira, pai te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire. Ka whakatika tēnei pire i tērā ture tawhito arā, ko te Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act 1874.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ngā mahi o te tari Kāwanatanga, arā ko Land Information New Zealand. E mea ana ko te 6 eka i tāhae e rātou i raro i te mana o te Public Works Act. Koinā te take i tautoko ahau i te pire a Catherine Delahunty inapō rā, te Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. Ono eka i tāhaetia e Te Kāwanatanga i raro i te maru o te Public Works Act. Ka noho tārewa mō te hia roa, mō te wā tino roa. Nō reira, e hiahia ana kia kite atu te hokinga mai o te nuinga o ngā whenua o Matakaraka ki a mātou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, he mea pai tēnā, he mea pai tēnā!

Kāti, i roto i te wā e toe nei, ka whakakapi ake, ka whakarāpopoto ake ahau i tōku kōrero me te ki atu, e tautoko ana mātou o Te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei pire. Me te hiahia kia kite atu i ngā hua kua kōrerohia mai ki roto i tēnei Whare, arā, ko te oranga o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Kaua e māharahara, ēhara i te mea ka kī atu, he māmā noa iho te huarahi ki mua i a mātou, a Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, i roto i ngā marama me ngā tau kei mua i a tātou, kahore! Ēngari, anei hoki ko te tūāpapa, ka āhei a Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa ki te tupu, ki te maranga ki roto i ō rātou ake kāinga, me ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki a mātou. Nō reira, huri tua atu ki a koutou e oku mātua, e te pāpā, e Pita, koutou, e tino hari koa ana ki te kite atu i a koutou, ko te manako i mau mai koutou i ngā kaimoana o te kāinga, ka waiho atu ki roto i taku tari, ā, taihoa ake nei tātou ka kōrero, kāti, kia ora tātou katoa.

[I rise to speak on the purpose of this bill, the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. First and foremost, I endorse the sentiments expressed by our member representative this morning. He was the one who blessed our gathering so that matters pertaining are focused solely upon the spirit of ancestors and forefathers who have gone to Hades, so that spirit will continue to settle within this gathering of ours. I endorse once again the tributes to our deaths and the many calamities of this moment, so that the grieving and farewelling tributes can be done jointly to them; welcome, depart!

At this point in time I turn to my relatives from back home who have arrived and traversed the long road from afar to this part of the country; therefore, welcome, climb aboard, ascend into our House today. Bring forth the deaths and the misfortunes that are upon you from back home to be set out beneath the ridge pole of our House so that farewell tributes and grief can be accorded to the deaths. And so, relatives, the wellness and spirit within me rise at the sight of you today, welcome, come hither, come aboard!

Perhaps I should begin my focus on this bill with these words by saying: “Waimahana is the marae, Puhi o Te Waka is the house, Ōkōkori is the home, Mātaatua is the waka, Hīona is the mountain, and Ngāti Aukiwa is the hapū.” My genealogy relates to all matters about this bill; therefore, I am staunch about some of the provisions the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and his officials have considered in this bill. Those provisions are about the return of some parcels of land. The Minister has commented on the part relating to Stony Creek and the Tamehana and Karaka blocks of land to be returned to us of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

This bill speaks about the genealogical connections of Ngatikahu to Whangaroa and focuses on the famous ancestor Kahukuraariki. It is somewhat concerning to see this aspect in the bill. I have been advocating for some time now that Māoridom genealogical connections should not be cast in stone in bills like these, nor to say to someone or whoever that you are a descendent of Kahukuraariki, nor to suggest to someone else that they would be removed from the genealogical ties that belong to someone else. That is the good thing about genealogy: all its connections are hooked up, it does not say that it is just you and your descendants only!

If you look at the genealogy of my ancestral forefathers, you will find all the families of Kahukuraariki there stretching out to the whole of Northland, but it is for this bill to determine that it will be only the descendants of Kahukuraariki, its connections, and all its hapū. I am one of the descendants of Ngāti Aukiwa, but give due consideration to that side of the hill that I am on of thing—of Te Whānau Pani; that is it, Te Whānau Pani! Apologies, the contributions this morning have gone on for so long—within me of Patunga, of Te Whānau Pani. If you were to see the genealogies, then you will find genealogical connections to all the hapū of that place. That is what I have been going on about. Genealogy should never be considered in the bill or in Pākehā law; that is where we will come undone! Enough, contributions relating to this bill must go on.

Some of the words in this bill express the desire of the Government to set up a relationship plan among the Crown and the descendants of Kahukuraariki, with the expectation that that plan or relationship be founded on the values that we of Māoridom have adhered to for a long time. Those values are honesty, truth, and empathy. Those, then, are the aspirations that are within me as I read this bill and stress that the wish of the Crown is to consider a new relationship among the Crown and the hapū back home. Yes, that is a good idea; consider a plan so that all groups are able to discuss and debate contemporaneous issues. But what I am advocating is that these must adhere to the values that I have mentioned. In other words, there is little point in having a relationship plan among groups if there is no inherent Māori perspective present in it. I have specifically referred to honesty, truth, and empathy. If the Crown comes within my marae, well then, the marae and Māori of that place will stand by those values. The hope is that those values are reflected by the Crown. But it is merely a thought!

I turn now to an old piece of legislation that was enacted by this House in the year 1874. That bill was the Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act. Six Taimāro descendants were considered and provided for in that bill. In terms of the settlement of Waimahana, 10 descendants were granted legal recognition to that land. And so I think about that kind of situation in regard to the deceitful actions by the Crown in dividing and separating hapū and families who own the land. Only 10 of them were considered in Waimahana, and only six in Taimāro. Right now that consideration is perceived to be somewhat of a problem. All the families desire to be returned to their lands so that they have a part in that place. So it is good to see that included in this bill. This bill will amend that old legislation, namely the Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act 1874.

