Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. In April last year I stood in the House in support of the first reading of the bill, and I can remember saying at the time that, like other Tauranga bills, this bill had been many years in the making. I certainly hope it will not be too much longer before we see the bill complete all its stages in the House.

To those in the gallery who have come here to witness this long-awaited day, tēnā koutou. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa. It is great to see you at Parliament.

First and foremost, I want to thank Ngāti Pūkenga for their patience and their willingness to keep engaging with the Crown over the past few years. We signed a deed for the comprehensive settlement of the historical Treaty claims in April 2013, more than 4 years ago. Ngāti Pūkenga are also part of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective, and, as we know, the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective deed had to be finalised before the Ngāti Pūkenga bill could be introduced. I am not going to go into the details of all the proceedings that took place over the past 2 years. Suffice it to say that Ngāti Pūkenga have shown great mana throughout, and I am very glad we can finally progress their iwi-specific settlement.

I want to thank the chair and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their excellent job and for the rigour they have exercised in considering this bill and navigating the issues raised during the submissions stage. In fact, the select committee received only one submission—from the post-settlement governance entity—and I think that is a testament to the way Ngāti Pūkenga approached negotiations and engaged, both with the other Tauranga Moana iwi and their own claimant community. That submission supported the majority of the bill, but it raised an interesting point in relation to a standard condition for rights of first refusal (RFR) that it viewed as a possible impediment for obtaining properties in the future.

Select committee members took this concern very seriously. For reasons of consistency and fairness for all those groups that have already settled, the select committee agreed to retain this provision in the bill. RFR provisions do not allow for RFR land to be disposed of to another party on more favourable terms, and this means that the land could not be gifted to a charitable trust if it had not been gifted first to iwi.

I hope this alleviates the concerns expressed in the submission. I want to reiterate that the intent of the Crown through the settlement is to provide, in good faith, Ngāti Pūkenga with the opportunity to purchase the two RFR properties concerned by this clause, should they become surplus to Crown requirements.

I want to keep my remarks fairly short in this, the second reading. However, before I end I want to take a little time to acknowledge the passing of a beloved leader of Ngāti Pūkenga—and, indeed, of Tauranga—Te Awanuiārangi Black, who left us late last year. Saying that Awanui was a man of many talents does not come anywhere close to describing the true extent of his talents and achievements. From a young age, tribal leaders saw his potential and groomed him to become a key leader for Ngāti Pūkenga and for the region. He was a staunch advocate for Te Reo Māori, a talented kapa haka composer and performer, and a great teacher and educationalist. He was also very comfortable walking between Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pākehā, and believed in standing up for his people and progressing all things Māori. This led him to hold a number of positions in local government, including as a member of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Mauau Māori constituency, to name just a few of his roles. His death is a great loss for Tauranga Moana and for our country.

Awanui was determined to make a difference for his iwi, and one way for him to do this was to become part of Te Au Mārō o Ngāti Pūkenga, the mandated entity of the iwi, in the early stages of the negotiations. He made a major contribution to negotiations. He always advocated a collective approach to negotiations. This bill is just one of many of his legacies that will improve the lives of people in Tauranga.

I look forward to the bill moving to its third reading in a timely manner. I also look forward to the final stage of the settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Pūkenga and to the bill being signed into law by our Governor-General. As the former chief Crown negotiator for the Ngāti Pūkenga negotiations, I am sure the Governor-General will take a particular pleasure in seeing this settlement come to an end. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e tautokongia ana ahau i ngā mihi, mihi atu ki a koe e te tuakana e Tutehounuku mō ngā kupu whakarite, nau nei i whakapūakitia mai i te ata nei; nā reira, tēnā rā koe.

Kei te tautoko hoki ahau i wērā o ngā mihimihi ki ō tātou tini mate, o tātou mate huhua, me ngā kōrero nā Te Minita i naia tata nei, mō tērā o ngā tuākana a Te Awanuiārangi Black. E tika ana ngā hōnoretanga kua hipokina ki runga i a ia mō āna mahi, i a ia e hīkoi ana ki runga i te mata o te whenua. Tōna mate, he karanga tēnā ki a tātou ngā tāne Māori, kia rapu i te hauora, kia rapu i te āwhina, kia haere ki ngā tākuta, kia āta tiaki i ā tātou anō. Nā reira, e te tuākana, e Te Awanuiārangi: e moe, e moe, e moe atu rā. He tini ngā mate kei tērā, kei tēnā o ngā marae puta noa i te motu.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki tōku tuakana hoki a Checker Davis, kua hinga atu i nanahi atu rā. Ā, e takoto ana ki runga i tōku marae kei roto o Ngāti Manu a Te Kāretu. Me tērā hoki ki tetahi tauira nāku ako i whakaako, i ahau e tumuaki ana i Te Kura o Kaitāia, ko Chenei Ohlson, kua mate i taua ngārara, te mate pukupuku. E takoto ana kei roto i te kāinga o tōna whānau i te rangi nei. Nā reira, e ngā mate, haere; nā, ko rātou ki a rātou, ko tātou ki a tātou, huri noa i Te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, I am endorsing the acknowledgments, and so I acknowledge you, elder member Tutehounuku, for your words of prayer that you put together and expressed this morning; my appreciation and thank you very much.

I also endorse those tributes accorded to the myriad and vast number of our dead, and to the Minister’s comments just now in regard to that one of the elder kin, Te Awanuiārangi Black. The honourable words that were cast over him for his accomplishments while he walked upon the face of the land are apt. His death is a call to us Māori men to seek well-being, to seek help, to visit doctors, and to really look after ourselves, as well. Therefore, to you, elder sibling Te Awanuiārangi: sleep, rest, and slumber on. There are numerous deaths that occur at that marae over yonder, and those marae throughout the country.

I want to also pay a tribute to my elder sibling Checker Davis, who collapsed the day before yesterday. He is lying in state on my marae, Te Kāretu, within the region of Ngāti Manu. I pay a tribute, also, to that one Chenei Ohlson, a student I taught while serving as principal of Kaitāia School and who died as a consequence of that reptile, cancer. She is lying in state at the home of her family today. And so, to you, the deaths, depart; they, the dead, to themselves, and we to ourselves throughout the House.]