I reflect upon the role of the Government department, namely Land Information New Zealand, saying that 6 acres were stolen by them under the Public Works Act. That is the reason that I supported the bill by Catherine Delahunty last night, the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. Six acres were stolen by the Government under the auspices of the Public Works Act. It remained suspended for a long and protracted length of time. So I want to see the return of much of the lands of Matakaraka to us of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa—that is a good thing, a great outcome!

So in the time that is left now, I conclude and summarise my contribution by saying that we of the Labour Party support this bill, with the hope that we see the benefits that have been uttered in this House, namely the well-being of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Do not be concerned that I say the journey before us will be an easy one for us of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa in the months and years ahead of us; it will not! But here indeed is the foundation upon which Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa is able to grow, to rise up within their own homelands with all the aspects relating to us. Therefore, I turn to you collectively, my elders, to you, Uncle Pita, to all of you—I am really pleased to see you all. The hope is that you brought the ocean cuisine with you from home and left it in my office for us to talk about shortly. I leave it at that; my appreciation to us all.]

Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. E hika, kāore au i te paku hiahia ki te whai atu i taku whanaunga, a Peeni, i roto i te whanau Heta, i Te Reo Māori mō taku hē me aku hapa i tō tāua Reo ēngari anō, kai te pirangi au ki te tū ki te mihi atu ki a koutou, ō tātou hononga whakapapa i roto i te whanau Heta, koira tāku.

Anō nā ki tēnei o ngā pire, kia whakahokia, ētahi aha? Pūtea, tikanga, ngā mea e hiahia ana koutou ki te hāpai, kai te hoki atu ki a koutou, ahakoa te mamae, te uaua. Ki a mātau, te paku o ngā rawa ka hoki atu ki a koutou ēngari, kua tae ki tēnei wā, nā reira, kai te mihi ka tika.

[So, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Heavens above, I do not really want to follow up on my relative Peeni in Māori in regard to the Heta family, not one bit, because of my faults and shortcomings in our language, but I do want to rise and acknowledge you in regard to our genealogical connections to each other in the Heta family genealogy, that is what I really want to do.

I also want to address this bill, to return what to you? Funding and correct procedure, elements that you want support with in regard to the things that are being returned to you, despite the pain and difficulty experienced. From our perspective, the resources that are being returned to you are so minimal, but, that aside, you have reached this point, therefore it is fitting that it is indeed recognised.]

I thought I might just go over exactly what is going on in this bill, for the benefit of those watching it and for our whānau. The bill is sponsored by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson. As we have said this morning, they are getting pretty good at negotiating—they do not like giving away too much anymore. We used to try to get a few things in there, back in the day, and we have got better as negotiators for whānau, but the Crown has also got better. So we acknowledge the Minister—hard fought for, some of the settlements, hard fought. The bill gives effect to the deed of settlement that was entered into in December 2015, but the agreement in principle was signed in 2007. The mandate was signed in 2001.

It has taken a long time to get to this point, and between 2007 and 2013 the negotiations that stalled were around the Stony Creek Station. We finally got to an outcome where it brings us forward, but it was an issue of contention in the Māori Affairs Committee and we debated it hotly to see whether we could find some other way to get it done. The settlement is made up of a package that includes a historical account, acknowledgments, an apology, cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress. The benefits of the settlement will be made available to all members of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, ahakoa ka noho ki hea [regardless of where they are living].

The Crown apologises—and sometimes even the apology is hard to hear—and although it is appreciated, it does little to address the issues. But the people are resilient. We have seen it over and over again. We are still here, we are still fighting, and we will push on, apology or not, redress or not, but it does go some way to try to rectify the taumaha that we find ourselves sitting under, or that the whānau find themselves sitting under.

So the cultural redress—let us just touch on that for a little minute. The cultural redress provides recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa with places and sites owned by the Crown within their primary area of interest. This allows Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and the Crown to protect and enhance the conservation values associated with these sites. Sometimes even that is hard to bear—there is a cultural redress, but the Crown still owns it. But at least we are acknowledged in it, in some small way.

The settlement provides for the vesting of 15 sites, though, back to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, subject to a few conditions. A statutory acknowledgment recognises an association between Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and a particular site and enhances Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s ability to participate in resource management processes—a step forward. The Crown offers statutory acknowledgments over four sites for which this can happen. The deed of recognition can be provided over sites where acknowledgments have been offered. So a deed of recognition says that Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa will be acknowledged in this place—thanks for that! It is hard, but thanks for that.

There is something called an “overlay classification”. It provides a very high degree of recognition and acknowledges Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s spiritual, cultural, historical, and traditional values in respect of that site, and that has got to be a step forward. Actually there are wāhi tapu across the nation that, you know, are not acknowledged. We talked about some of our Land Wars sites. I was there at the koroneihana when they returned that whenua of Rangiriri, and the kuia said to me: “Marama, you know when it’s Māori land: the road goes straight through it. When the road is straight, that was Māori land; when the road is curly, it’s going around somebody’s farm.” So even though it is hard sometimes to understand the recognition of these wāhi tapu, at least now we have it. We can articulate it, and we can start to tell those stories of why these places are important. So those classifications—they use all these flash words, but I am just trying to explain what they mean to us, in significance. We can tell our stories.

So the financial and commercial redress—you know, this is where it starts to bite a little bit. It is $6.2 million in lieu of the Crown’s commitment in the 2007 agreement in principle to maintain the stock at Stony Creek. So $6.2 million—it just seems so insignificant today compared with the generations of loss. And although we appreciate it, we also acknowledge that it is the koha of the people back to the nation that we did not demand more. But to think that since 2001 and the mandate—and that is despite the years of bringing it to that point, with the research, and those members of the whānau who have passed away coming to this day—it has been 2001 the mandate, 2007 the deed, and all the way now to 2016. It has been a long time coming, which makes the fact that we cannot be celebrating its end tomorrow somewhat harder to accept. We have heard all the debate this morning—I will not go back into it, although I am tempted.

But, whānau, I recognise that you are here and appreciate all of those who are not here, who have not made it through those 15 years since the signing of the agreement in principle, who have not made it to this point through the stalled negotiations, and who have not made it to this point since they started preparing the claim. I want to recognise them.

Nā tātou, te hunga tutuki i ō rātou nā wawata. Mēnā ka haere ā-kanohi ka kite ā-karu, ā, ka kōrero ā-waha, ka rongo ā-taringa, ā-wairua hoki ki te whakapono o ngā kupu. Kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki taku hoa, a Peeni, taku hoa mahi o te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, kua tautohetohe, kua wānangahia ngā take e pā ana ki a koutou, kua whakarongo anō hoki. Kua tae ki tēnei wā kia tutuki ngā wawata hei ture. Kāre i te mutunga; ā wai ake rā, ka whai tētahi rangi anō hai tutuki ā-ture nei ēngari i tēnei rā, ka neke kētia. Nā reira, kai te mihi ki a koutou, ōku hoa mahi, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[We are the ones who fulfilled their expectations. If one goes physically, one sees and hears firsthand, and spiritually as well, the truth of the words. I want to thank my friend Peeni, a fellow member of the Māori Affairs Committee that debated and deliberated and listened, as well, to matters related to you collectively. This point in time has been reached whereby aspirations are fulfilled and enacted. It is not the conclusion; in time a day will come to hand when it is effected, but it will be passed instead today. Therefore, I commend you and my fellow colleagues collectively, my appreciation to us all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora koutou katoa huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou. I te tuatahi ka mihi au ki a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei aku nui, kei aku rahi i te tī, i te tā, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka tū au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. He pire nā te iwi o Ngāti Kahu me tōna whakataunga Tiriti, ā, nō reira, he mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you all throughout the House, welcome. In the first instance, I pay a tribute to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, accolades to you all. To my great and numerous from near and far, well done. I rise to endorse this bill, which belongs to the people of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa bill with their Treaty settlement, so a massive compliment to you all.]

The Green Party will be supporting this bill through all its stages. It is a small settlement in the scheme of settlements, but it has still been hard fought for by those who have been doing the work. Others have a great deal more knowledge than I do about the iwi and the hapū and the whānau connections in relation to this bill, but I do want to address the controversy that arose out of this legislation around Stony Creek Station.

There has long been in settlement bills—especially in the early days; less so these days—real issues around the recognition of hapū and the Crown criteria for whom it will deal with. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has talked about the mandate of iwi, and I acknowledge that that is the case with the process as it is, but that does not mean that that process delivers justice to all of those who have had their land taken or stolen by the Crown and who are entitled to justice through the settlement process.

There are a number of settlements that are controversial within the iwi and hapū themselves. The issue for me, as a legislator, is how we make sure that the process that is used to deliver justice through these settlements does not in itself create further injustice and does not risk modern raupatu. That is a question that has been considered often in the debate in this House, but not often enough in the review of the settlement process, which does, at times, create an injustice that cannot be resolved. It is exacerbated by the legal process, but not resolved by the legal process.

I think that that is, in effect, what is happening here. There is genuine controversy around Stony Creek Station. There was an occupation of that land over a long period of time by people who felt that they were having their land taken from them through the settlement. Whatever anyone may think of the individuals involved or the nature of that occupation, occupations by whānau, by hapū, and by iwi have been one of the only tools that they have had to demonstrate their connection to that land and their heartache at having that land taken from them.

It is occupations, actually, that have led to justice being achieved in many of those cases. It was the occupation of Bastion Point that led to the resolution of Bastion Point. The history of occupation has to be taken seriously as a means by which people who have no other legal opportunity, who do not have the financial resources to buy lawyers, or who do not necessarily have access to members of Parliament who will advocate on their behalf—it is often the only tool that they have to assert their mana over the land that they believe was wrongly taken from them and should be returned.

So I am concerned that the issue for Ngāti Aukiwa is not trivialised in this debate. It is a very real risk that, in the passing of this settlement bill, we are enacting a modern day raupatu. If we are going to pass this bill—and the Green Party members support Treaty settlement bills because we know how hard fought for they are and that there must be some restitution for the losses that iwi Māori suffer—we need to pass it knowing that. Knowing that means that there will be another day when we have another opportunity to remedy the wrong we may be committing today.

So we cannot do this without acknowledging that it is going to come back at some point and somebody is going to have to deal with it—maybe us; maybe those who come after us. In acknowledging that and in recognising that Ngāti Aukiwa, in this case, and other iwi and hapū in other cases of settlement controversy, have the right to have their injustices and the thefts of their land acknowledged and treated seriously in this House.

It is very important to us that we continue to review and reflect on the Treaty process itself to make sure that at every possible step it does not exacerbate harm, that it does not cause more raupatu, and that we are not continuing to cause harm to iwi Māori, to hapū, and to whānau. That is why we have always said that the full and final aspect of these settlements is what we write in the law, but we can never have a full and final settlement of the Treaty. The Treaty is an ongoing conversation. It is an ongoing issue, and it will be so for ever, because this is a colonised country. We cannot pretend that is not the case.