We tend to associate Ngāti Pūkenga with the area of Tauranga Moana, and that is because that is where they originate from. However, there is an outpost—a diplomatic mission station, I guess you could say—deep in the heart of the Te Tai Tokerau electorate. I just want to talk about the reasons why there is an embassy of Ngāti Pūkenga up north. It is actually a—well, it is a tragic story, but it is a rich part of our history. You may ask why Ngāti Pūkenga would be surrounded—you know, want to plonk themselves—

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Yes, why?

—right around Ngāpuhi. The sister Nanaia Mahuta says: “Yes, why?”. Well, it does go back to that well-known Ngāpuhi whakatauki that, loosely translated, means there are two types of Māori: those who are Ngāpuhi, and those who wish to be Ngāpuhi. But—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Ha, ha! But the story is that back in the 1800s, when Russell was the place where guns, ammunition, and other tools of the European could be found up north, a group from Ngāti Pūkenga was regularly trading between Tauranga and Russell. They were going up on this particular occasion to look for firearms, to purchase firearms, or to trade for firearms, and as they were coming past the Whangarei Harbour, one of the warriors on board wanted to get off there so he could go and visit his sister, whose name was Te Rore. Te Rore was the wife of a chief in the Whangarei area by the name of Wharepoaka.

So this warrior was let off while the rest of the contingent sailed on up to Russell, up to the Bay of Islands. When he got ashore, he was looking for his sister’s village, and as he was looking for it he did not realise he was being followed by a person—basically, someone was stalking him, I guess you could say. As this warrior bent down to drink from a stream, the guy came up, smacked him on the head, and killed him. He then—to cut a long story short—threw him in a hāngi and had him for dinner.

Word got back to the chief of the flotilla—a chief by the name of Moeroa Paretaura—and when word got to Moeroa, he spun around and came back to seek utu, or revenge. Word got out to the chiefs in the Whangarei area, with one of them being a famous chief from Te Parawhau by the name of Te Tirarau. Te Tirarau was actually an ally of a tupuna of Peeni Henare and mine, Pōmare, as well as of Peeni’s other tupuna Kāwiti. These days we say that those three had an alliance, the TPK alliance, which is not to be confused with the TPK—Te Puni Kōkiri—of these days.

So, anyway, Te Tirarau got to Pārua Bay, which is not far from the area where this person was killed. Moeroa came with his contingent and, basically, they came ashore and confronted each other. What prevented all-out war was, really, the fact that Te Tirarau conceded that the killing of that warrior was out and out murder and that Moeroa’s search for utu was a just cause. To stop the war from happening, they took Moeroa’s crew to the parcel of land where that young man was killed, and they said: “This land is yours. We’ll even extend it to such a size that you’ll be able to settle there.”

Hence, the name of that particular block of land is Pakikaikutu. It is barely a stone’s throw, or maybe a 1-wood, away from Whangarei Airport, across Whangarei Harbour. That piece of land is Ngāti Pūkenga’s, despite it being right in the heart of Tai Tokerau and surrounded by Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Wai. It is important that we remember and recall this history, because it is easy for that to be forgotten, and it is a beautiful part of our collective history.

Turning to the bill, I just want to touch on what the Minister did say about clause 103, and that is to do with the right of first refusal. It is something that was really only picked up in this bill by the submitter. The concern was that Māori would not actually have the right of first refusal, and that the right of first refusal might go to a charity. For the reasons that the Minister has explained, we decided not to make any amendment to that clause, just to be fair to any other iwi that had settled and because it is a standard clause in Treaty settlements. But it was interesting. We did take it very seriously. We got quite an amount of advice just to talk about that one clause around the right of first refusal.

I just want to touch now on the acknowledgments from the Crown. What happened to Ngāti Pūkenga is reflected across the country, but that does not diminish from the fact that they have been unfairly treated by the Crown over the decades and the years. One of the main points I want to make is that Ngāti Pūkenga did not take part in the war in Tauranga. They were committed to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They believed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and they believed that Te Tiriti would treat them well. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

The Crown, and only the Crown, was responsible for the outbreak of war in Tauranga in 1864, and its actions were a breach of Te Tiriti. Clause 8(4) says: “The Crown acknowledges”—and rightly so—“that, despite leading Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga to believe that their interests would be scrupulously respected, [that did not happen] … and the Tauranga District Land Acts of 1867 and 1868 unjustly extinguished the customary title of Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga in the land within the confiscation district,”.

I have only a few seconds remaining, but it is really important that we acknowledge that these claims are not a Treaty gravy train but that there were people whose lives were severely and irrevocably impacted on by the actions of the Crown, which has led to present-day loss of land, loss of mana, and loss of many, many things. That is the reason why we support this bill going through all its stages, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, e mihi atu ki a koe. Huri noa i Te Whare nei, ka mihi, ka mihi, ka mihi.

[And so thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you and greet, commend, and thank you all throughout this House.]

It is indeed an honour, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to be able to stand and speak to the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty Settlement Bill in the second reading. One of the amazing things with this particular role, and being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and a member of this Parliament, is that we see right across the House, under the auspices of Treaty settlements, an opportunity to engage with Māori—an opportunity to engage and to hear about the richness of the korowai of all our iwi across the country. This particular iwi is no exception.

Ngāti Pūkenga’s tūpuna, their ancestors, have a very, very long and noble history, particularly when we talk about Toroa, who was the kaihautū or the captain of the Mātaatua waka. The whakapapa there, the ancestry, is very, very, very deep.

The other part of this, though, when we look at Pūkenga himself—and I appreciate and acknowledge the excellent history lesson that we got about the relationship of Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāpuhi. But also, when we look at the stories of Ngāti Pūkenga we see the incredible role that they played, particularly in upholding two things. One was actually the Treaty of Waitangi, and one was Kīngitanga. When we look at that, this particular iwi’s stories are of peacefulness and dependence on the rule of law. This is in some ways one of the hallmarks, I think, of the nobility and the incredible things that this iwi did, even though at the end they were subjugated, and it was a very, very dark time in their history.

But coming back to looking at the Ngāti Pūkenga bill, I think an important thing is reflected in the fact that there was only one submission. There was only one submission, which really showed the incredible work that was done to bring this about so that the iwi could actually continue that journey to where we want to take it—to the third reading and the Royal assent. The submission actually came from within Ngāti Pūkenga, from, in some ways, within the negotiating team. It came from Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga and it is about the right of first refusal (RFR).