These settlement bills are one tool that we are using in the process of delivering genuine Te Tiriti justice over time. It is a tool that has its failings. It has its advantages, but it is just one tool in the ongoing process of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is why the process for these settlements must be under constant review and reflection to make sure that it is not causing more harm.

Unfortunately, I do not think that happens. We are actually on a journey with these settlements. There is a process that is under way. That process is rolled out, and there is not actually that much wiggle room. We know that iwi do not really get a chance to reassess, for example, the value of these settlements. We know that the mandating process is pretty much set in place. We know that the large natural groupings approach is pretty much set in place for the moment.

Let us not forget that all of those criteria for how these settlements occur are not criteria established by Māori; they are criteria established by the Crown and are rolled out because of the precedent of having done it so many times. That does not make it just. It does not make it the right process; it just makes it the process we are using today.

I want to genuinely acknowledge those who have worked very hard to get this settlement and to get some resolution for the loss of this iwi. I want to acknowledge all of those who have fought and lost their fight for justice for their losses as well today. Never let us trivialise the fact that sometimes we are causing harm in the process of trying to deliver justice to others. Thank you.

Huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā rangatira o Kurahaupō waka, ki ngā rangatira o te iwi o Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, nō reira, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Paremata. Mauria mai ō whakaaro ki te kaupapa nunui, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[I acknowledge you all throughout the House. I acknowledge the esteemed ones of the Kurahaupō canoe and of the tribe of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, so come forth and welcome to Parliament House. Bring forth your views on this important matter, and so I commend you all.]

It is indeed my pleasure, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to speak on the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill at the second reading. I want to be quite specific in what I am going to present here, because it is very much reflective of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done since the first reading, particularly going out to Waitangi to hear submissions from right across the whānau, hapū, and iwi of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, and also to get a very, very good insight into the feelings of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa.

As has been said in this House this morning, I must say that it has not been an easy journey, but there are a number of things, and the first one would be the question around participation in that ratification process of the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa deed of settlement. We are advised that the level of participation was about 30.9 percent, and when we look at the total number of voting packs that were actually distributed, they accounted for about 2,426, but only 756 votes were received. This participation rate may seem in some ways disappointing, but we do understand that if you look at other Treaty settlements, this is considered a middle range of participation. That is the first point. Although we would all like overall participation to be higher and for more members of the iwi to have been involved, in this process our main concern is that members have had the opportunity, and we saw this. Members did have the opportunity to partake in this consensus, actually. That is the first point.

The next one is that, to me, there was also a very open and transparent process to ratify the settlement, including widespread advertising of the hui, and voting packs that were widely distributed. That is that second point. But we can only hope, particularly when we look at this ratification process—it is a signal, though, that once this settlement debate is completed in the third reading, there is still a lot of work to be done to actually bring everyone together to work together, to hoe the waka together around that really important value of kotahitanga.

The next part is that during the select committee process we heard about the disagreement over Mangawhero Marae and the settlement boundary. Looking at that, we were satisfied that the boundaries used in the settlement were appropriate and, given the support of most people in both Mangawhero Marae and Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, that the marae is a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa marae. That was really important, and that is something that we really did listen to, and we are very comfortable with that particular outcome.

We also heard about the issues surrounding the ownership of Stony Creek Station—it has been mentioned here before. I just want to mention the fact that it had been demonstrated to us that the station had been illegally occupied by some members of Ngāti Aukiwa. That has been an ongoing thing since 2007. It was quite disappointing that these members, as a subgroup of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, had devalued the asset that forms the key feature of the redress in the iwi settlement. We heard that most Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa hapū and marae have associations with Stony Creek Station, and most members of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa are also members of Ngāti Aukiwa. We have seen this before in Treaty settlements. The fact is that we did not want to play Solomon. We actually just wanted to get a very, very good overview of this issue. From the outside looking in, we were comfortable with the fact that there is that close association—bloodlines; whanauka—and so that is another part of the work that still needs to be done once this Treaty settlement has been finalised.

The other part of this is that we were alerted to the concerns that the bill would extinguish other hapū claims and relationships with the Whakaangi mauka and the Whangaroa Harbour. The relationship of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa to the Whakaangi Scenic Reserve is recognised through an overlay classification. However, this does not preclude other iwi or hapū from establishing a similar customary relationship on this site. So, again, it is actually acknowledging all of those who are involved and have relationships with the site. The other part of this is that we note that this settlement does not include any redress related to Whangaroa Harbour.

There was also some discussion as to whether the Crown should make acknowledgments to individual hapū—and this was a really important one; particularly the acknowledgement to hapū. However, the Crown’s approach—as we all know, working within the Treaty settlement process—is to settle with large natural groups, which, in this case, means that the acknowledgments and apologies are directed to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa as an iwi, rather than to any particular hapū. That was our resolution and our understanding. The only amendments we have recommended to this bill, though, are very technical in nature and relate to changes to land descriptions.

I look forward to taking this bill further after this second reading. I want to acknowledge those who have come from the Far North here to Pōneke today, and to also just acknowledge your manaaki to me, to our party, and to the Minister when we came to Ōtangaroa Marae in December to sign the deed of settlement. I was a witness to that. On that note, it has been a long journey. It will be a little longer—but we have been there—but it will suffice, and the third reading will come and you will have your settlement. As I have mentioned in my speech, this is only really the start of building that kotahitanga amongst your people and to taking that forward so that you are all hoe-ing that waka together.

Nō reira, e Te Mana Whakawā, e huri noa Te Whare nei, e ngā manuhiri tuaraki tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Therefore, to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to those throughout this House, and to visitors from afar, acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively, I commend you all.]

I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Kia ora. Tēnā koutou katoa, and greetings to the people from Whangaroa who are back home there now, watching this parliamentary debate and hoping for some justice.

Can I just say that it was curious for us to learn now that the Māori Party has members; indeed, the Green Party has members; and the National Party has members with the same reservations that New Zealand First has had for a long, long time. This matter was alive before the 1975 introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi legislation itself. That is a fact, and anyone who was a young lawyer back then would know that. So this is not new. But the point is that what we have got here is a whole lot of members of Parliament who are trying to say that a lot of people have relationships to certain blocks of land. That is not the issue; who has the principal relationship is the judgment that should be made now.

Can I just say that the second reading and the third reading of this legislation should be taking place today and tomorrow, and if people want to know why it is not—can I just put on the record a statement by Tim Macindoe from 4 September. He wrote to the other members of the Business Committee and he asked: “I imagine you are all receiving a large number of requests from your colleagues”—this is dated 12 September—

💬 Tim Macindoe: That’s right—after the deal was done with your party and others.

No, no—I will read it out. I will read it out. Do not shout out. Have a Valium.

💬 Tim Macindoe: This member is betraying the iwi and betraying the House and betraying the whips. He is deplorable.

No—exercise some control. I am going to read it out. You cannot stop me—you cannot stop me.

💬 Tim Macindoe: No honour at all.

I am reading it out. He said: “I imagine”—well, given his mind, he probably imagines a lot, yes? “I imagine you are all receiving a large number of requests”—[Interruption]—“from your colleagues for leave on Friday”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Interjections are fine, but using words that the member used is unacceptable and we will not have that.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “I imagine you are all receiving a large number of requests from your colleagues for leave on Friday, 23 September, as I have been from mine.” He asked whether or not there could be a reduction in the percentages and a vote on voices only. My colleague, the next day, sent a note that said: “Hi all, New Zealand First does not support this request for extra leave applications.” It is all there. He is now caught out—caught out by his own words—and no amount of bombast and shouting from the uneducated teacher from Hamilton is going to override the facts of this document. He has been caught out. The reason why we are not having the third reading tomorrow is that he has given too much leave for his colleagues to be going on an early holiday. It is that simple. All they needed here tomorrow, for the people of Whangaroa, was 13 members—all they needed was 13 members.

💬 Tim Macindoe: They have now betrayed their members and the House and the iwi.

Do not tell me—tell the people you are lying to. Tell the people you are lying to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! I want this to calm down. The points have been made, and I ask you to just focus on what is in the bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. What I am saying to the whip and to the National Goverment is—

💬 Tim Macindoe: This is outrageous.

Do not shout out here—tell them up there from Whangaroa, face to face, that your document is not true.

💬 Tim Macindoe: I’m very happy to stand by my documents.

Oh, no—no, you are not very happy, because you are trying to shout me down. And you are a junior member and will probably be gone very shortly.

💬 Tim Macindoe: I’m telling the truth about your actions.

Ha, ha! You—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): As I just mentioned previously, I want you to calm this down. The points have been well made about the concerns, and I just want you now to focus, in the remaining time, on what is in the bill.

Yes, Mr Assistant Speaker, but what is most important here is that we have got a bill, in its second reading, that could be having a third reading tomorrow except that a whole lot of members of Parliament, including the chair of the committee, have grave reservations, and so does New Zealand First, and I will tell you why.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Stick to the issues.

Well, that member would not know a thing about Māoridom or, for that matter, about the Department of Conservation either, which is the reason why in the Trans Tasman Political Alert magazine she was described as a lightweight. Of course, she is going to get rid of, for $25,000, all pests in this country by 2050. If I was her, I would just keep my mouth shut.

But here is the point: what members need to understand is that you cannot negotiate justice without the facts, and in respect of what is happening in Whangaroa, what is happening here is that there is no resolution—and it is in the bill itself. It says that this is not a resolution. A long time ago, people like, for example, Dr Cullen and Shane Jones and others were up there—a long time back, in fact, they were reported in the Northern Advocate trying to negotiate a settlement up there, and there were the same problems back then as there are now. New Zealand First says that we will never settle it by passing this legislation and then saying: “Well, you can go to the court in the next 3 years, and if that is not resolved, then you come back here.” That is not a resolution at all. Why do we not put the fire power in, put the investigative capacity in, find out the truth, and pass a bill once and for all so that everybody in Whangaroa can be happy? Who could disagree with that—instead of saying: “Let’s go back to the court in 3 years’ time.” Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay for the court case?

💬 Tim Macindoe: We’ve all agreed to. This is the member holding it up.

I will tell you what is wrong with this Parliament. There is somebody there who has no understanding of any Māori issue at all. He does not understand that some of us were young lawyers up there, seeing Nuku Stewart and other people, in Whangaroa, a long time ago. Some of your forefathers—I remember them so well. He does not, but he is so arrogant that he shouts down someone who does know these people—unbelievably arrogant. Why does the member for Hamilton not just keep his mouth shut?

As for “Madam Fox”, let me tell you: why is the real leader of the Māori Party not speaking today?

💬 Marama Fox: Back the people.

Why is the real leader of the Māori Party not speaking today? Why is the real leader of the Māori Party not speaking here today? That is a party, of course, that is going to oblivion. In fact, the Government pays so much attention to them—

💬 Tim Macindoe: This member welched on the deal. That’s the beginning and end of it—this member welched on the deal.