I think we need to put it in a little bit of context, as to the way that the Māori Affairs Committee took on board this one submission and the work, the discussions, and the korero that we had to get to a place that we believed was of fairness. In our report we did say that we would actually acknowledge where we believe there should be a change. Obviously we were highly supportive, because Te Tāwharau raised the issue around the RFR.

The question of the right of first refusal was a provision within the settlement, and the submission was particularly around clause 103. In keeping with all the other settlements that contain the RFR provisions, clause 103 provides for the landowner, in this case the Crown, to dispose of its land as a gift for charitable purposes without triggering the RFR provisions. There is no reason for a clause like this to exist. For example, in some cases it is considered that the Crown should have the option of gifting land back to some person or organisation who actually gifted it in the first place. There also may be instances where the Crown wishes to gift the land to a charitable organisation that wishes to carry on the work that the Crown had been doing on that particular piece of land.

It was all very, very reasonable in other circumstances, but in this case Te Tāwharau would feel aggrieved, and we think quite rightly so—quite rightly so. This is one of the very, very few properties under the RFR mechanism that they had included in their settlement, through really complex negotiations with other iwi, and with this it was disposed of by the Crown without their right of first refusal being triggered. So when we looked at this, the view of the Māori Affairs Committee was that a charitable trust should not be preferred over the iwi. We did not think that there is any particularly good reason for this clause to have been included in the Ngāti Pūkenga settlement.

However, there were a number of other reasons why we did not recommend a changing of the provision. As I said previously, we noted, first of all, that this particular clause is in every RFR provision in every settlement. But we also noted the clauses in the deed of settlement—getting here via the deed to amend, which Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown had already agreed to. So that was a big thing—Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown had already agreed to do this, so why would we want to recommend for them to change it? So that was that. We did not think it is the role of our select committee to amend the legislation in a case like this, to create an inconsistency within the deed of settlement.

I do think that this clause should actually be reviewed. This particular clause around the RFR should be reviewed, as we have actually highlighted. I have highlighted it here, and we highlighted it at the Māori Affairs Committee—and we actually recommended that in our report. We recommended that in our report.

Ngāti Pūkenga has fought for many years to reach this point. The settlement is now within their sight. I really do want to acknowledge a lot of the work that has been done, which has been reflected in speeches in the House here this morning, the incredible work of the rakatira of Ngāti Pūkenga, and also the incredible goodwill that has been shown here so that they can actually move forward.

We have had speeches here in the House this morning acknowledging the fact that we do need to know the history and the stories behind it. I think that one thing has always been clear over the last few years that I have been here, and particularly in the Māori Affairs Committee: for all of our people, in a lot of ways, it is not actually about the commercial redress; it is actually about the apology, and a meaningful apology. That is what has been reflected here today in the speeches. This is what is being reflected to the utmost, I believe, in the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty settlement.

So on that note, I look forward—if we can get this bill through to the third reading before the House rises in August. So on that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnei ka tū ake ki te tautoko i ngā mihi ki a koe, e Nuk, i tūwhera te arawhata ki Te Runga Rawa, kia tau iho mai ōna manaakitanga ki runga i a tātou mō tēnei o ngā āhuatanga, anā, ngā take Tiriti ki a tātou katoa, tēnā tātou! Ngāti Pūkenga, tēnei ka tāpiri atu i ētehi ō ōku nei whakaaro, ahakoa he iti; ka tāpiri atu, ka tuitui ki ngā kōrero kua whārikihia i mua i te aroaro o tēnei Pāremata.

[I rise to endorse the appreciations accorded to you, Nuk, the one who opened the stairway to the Almighty above so that his kindness descends upon us in regard to this one of the circumstances in regard to Treaty matters there to us all, so acknowledgments to us all. Ngāti Pukenga, I add some of my own thoughts, although small; I add and sew them on to the contributions that have been laid out here before this Parliament.]

I do not intend to take too long a speech in the second reading, except to acknowledge the efforts of Ngāti Pūkenga to bring their claim through this process and to its finality. The reason I am not going to take a long call is that the bill and the settlement pass on two fronts that are very difficult fronts and hurdles to get over. Firstly, in terms of overlapping claims—we heard previously, in the previous debate, my colleague Peeni Henare talking about the challenge of overlapping claims and the way in which Crown policy is applied and the way in which iwi would prefer to exercise their relationships by whakapapa, in connection to whenua and important places within their rohe.

Ngāti Pūkenga passes this hurdle, to the extent that it is evident in the way that the cultural redress mechanisms have been achieved. They have been talking to their neighbours and they have recognised that in order to extend their own association and connection to a place, it is probably a good idea to recognise those of others within the rohe as well, and you can see that through the joint arrangements. We also did not hear any opposition at the Māori Affairs Committee to the redress remedies that were being sought by Ngāti Pūkenga—again, a good sign that a lot of conversations had taken place. That is a challenging space to navigate, but if one were to come into this process and consider the amount of effort that is required to get to the select committee with relatively very few criticisms, I would say a lot of work has been done behind the scenes. So ka nui te mihi atu rā ki a koutou, Ngāti Pūkenga.

[So there is much appreciation to you, Ngāti Pūkenga.]

On the issue of commercial redress, Ngāti Pūkenga have demonstrated—and it was evident at the select committee—quite a strategic approach to their commercial redress, what was available and, in fact, what they might derive value from. They have been very smart. But here is a lesson to all of us: it is not how big or small your settlement is; it is how purposeful you design the intent of the settlement for the benefit of your people.

One of the things that was impressed upon me when Ngāti Pūkenga came to the table—and we asked them a few tricky questions. Obviously, we could not get away from the Hauraki issue, so as the representative for Hauraki I had to ask that question: was Hauraki reaching all the way down into Tauranga Moana through Ngāti Pūkenga? They were very diplomatic and took a non-partisan view on that, but beyond that the questions were really around what they intended to see as a benefit, an opportunity for their people as a result of their settlement. It had nothing to do with size or scale. It had everything to do with reconnecting their history back to their places where they expressed an association; it had everything to do with ensuring that those obligations, I guess, of the Crown, in terms of Ngāti Pūkenga specifically, were recognised as having being breached; and it had everything to do with the commercial opportunities that they saw could be gained from their settlement. So I want commend them on that part.