I will tell the people of Whangaroa that if they witness what we are watching in the House today, it is every reason why they will know that they must not go with that group there. These two here: one is from Ngāti Porou; the other one is from the slum lands of England, and he is telling someone steeped in Māoridom in the north for hundreds of years to shut up in Parliament. How arrogant can you be? How arrogant can you be?

Can I just say this: I have gone back and studied this for a long, long time. This bill is not a resolution—everybody who knows the north knows that.

💬 Tim Macindoe: It was when your party agreed to it. You have completely gone back on your word.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am dealing with the matter. [Interruption] I am on my feet and I will deal with this. I have asked members of the Government side to calm it down. Interjections are fine, but running commentaries and barracking are unacceptable. This is the third time—next time I will deal with this in a more direct manner.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I just say something? I have seen this sort of battering-ram legislation. I saw two iwi, in the case of the Tūhoe settlement, that were recognised by the most esteemed member of Parliament Māoridom has ever had here, by Ngata himself, just being ridden roughshod over. I am not going to see that happen up north—because that is what is happening here.

I do not think that myself or Kelvin Davis or Peeni Henare have the final answer to this, but we know that one is capable of being found. My point is, to run roughshod in this Parliament and override these people, without so much as a by-your-leave, is compounding the very error that this bill claims to be correcting. That is what is wrong with this. That is what is wrong with this, and that is why we are not going to back off and be shouted down. I believe it can be resolved.

For our part, New Zealand First will put the intellectual and professional firepower in to find the truth behind this matter. Because it is not possible—and we know, in our Māori world, this: what is the No. 1 principle of Polynesia or the Māori world? They who live on the land, who keep the land warm, they who are there should be the first voices on any matter. That is our rule—it has been for centuries. Why now have we got a group of parliamentarians, including some people who know nothing about this issue, telling us that they can correct it?

In short, if we cannot fix up this area, area by area, and not go for the clobbering-machine solution, let us give it to iwi, have all the fights internal—and then the Government members will get up in Parliament and say: “But we gave you all the land. We gave you all the money. Now it’s your problem. Now it’s your problem.” I can see them wiping their hands of it, and then they come in here with their fawned passion and concern. By gee, how I despise that. How many Māori out there are homeless? Tens of thousands of them. How many are in our prisons? Tens of thousands of them. Do those members have any priority about giving Māori a fair go in their own country? No, they bring in 70,000 foreigners every year to compete against Māori, and they stand up here and say they are concerned about Māoridom. No they are not. They are concerned about their own political longevity.

And I am telling you—mark my words—we will campaign on this issue all the way to the next election. We find out up there in Whangaroa who knows what they are talking about. I want those members to turn up in Whangaroa and explain themselves, but, of course, if they did, they would be run out of town. They would be run out of town, as a former Minister was when he went up there. So I say: “Tread lightly. Listen to what the local people are saying.” Why do we not come with a total resolution and not a half-pie settlement that, even in its own drafting, says that this matter will end up in the courts again. That is not legislation; that is foolery.

Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Māngai, oti noa, e tika ana kia tū ake anō ki te tuku mihi atu ki a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa nō reira, koutou mā kua tae mai ki Te Whare, me kī, te ana raiona, tēnei ahau tuku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. E mihi ake au ki ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, ki a Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoea, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangi Matamomoe, Ngāti Roha me Ngāti Rua, koutou katoa ngā whānau, ngā hapū katoa, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, ā, tēnā koutou.

He tino honore tēnei kia tū ake ki te tuku i taku kōrero ki tēnei pire. E tū ana ahau i runga i taku whakapapa ki a koutou, ki a Ngāti Kahu, ā, kua tae mai au i tēnei rā ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. Ka tuku mihi atu ki taku hoa mahi, otirā, ki taku whanaunga a Peeni Hēnare mō tana kōrero atu ki a koutou, me tana kōrero ki tēnei pire, nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[And so I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time it is fitting that I rise again to accord a welcome to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, and so to those of you who have arrived in the House—let us say, the lion’s den—I formally welcome you, come forth, draw close, welcome. I acknowledge all the subtribes as well of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa: Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoea, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangi Matamomoe, Ngāti Roha, Ngāti Rua; all of you, the families and subtribes, welcome to you all.

This is a real honour to stand up to deliver my contribution to this bill. I stand on my genealogical ties to you, Ngāti Kahu, and have come here today to support this bill. I acknowledge my fellow colleague and relation Peeni Hēnare on his address to you and his contribution to this bill, so welcome to you collectively.]

It is a great pleasure to speak on this bill. Once again, I acknowledge my connection to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa. I am a descendent of Kahukuraariki as well, and I want to acknowledge everyone else who has arrived here from the Far North for the second reading of this settlement bill. We have heard a lot of discussion today around the process of settlements, and, as one of the few in this House who has had the honour and pleasure of negotiating a settlement for my iwi of Ngāti Apa, I know—I said this in my first contribution and I will say it again today—that this process has its flaws. So I want to actually acknowledge some of the kōrero that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has said around the flaws of this process. But I also want to address how that can be addressed in the future.

One of the key things around it is, of course, that settlement iwi—iwi that are in this process—have to ask themselves whether they can live with what this process can deliver and what it cannot deliver. That is an important part of the negotiating process. Quite clearly, we are in a position as a Parliament to acknowledge that they have gone through this process and have signed a deed of settlement, and now we are passing legislation that will enable that deed of settlement, which is a binding contract between the Crown and the iwi.

I want to talk about how that will look in the future, because we want these settlements to be enduring—that they stand the test of time—which is one of the key parts of the settlement process. So what are the redress mechanisms actually based on? The process means, and we have all acknowledged it, that the Crown can provide redress but not compensation, so we have to accept that. We have to also look at the basis for each of those settlements, and there are some key things that we should be mindful of when the Crown uses the mechanisms that it uses for the settlement process. It looks at things like the amount of land loss, the nature of that loss, and relativity to previous claims. It looks at any special characteristics particular to that iwi or claimant group. These are the things that we should be mindful of when we are discussing these issues about how these settlements come into being, and that it is a negotiated situation between the claimant group and the Crown.

As I have said, this process is not perfect, and it is incumbent upon every participant to ensure that they understand what is at stake. I believe that through the work of the Māori Affairs Committee—and I have read its report very carefully—all of those things have been considered. So I mihi to the Māori Affairs Committee.

So where does that take us in the future? I believe that we will not be able to address the issue of relativity until every settlement has been completed, because we do not know the relativity of this settlement to a future settlement. We know the relativity—or we might think we do—of this settlement to all previous settlements, and we, at some stage, will need to ask the question about whether that issue around relativity has been addressed to our satisfaction. So I acknowledge the contribution of Metiria Turei in this discussion, because I think she raises those very issues around how this might fit into the future.

This is a developing conversation, I believe, because if we look at previous debates on previous settlement bills, in the early stages when settlement legislation started, they could not possibly have predicted where we might be today—20 years later—and 20 years into the future. That is the discussion that we should have in a rational way so that we can preserve these settlements in an enduring way, but acknowledge that, at some stage, our future generations will have another look at it. That will be based around, I believe, the process of how we get to where we are today.

I do not want to take up any more of the House’s time. I think that today we should celebrate the really good things that are in these Treaty settlement bills, because they provide the opportunity for our people to enhance our aspirations moving forward for future generations. And so kei te mihi atu anō au ki a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.

[I acknowledge Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa once again, and therefore commend us all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Te tuatahi māku, he mihi kau ake ki ōku whanaunga e noho ana kei raro i te tuanui o tō tātou Whare: nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei tō tātou Whare, Te Whare o te motu. Aroha mai mō taku tōmuringa taenga mai i te mea, he hui anō tāku i roto i te tāone i mua ake nei ēngari, hari koa ana ahau ki te rongo i te mutunga o te kōrero a Peeni, nānā i kī mai nā koutou i mau mai ngā kai moana kai roto i tōna tari nā reira, tēnā rā koe mō tēnā koha ki a mātou. Kua rongo hoki ahau, ko Peeni e hiahia ana ki te tākaro mō te Piri Morgan, ā, nā reira, e tuku ana mātou Te Rōpū Reipa i a Peeni hei kai mō ngā toa o Whangaroa. Nā reira, e ngā whanaunga, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me is to acknowledge my relatives sitting under the roof of our House: welcome, come hither to this House of ours, the House of the nation. I apologise for my late arrival, as I had another meeting in the city prior to this one, but I am pleased indeed to have caught the end of Peeni’s contribution. He was the one who told me that you brought seafood, which is in his office, so thank you very much for that gift to us. I heard that Peeni wants to play for the Piri Morgan, so we of the Labour Party allow you, Peeni, to be fodder for the champions of Whangaroa. Therefore, thank you to the relations.]

I just first apologise for being late to the House, because I did have a meeting in town, but I did catch the end of Peeni’s speech where he said that our relations from Whangaroa brought down the kai moana and it is in his office, and we thank them for their koha. Also, we are offering up Peeni as the sacrificial lamb for the annual Piri Morgan inter-marae rugby competition that is played in Whangaroa every Labour weekend. Despite his advancing years, we are offering him.

The people of Ngāti Kahu are my whanaunga. We are related through a number of ways, but one of our whakapapa lines—one of the many lines—is through Pōhurihanga of Kurahaupō waka. Pōhurihanga had Muriwhenua—most of the Far North was named after Muriwhenua, who had Tamatea, a well-known explorer in his time, not least of all because the longest Māori place name in New Zealand is a reference to him. He had Kahungunu, and we spoke about Kahungunu in the House last night. I acknowledge my tuahine here, Meka. Kahungunu had Kahukuranui, who had Kahukuraariki. I am not descended, as far as I am aware—unless my father has got some secrets that he has not let out—from Kahukuraariki but, instead, from the sibling of Kahukuraariki, Rākaihikuroa. So that just goes to show the complexity of our whakapapa and how we are all related.

Pōhurihanga of Kurahaupō, though—and one of the reasons I brought this up is that we talk about these settlements being full and final and enduring. With the Kermadecs situation, maybe that is on pause. Maybe that is on hold; we are not quite sure. We cannot really stand here with our hands on our hearts and say that these settlements are now full and final and enduring if the situation around the Kermadecs is to continue. The reason I am trying to link it in is that Pōhurihanga’s name, I believe, was just Pō, but when he came over on the Kurahaupō waka and it started to leak a bit, he had to turn around and go back to the Kermadecs, and turning around is like huri—Hurihanga. Pōhurihanga parked up the waka on the Kermadec Islands and fixed the waka up before he proceeded on again to New Zealand. I would say that probably happened a number of times with many waka, but it is just an illustration of our links to Rangitahuahua, the Kermadec Islands, but also the significance now that the Kermadec Islands are playing in all our settlements.