On the issue of clause 103—we did spend some time on it. It was of interest that Ngāti Pūkenga—certainly for the Treaty settlements that I have sat through—was the only iwi who had so clearly brought up this issue in a way that challenged us to really think about it. If we really come back to the point that the chair of the select committee made around the committee considering that a review was necessary—the review would be interesting to be able to, I guess, get a context for how this particular clause applies but, also, within the right of first refusal space, how effective that whole process was operating and whether the time notification elements were efficient or optimised a transfer. Also, there is the innovation that has been created within iwi to have internal rights of refusal and to be able to kind of trigger an improved process to build the capability of the iwi so it is an “and/and” approach.

So I think a review, in my mind, would be a way to signal to those who currently have settled and those who are yet to settle that it is always an opportunity to improve, innovate, and build on some of these mechanisms, which are, ultimately, designed to support the aspirations of iwi in their settlement process.

But on clause 103, what might the charitable purpose be? We could only go back to the history of Tauranga Moana and the way in which lands were gifted post raupatu and things like that to say: “Actually, by and large, we may be talking about churches.” One of the challenging conversations in the space of churches taking on lands either gifted or by other means transferred to them is how hard it is to get those lands transferred back to iwi. So there seems to be an underlining element to the representation that was brought to us, and I am aware—I think, if I recall, in the Ngāti Ranginui or Ngāi Te Rangi settlements there was a specific piece of church land that was desired in the settlement.

But it struck me that we are probably talking about a limited pool of charitable purposes that this clause might apply to, and it would harm no one to see whether or not—and I have heard what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said, that this is very rarely triggered—it has been triggered, and under what circumstances, just to get a more accurate feel for how real, or not, this particular issue is. Of course, we take the word of the Minister, and the select committee was in that situation, which is why no recommendation was made, but we did it based on the word of the Minister and advice of officials, rather than really combing through, from the time that this clause was inserted in the right of first refusal provisions to now, as to whether it has ever been triggered, what the circumstance were, and whether it created a prejudice against the iwi whose settlement the clause might have applied to—things like that.

As I said, I am not going to take a long call. I want to make the final point that Ngāti Pūkenga interests within the Manaia area in the Hauraki rohe are yet to be resolved. Perhaps, with the wilful insight of the Ngāti Pūkenga experience and the way that they dealt with their overlapping interests, the whanaunga up in Manaia might use that and draw on that as some opportunity to try to get through the current state that they are in so that they can also get ahead. It is not how big or small your settlement is; it is the intent of the purpose and vision that you have for your iwi to benefit your people in the next generation, and I think Ngāti Pūkenga has achieved that well. Tēnā koutou.

Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to speak to this, the second reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. This bill talks to the settlement for Ngāti Pūkenga, who are part of two collectives: the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective and the Hauraki Collective.

The bill, as has been discussed, received one submission from Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga Trust, and a lot of focus has been on clause 103, the right of first refusal (RFR). I would like to briefly crystallise those arguments. First, if we can be clear what the right of first refusal in this deed of settlement is actually talking to: it is talking to two properties in Tauranga. The first is Tauranga Intermediate School, currently in the hands of the Ministry of Education, and the second is the army centre, currently in the hands of the New Zealand Defence Force.

The arguments that Te Tāwharau put up for why the exemption should not be included were threefold. First of all, it said that it is actually easy to ascertain whether RFR properties were originally gifted to the Crown and should, therefore, be subject to this clause. It gave the example that Ngāti Pūkenga has undertaken historical searches on the two RFR properties it is receiving and ascertained that neither were actually gifted. The second point it makes is that where there is no blanket RFR, other Crown-owned land continues to be available for charitable purposes, should that be required. The third point of the argument was that it was the antithesis of good-faith obligations on the part of the Crown to, on the one hand, offer redress and then, on the other, not to give them opportunity to take advantage of that redress.

The response from officials was twofold. We were told that, certainly, there is precedence through all of the existing settlements. Secondly, we were also told that the purpose for the RFR in the first place is that it is there on the basis to allow the owners to carry out their duties “to deliver programmes and initiatives” in the interests of all New Zealanders.” That notwithstanding, as you heard the chair, my good friend Nuk Korako, say, the Māori Affairs Committee pondered on this and thought that, really, we needed to make some comment.

Precedence reflects a view of a certain point in time, and if we were to “contemporanialise”, if you like, or make this current thinking contemporary, the select committee was of a view that the RFR may no longer have point and purpose for what it was intended. And so you see the recommendation that we review this for future settlements going forward.

This is just a very brief and short call. I just wanted to crystallise those arguments, totally support this bill, and continue to commend it to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi nui ki te rangatira o Ngāti Pūkenga.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to you all and an acknowledgment of huge proportions to the noble chief of Ngāti Pūkenga.]

I really want to talk about the right of first refusal (RFR) issue that has come up, because I was one of the people who were most exercised about this, but before I do that I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for engaging, because it did. I also want to acknowledge Ngāti Pūkenga’s passion to get to this point, the hard work, and the need to get this settled, because they put so much work into this settlement, and it is a credit.

I also acknowledge, as other speakers have, the passing of Te Awanuiārangi Black. He was one so young. You know, from my age—I am 20 years, or maybe a bit less, his senior—I just think of a young leader, who was, obviously, so capable and who provided so much. That is such a loss, and it is so mysterious—the way we lose these fantastic people. What that is for Ngāti Pūkenga, I can never know, but I just wanted to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge Ngāti Pūkenga for their concern about clause 103, because I have gone into this pretty deeply with them and I am not satisfied that we have finished. It is really good to hear other members of the Māori Affairs Committee acknowledge that this was the issue brought to them by Ngāti Pūkenga and say that we should consider a review.

I just want to go back over some of the aspects of what happened. I do not want to be mean, but I found the briefing from the officials very inadequate. We do not know a whole lot of things because we were not told. We asked for a briefing because we really wanted to understand. When tangata whenua bring such a serious issue before the committee, we really want to understand the historical meaning and implications and the precedent issues, and we got nothing. We got no information, and I felt that hampered us in making good decisions.

I also want to thank the Minister, because I went to the Minister about this—I went to Chris Finlayson. We had a meeting. He is always accessible, which is a great thing in a Treaty Minister. I asked him why this is here, and I have it in writing from him that there is no legal or policy reason for the clause that allows charitable trusts to have an option on Crown land before it is offered to iwi under the RFR. There is no legal or policy reason, and I have that in writing.

I also had a good discussion with the Minister about it. He said we could not change it, but he said that there is no legal or policy reason. I am emphasising that, because we cannot sit in this House and pass law that has clauses in it with no legal or policy reason. It is not right, and it is not good enough for us to say that precedent—because bad things have been allowed to happen in this past because this has not been properly examined, therefore, we will continue to do that.

This is why I think a review is the very least of what we should do, because if there is an issue that has got no legal or policy reason—and tangata whenua in other settlements may not have been aware of this. I have never heard it talked about until Pūkenga brought it to us, so people are not aware of it. When I have talked to other tangata whenua around the motu, they did not know about it, because a lot of us are not experts in the minutiae of the law and in the interpretation of those minutiae. So I think it is really important that we do have that discussion.

It is good to see the Minister back in the House, because I just want to thank him for—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Oh, I heard you were speaking, so I came back in.

Great. I want to thank him for being accessible on the issue. It is really important, because we need to have the conversation. I appreciate that historically over the last 22 or more years, when precedent is set and it is in all settlements because the clause was just there, even though there is no legal or policy reason, we need to seriously consider what we do about that.

I appreciate that the committee felt that it could not change the specific clause, and Ngāti Pukenga themselves are not trying to delay the settlement. They had no desire to delay the settlement by a lengthy negotiation on this clause, but they brought it to our attention for a very good reason, and that very good reason is that if there is no legal or policy reason for this, what do we do? I think review is one thing. I am interested in putting up, if Pūkenga wishes me to, a Supplementary Order Paper on this in the Committee stage, because Pūkenga did bring it in good faith. It is a very good-faith argument that they have made and, as Dr Shane Reti, the previous speaker, pointed out, they have investigated the issues behind this.

I think that there is a real need for us to take this very, very seriously. I mean, I am not a lawyer or an expert in these matters, but with all the settlements that have happened in the past, I still think that there is a matter of natural justice that can be addressed by reviewing this clause and thinking about whether we know how often it has ever been triggered—which we do not—what should be done about it, and whether we could do some sort of Māori purposes bill that actually removed it in terms of retrospectivity. I am not a lawyer, but I think we should consider these issues, and I think we should really consider the issue of justice at all times, particularly around Treaty settlements, because there is not relativity now, and many issues of precedent are worth considering.

I think that at the very least we need a body of academia to examine some of these anomalies that are in these settlements and the fact that there is no relativity—you know, it is very different. Even in the matter of money, what RFR meant 22 years ago and what market price was—some iwi got to buy their land, or had opportunities to buy land back, at market price 22 years ago. It is a totally different market price now, so things are not the same. There are not some kinds of absolutely consistent issues where you can read settlements and say: “Yep, we can’t change anything because it’s always been done this way.”

It is hugely diverse, and I think we need a lot more research and a lot more documentation so that we can understand whether there are more anomalies. What this brought up for me, when Ngāti Pūkenga came to us, was to ask what else there is. What are we also not examining? What assumptions are we making about things because they are precedents? Is it not time to not only review the right of first refusal but review the whole thing and actually ask ourselves some really hard questions? The current traditions around settlement law—are they all just? Are they exercising the best-possible approach that the Crown could possibly take? Maybe they are, but I do not think we have examined those lately, and I think we need help. It is not something we can do in 5 minutes in the select committee. I mean, it is something where the select committee would really appreciate knowing more on these issues, and we need to think about them.

Obviously, I am not going to be in this House after September, but I am really passionate that we do the very, very best we can, because the people who bring to us their blood, their sweat, and their tears—and I mean all of those things—deserve to know that we really know what we are doing and that we are not just following on from what we have always done. I know that the Minister is very serious about doing the best-possible job, and I know that the select committee is. But I think we need to re-examine some of these issues—including RFR—and recognise that there is not relativity in settlements, and ask what we are doing actually here and how we can make it better.

I just want to thank Ngāti Pūkenga, as well as everyone else, because I think the fact that, to my knowledge, they are the only people who have highlighted this in recent times takes nothing away from the significance of it, nor from their right to have it acknowledged. I would really like to see us examine this deeply, including—if that is their desire—having a Supplementary Order Paper on it. But, like everyone else, I am not here to say that this settlement should not proceed. I think this settlement is long overdue.

I would just like to acknowledge, as somebody who lives in the rohe of Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia, their extraordinary history of both good faith and resistance, their extraordinary effort through this settlement, and their ability to work with others, and what that means. So, notwithstanding this RFR issue—which I intend to pursue, whatever happens in my life next—I want to thank them for bringing it to us, and I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its consideration and concern that we review this. I look forward to the third reading. I look forward to the day of justice for Ngāti Pūkenga, and may it be fully a day of justice. Kia ora koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe anō, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia ki ēnei o ngā hunga mai i a Ngāti Pūkenga kua tae mai nei ki waenganui i a tātou i te ata nei; ēngari ki a au nei, e tika ana kia tuku i ngā mihi ki te rangatira a Te Awanui-ā-Rangi, nā te mea, i te wā i puta mai tēnei pire i roto i Te Whare i te tuatahi, i konei a ia, i haere mai ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. Nā reira, ahakoa e mōhio nei i a tātou kei te ngaro atu tana tinana ki te tirohanga kanohi, e mōhio ana au kei konei tōna wairua e rererere haere ana. Nā reira, e kara, haere, hoki atu ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou mō te tangata! Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā te hunga e wairuatia i te rā nei, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you once again, Mr Assistant Speaker. I endorse the acknowledgments accorded to these ones of Ngāti Pūkenga who have arrived here amongst us this morning; however, to me, it is fitting that condolences be accorded to the esteemed Te Awanui-ā-Rangi, because when this bill appeared the first time in the House he was here and came to support this bill. Therefore, even though we know that his body is lost from view, I know his spirit is here flying around. So, friend, depart and return to the original home for us, mankind! The part for those who were spiritualised today is therefore done, I come back to us, the living, acknowledgments to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.]

It is a pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and participate in this debate on the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. Can I say that we have heard in this House this morning of the history pertaining to Ngāti Pūkenga and its establishment of an embassy, as my tuakana Kelvin Davis, the MP for Te Tai Tokerau, quite eloquently stated. I just want to say that because of that connection, my darling can also claim descent from Ngāti Pūkenga. She is probably wondering why she has not claimed it more vigorously than her Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhitanga.

Nā te mea, kua tae kē i ā tātou i te rā nei, nā, kua tau kē te kerēme o Ngāti Pukenga ēngari i a mātou i roto o Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi, kei te haere tonu. Ēhara i te haere; kei te whawhai tonu, kia ahatia? Ēngari, wēnā te āhuatanga o ēnei tūmomo mahi i ngā kerēme; korekau he hīkoi māmā, nā reira, kia ahatia?

[Because we have already arrived here instead today, the Ngāti Pukenga claim has now been settled, but we in Ngāti Hine of Ngāpuhi are still going. It is not a journey; it is a fight, and it is still going, but what business is it of ours? However, that is the situation in regard to these kinds of tasks about claims; it is not an easy journey, therefore, what does it matter?]

In making reference to a particular tribe who is yet to settle, I notice that Ngāti Pūkenga has a population, at the last census, of 2,175 members. While, on behalf of New Zealand First, I support this bill, it is with some envy that my particular tribe has still yet to settle, No. 1, and No. 2, the Paraone whānau is in excess of 5,000. I can tell you that, and yet we cannot even get a claim through. So it is with some envy—and perhaps I should invite the Minister back to the North, to talk to the Paraone whānau of that particular tribe, and we will certainly help the Minister to make a settlement in that regard. But I digress.

The other thing—I just want to remind us that it has been almost 4 years since the signing of the deed. I suppose, while it may sound a long period of time, I think in terms of the overall process that is not too bad. Of course, the important thing is that the story of Ngāti Pūkenga and the history of their claim to the Waitangi Tribunal is publicised and articulated to the rest of us.

I can recall when it was first introduced into the House that we had a visit from a local primary school. The Māori Affairs Committee had as one of its agenda items the recognition of the various land battles, referred to as the New Zealand Wars, and whether or not they should be added to the education curriculum and taught in schools.

This particular claim is about a military engagement, not initiated by the iwi but initiated by the Crown, in the face of having had members of their iwi sign the Treaty of Waitangi, and yet having to suffer the consequences of that Treaty breach at that time. I would suggest that the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty settlement claim has a sad part about it, in terms of the effect that that engagement had on Ngāti Pūkenga. As we read the history of Ngāti Pūkenga, they had skills. They had the skills of a warrior tribe. They also had the skills of being able to converse, to communicate, with the unseen—in other words, they had priestly skills, which a lot of other iwi did not have to the same extent that they had.

As a consequence of that skill handed down from generation to generation, you will see that this particular claim is a testament to the skill that the Ngāti Pūkenga negotiators have, to be able to negotiate with other cross-claimants and to be recognised by other claimants in their claims. So I think that ought to be acknowledged, to see that Ngāti Pūkenga are able to carry on with those skills. That is why acknowledgment has been given to the passing of Awanui Black, because of the skills that he had. I know that he was a fierce advocate for Te Reo Māori. In fact, he sat on the board of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori language commission, when I was the acting CEO. He made it quite clear to me where his interests lay.

I do not have too much to say, other than to commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the third reading of this claim. Kia ora.

I stand to support the second reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. I just want to acknowledge the korero that has gone on in the House today about where this settlement bill has got to. I want to acknowledge that the commercial redress is $7 million, and there is right of first refusal (RFR) in relation to RFR lands for this iwi, as well as the cultural redress of half a million dollars for cultural revitalisation and $180,000 for marae revitalisation, as part and parcel of this particular settlement.

I just want to take a short time to acknowledge the members of Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga Trust. You had an amazing task to do, and I think that you have come through admirably for Ngāti Pūkenga whānau. I just want to acknowledge the members June Pitman, and her alternate, Hori Parata; Jocelyn Mikaere from Manaia, and her alternate, Dawn Wihongi; Hoturoa Kerr from Tauranga, and his alternate, Donna Tukariri—the members of Te Tāwharau.

I also want to take this time to acknowledge the negotiation team, led by Rāhera Ōhia: the negotiator Shane Ashby; the late Awanui Black, of whom we have heard tributes here in the House today; Harry Haerengārangi Mīkaere; the manager, Āreta Gray; and the legal counsel, Dominic Wilson. These are the people who have worked very hard for Ngāti Pūkenga to get the bill to the second reading.

I, along with my colleagues in the House, look forward to the Committee of the whole House and the third reading, after which this bill gains the Royal assent. Without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker—I will get off my phone—ā, nei te mihi atu ki a koe, otirā, ki tēnei pire [and so I acknowledge you but at the same time this bill].

It was a very interesting debate that was had around this bill in regard to the right of first refusal (RFR) land. I want to acknowledge the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS). To be sure, the Crown is very good at negotiating now. It has had lots of practice at it. Things that may have been agreed to back in the day, with other, bigger iwi, are no longer agreed to. Those provisions are no longer provided for because our negotiators, on behalf of the Crown, have got very good at it. That is how they do their job. But we got to a debate about the RFR lands. RFR stands for first right of refusal. That is what we call those rights, but, in fact, we discovered they were not. They were sixth right of refusal. There was a whole list of other people who went through the process if you wanted to get some land back. There is a whole list of people that they go through, including charities—charities; any charity. It could be the “Fox Foundation for Advancing Little Foxes”. It could be any charity. We do not believe and we did not believe that the Foxes should have any greater right than the tangata whenua to have that land back in redress.

So the Māori Affairs Committee itself made note, and I want to read from the committee’s report. It says “Te Tāwharau argued that the clause is unfair because: the RFR properties in question were not gifted to the Crown”—the land was confiscated, in case people did not understand that—“[the] Crown-owned land continues to be available for charitable purposes”, and “Crown is not acting in good faith when it offers these lands as redress, but may ignore this redress in favour of any charitable organisation”—including the Fox one—“it decides should receive the land instead, consequently placing the land out of reach of the iwi.” We suggested, as a committee, that that clause, clause 103, should be removed, and charitable organisations, unless they are charitable organisations of the iwi, should not be able to have RFR land offered to them before the iwi.

And why should they? These lands were confiscated, and, again by its own admission, the Crown said they were confiscated unfairly through raupatu, following a war that the Crown initiated. The Crown initiated the war. This was not Māori people in the backwoods somewhere picking fights with settlers. Simply because they refused to sell their land, the Crown initiated war against them and then confiscated the entirety of all their landholdings. This settlement is for approximately $8,680,000, if I added those numbers up correctly from the previous speaker’s comments. Landless—they are sixth on the list behind a whole group of other people and charities, and their land was taken by confiscation after a war that the Crown initiated on them for refusing to sell their land.

Ngāti Pūkenga did not even take part in the war. They respected their commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. So the war that was carried out in the Tauranga Moana area: they did not even take part in it, and still their land was confiscated—still it was. In fact, it was said here: “The Crown acknowledges that, despite it leading Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga to believe their interests would be scrupulously respected, the confiscation/raupatu at Tauranga Moana and the Tauranga District Lands Act 1867 and 1868, unjustly extinguished the customary [right and] title of Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga”. And there it is. It actually did return some land, but it did not return it to the people. It returned it to individuals. It returned 98 acres—98.5 acres, actually, but they were returned to individuals and, again, their cultural interests in the land were lost.

This is at the heart of this and the issues that are going on in Tauranga Moana right now. They signed this Treaty settlement in 2013, and the redress will never match the hurt. The redress will never compensate for what was done. I will say it again: the biggest gift that Māori give to this nation is accepting Treaty settlement at all—at all.

Ngāti Pūkenga lost their land. They were dispersed between four small and scattered kāinga, not even on their own land, and since 2010 the matakahi, the tribe’s negotiating team, worked tirelessly to protect their interest. Matakahi is a traditional war movement; it is the wedge formation to split the enemy’s ranks, and they were formidable. They carried out their wedge negotiation: Rāhera Ōhia, Shane Ashby, Harry Mīkaere, Āreta Gray, Dominic Wilson, and the late Te Awanuiārangi Black. Three years of negotiating, and OTS, you guys are pretty good at negotiating now—the Crown, we are pretty good, but they are pretty good because they have history on their side. They have truth on their side. They have pain and hurt, and now, when they sign these settlements, they move from being parties of protest to parties of progress, and they take their people forward, accepting that $7 million and then a little bit more for this and a little bit more for that is never going to be good enough. It is never going to be good enough, but they accept it anyway, and they gird up their loins and they take a step into the future, and they get their people together.

And you know what? Awanuiārangi and Tommy Kapai Wilson, they had a whare that they called their dreaming whare—they called it something. That is not what they called it—the right to dream, the “Minister of Dreams”. They would sit there and they would talk about the future and their aspirations, and they let their dreams fly. This is what we can do. This is where we can take our people. When he passed away, at his tangi the people, the warriors who came out, said: “It’s OK. His No. 1 goal was to grow the puna—grow the puna of reo, grow the puna of knowledge, grow the puna of cultural history, of cultural action, of traditions, of revitalisation—and he did.” They all did, because they dared to dream. Despite what had happened to them and their people, at no fault of their own, ever, they dared to dream and they moved forward into the future.

So I am proud to stand here today as part of the Māori Affairs Committee, recognising the work of the Minister, of OTS, and of our chair and our committee to support this whānau to this point. Despite the pitiful pittance of a settlement that they will receive, they accept it and they move on. They are grateful and they hold their heads up because they are resilient and they are strong and they stand in the traditions of their ancestors and tell the world that we rise. No matter what happens, we rise. E te iwi, tēnā tātou katoa.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. “E taku rata tūtahi, e taku tiketike kua riro. E taku manawa kairākau, e te kaiwhiu taiaha, e te tohutohu tewhatewha, e te patu paraoa, e te mere pounamu, e tōku tuakana, e Awa, e tika ana te kōrero a tō iwi a Ngāti Pūkenga, “Hamuti wera, niho tetē. Ka tetē ōu niho ki runga i te puke o Ruapekapeka ki roto i a mātau, ko Kelvin, ko Nanaia, ko Pita, ko Ria, e noho mai nei. E tetē tonu ana ōu niho ki roto i ngā kupu o te pire e horahia ake nei.

E te tuakana i a au e pānui atu ana i ngā kōrero kai roto i te pire, ka kite atu ahau i ō tapuwae kai runga tonu i te mata o te whenua. He taonga, he tapu o ngā waihotanga iho ki runga i te mata o te whenua e auē nei, e tangi nei, e mapumapu nei, koutou o Te Pō, haere, haere, haere!

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau e Te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa! E tika ana te kōrero a tōku tuakana a Kelvin Davis, e pā ana ki te wāhi whenua o Pakikaikutu. Ka hoki anō au ki ngā rā ō nehe ki te taenga mai o Te Waka o Mātaatua ki runga o Aotearoa e horahia ake nei. Anā, koia rā anō tetahi o ngā hononga o Te Tai Tokerau ki a Ngāti Pūkenga, e kōrerohia nei e tātau i te rā nei. E mōhio ana tātau, ko te tupuna rongonui o Ngāti Pūkenga, anā, koia rā tērā ko te teina o Tūhoe-Pōtiki ki runga i Te Waka o Mātaatua! E mōhio ana tātau katoa i te hītori o taua waka, kua riro atu ki a mātau o Te Tai Tokerau Te Waka o Mātaatua hei tiaki!

Kia kaua e pōhēhē ngā uri o Mātaatua, ka tīmata, ka mutu anō ki roto i te rohe e whakataukītia nei, mai, i “ngā Kurī o Whārei ki …”, ai kua wareware ahau! Ka riro atu ki roto i a Tauranga te roanga ake o Te Waka o Mātaatua ēngari, ko tāku e kī atu nei, mai i Ngā Kurī o Whārei, atu ki Tākou ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau, te takotoranga o Te Waka o Mātaatua i ēnei rangi. Kāti, te tuituia tātau ki roto i ngā kōrero o tō tātau pire.

Kua kaha kōrero Te Whare mō te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kai roto i te pire. Ko te mea tuatahi, ko te whiti kotahi rau mā toru, clause 103, kua kaha kōrero nei Te Whare mō te āhuatanga ki te mana hoko tuatahi, arā, te right of first refusal. E tautoko atu ana au i tērā tūāhuatanga, kia arohaehae e tēnei Whare, me ngā rōia mōhio nei ki ngā nekehanga o tēnei tūāhuatanga, kia kite atu i tetahi huarahi pai ake ki taku titiro ki ngā kupu kei roto i te pire. I te pire tuatahi o te rā nei, i kōrero atu ahau mō tēnei tūāhuatanga, te mana hoko tuatahi nē? Me te kī atu, ko ngā whakapapa o Te Māori, e kore e taea te wete! Ko ngā āhuatanga o te ture, ka taea te wete! Nō reira, ka tautoko ahau i te whakatau o Te Whare, o ngā mema o Te Whare, ko Nanaia Mahuta, ko Catherine Delahunty. Rongo atu ahau i te kōrero a Tutehounuku Korako e tautoko atu ana i tērā tūāhuatanga. Ko ahau anō tēnā e tautoko atu ana!

Ki te wahanga tuatahi o te pire! Kua kōrero atu ahau mō te āhuatanga o te whakapapa, kore e taea te wete, kore e taea te karo, ēngari i te ture a Te Pākehā, ka taea te wetewete. Ko ngā whakapapa me ngā hītori ka rārangihia ki roto i te pire, tēnei e tautoko atu ana i ngā uri o Pūkenga, i ngā uri a Kūmaramaoa, ngā uri a Rongopoipoia. E tautoko atu ana au kia riro ki a rātau te whakapāha a Te Kāwanatanga, ka riro ki a rātau, ngā āhuatanga katoa kai roto i te wahanga tuatahi o tēnei pire.

Huri tū atu ki te wāhanga tuarua o te pire. Ko tetahi o ngā āhuatanga pai te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire, anā, ko te manatū, ā, ko te tikanga o Te Manatū Ahu Matua, he aha rā tēnā? Anā, ko te primary industries tēnā nē? Ko te primary industries, he mea tēnā, te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire, te kī atu te tohutohu ki Te Manatū Ahu Matua, mō ngā take hao ika, mō ngā take mātaitai ki roto i ngā rohe kua whakaritea mō Ngāti Pūkenga ki roto i te pire nei, e tika ana hei tohutohu i Te Manatū Ahu Matua te mahi ngātahi me Ngāti Pūkenga, me ngā tāngata katoa o Tauranga Moana ki te whakarite, ki te whakapakari, ki te hauhake, i ngā hua me ngā tini o Tangaroa ki roto o Tauranga Moana. Nō reira, he mea pai tēnā te kite atu ki roto i te wahanga tuarua o te pire.

Huri tū atu ki te wāhanga tuatoru o te pire, kua kōrero mai ētahi o Te Whare i te rahi o te pūtea ka riro atu ki a rātau. Ka kōrero mai i te hiahia o Ngāti Pūkenga mō te āhua o te mana hoko tuatahi ki roto i wā rātau wāhi, me te hiahia ka riro ki a rātau ngā whenua me ngā whare papai rawa atu o tērā rohe, kia kaua e riro atu ki a rātau, ko ngā tūmatakuru, me ngā parakipere anake ki a rātau! Ka riro ki a rātau ngā wāhi whai rawa! Ka āhei a Ngāti Pūkenga ki te kake ki ngā rangi, ki ngā taumata e hiahiatia ana e rātau. Nō reira, ka tautoko atu ahau i tērā tūāhuatanga, me te hiahia kia hoki mai anō tātau katoa mō ngā nekehanga o te pire, tae noa atu ki tōna tutukitanga ki roto i te pānuitanga tuatoru o te pire.

Kāre au i te takaroa i ngā kōrero ēngari, ki roto i te wahanga e whai ake nei mō te pire, kāre e kore ka āta wetewete tātau i te whiti, kotahi rau mā toru, arā, te clause 103, ki roto i te nohoanga o te Whare ki te āta wetewete i te pire, ki roto i ngā marama e tū nei. Nō reira, kāti ake i konei e Te Māngai o Te Whare, me ngā āpiha ka kite atu ahau ki roto i Te Whare, e whakarongo mai ana, me Te Minita e kawe nei i te pire ki roto i tō tātau Whare. E mihi atu ana ki a tātau, tēnā koutou katoa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will remain speaking in the Māori language. To my stand-alone rātā tree, my lofty one that has gone, my wood consuming heart, exponent of the taiaha, instructor of the tewhatewha, the whalebone patu, the greenstone mere, my elder sibling, Awa, the proverb of your Ngāti Pūkenga tribe is correct: “Hot faeces, bared teeth”. Your teeth bared on Ruapekapeka hill within us, Kelvin, Nanaia, Pita, and Ria sitting here. Your teeth are bared still in the words of the bill spread out here.

Elder sibling, as I was reading the accounts within this bill, I saw your footprints are still there upon the face of the land. What you have left behind upon the face of the land is prized and sacred that you of the void, cries, laments and sigh repeatedly for, go forth, depart, farewell!

I bring the lines of the contribution back to us the House; acknowledgments to us all. The contribution by my senior colleague Kelvin Davis about the land at Pakikaikutu is correct. I go back once again to the days of ancient times, to the arrival of the Mātaatua canoe upon Aotearoa spread out here. That, then, is one of the connections of the Far North to Ngāti Pūkenga we are talking about on this day. We know that the famous ancestor of Ngāti Pūkenga is indeed the younger brother of Tūhoe-Pōtiki on the Mātaatua canoe. We all know the history concerning that canoe, that we of the Far North have the Mātaatua canoe and are looking after it.

Descendants of Mātaatua must never think mistakenly that the region of the Mātaatua begins and ends in the region quoted in the saying: “From the dogs of Whārei to—”. Oh gosh, I have forgotten it. Tauranga can claim that the Mātaatua canoe was there for a longer period of