There are real concerns that what was a settlement that was made around the fisheries in 1992 is no longer that permanent, enduring settlement. So we come to the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa settlement. It will go through the House and all its stages and, no doubt, it will be passed. I hope that 25 years from now there is not another MP standing up and going: “Oh, sorry, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, the Government has changed its mind and the Act as it was passed in 2016 is going to be changed.” I think it is a very important note to make that when we say that these bills are enduring and full and final, that is exactly what they are.

The bill itself relates to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s historical claims, mainly to pre-Treaty land transactions and Crown purchasing. I spoke a bit about that last night, about the Crown’s devious ways of purchasing land—the surplus lands policy. I spoke last night about how James Busby managed to get his hands on a hundred thousand acres around Ruakākā, which is not in Whangaroa. It was just an illustration of the way that land was taken off our people and they were left, basically, landless. The Crown failed to protect Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa reserves, and took land under the Public Works Act. Again, I acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for her bill, which, sadly, did not pass last night.

There are about 3,000 people in the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa tribe. I just want to talk about the ratification process the bill went through. There was concern about whether there was sufficient support. The level of the participation and the ratification was 30.9 percent of those who participated. The process lasted 7 weeks, and of 2,426 voting packs that went out to registered adult members, 750 votes were received. There is concern that that is low, but in the scheme of things, when you look at all the different statistics around all of the settlements that have gone through, the numbers and the percentages of people who voted and participated in the ratification process, this is actually a mid-range level of participation. I guess it is incumbent on people that if they receive a voting pack for their iwi issues, they actually need to engage in the process, and it is really at that stage that people can express one way or the other. There is no point in having a democratic process and then saying that the process did not get the result they wanted if they never actually voted.

We have heard about the disagreements around whether Mangawhero Marae and Ōtangaroa should be included in the settlement boundary. We considered it, but did not consider that the boundary issue at Ōtangaroa was an obstacle to negotiations, because the Crown recognises general areas of interest rather than a precise boundary during the settlement process.

Just in the short space of time I have left—we have touched on the ownership of Stony Creek. I do have a concern that the quantum, actually, is all tied up in Stony Creek. I would have liked to think that the people of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa not only get Stony Creek Station back but also got a dollop of pūtea to go with it. Several submitters argued that Stony Creek should belong to Ngāti Aukiwa, as a distinct tribal entity from Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa. However, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa said that most hapū and marae have associations with Stony Creek Station as well as the Thomson and Clarke lots in Taemārō Marae.

I remember, basically, this bill was my introduction to politics. There was a day in December of 2007; it was the day after the end of the school year. I had resigned as the principal of Kaitāia Intermediate School, and Shane Jones said to me: “Hey, you want to get into Parliament? Come out and meet your constituents.” So I went out to Taemaro Bay—a beautiful spot, as is the whole coastline around Whangaroa—and, not knowing what I was walking into, I should have known better than to wear jandals and a T-shirt; I should have worn my flak jacket. That was the day that Michael Cullen turned up in a helicopter and I found myself standing in between some angry Ngāti Kahu whanaunga and Michael Cullen. I was standing there, linking arms with Shane Jones’ son—thank goodness he was bigger than me, because I would not have been much protection for him, I have to admit. The interesting thing about it was that the guy who was right in my face there, being probably the loudest, is a guy whom I have subsequently worked with on other issues and find him quite a nice chap.

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

Ā, e rau rangatira mā tēnā koutou, whakatau mai ki tēnei Whare i tēnei rā mō tēnei mahi hirahira. Nō reira, ko tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora mai tātou!

[And so salutations to you collectively, esteemed ones of a hundredfold, pay homage to this House today in regard to this important task. I therefore acknowledge you and indeed us all, greetings!]

It is a pleasure to speak to this, the second reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. I would like, firstly, to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson; the Māori Affairs Committee; and the chair of the select committee, my colleague and friend Nuk Korako, for their excellent work in getting this bill to this stage. I would like to extend the dialogue that my colleague Nuk Korako introduced when he was making his contribution, around the work of the select committee. The select committee had 18 submissions, and, it is fair to say, a number were opposed on a number of issues. Those issues included hapū ownership versus iwi, and the mandate in overlapping boundaries—issues that we have seen in other Treaty settlements. As my colleague commented, questions were raised around the participation rate, and others have also said the same—that at 30.9 percent, is that a number that is valid? As it has been noted, as we look across other deeds of settlements and other post-settlement governance entities (PSGE), it actually sits in that mid-range.

I want to drill down a bit, just to give some sense of depth as to how detailed the reach-out to the community was. There were 7 weeks of ratification process. There were four ratification hui. Voting was open for 10 weeks and 5 days. It was advertised in local papers, major national papers, local radios, email lists, and Facebook, and, as has been commented, 2,426 voting packs were sent out. The participation rate of 30.9 percent was across the deeds of settlement and PSGE.

I think that what also came through and was part of the select committee hearings was the claimant definition, which is jointly established by iwi and the Crown, and that definition was retained from when the mandate was first established 15 years previously—that is, the claimant definition is the descendants of Kahukuraariki, or any other recognised ancestor of the group, defined in Part 8 of the deed of settlement.

To review, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa went through the tribunal process in the 1990s, and the tribunal found that Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s claims were well-founded claims and recommended a settlement negotiation. The Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust Board sought and obtained a mandate from the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa claimant community.

What a beacon of light this iwi is in Northland. I will make no mileage of the discourse of the past 24 hours in this House. I will make no mileage of the confused major iwi at their boundary. The mileage this iwi wants to make is to move forward, and I say to them: “Keep moving.” Which iwi will be the first to have settlement in the east coast of Northland? It will be Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa. Again, please, I say to ngā iwi katoa “Keep moving.”, and with our love and support, that is exactly what will happen. Nō reira, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou.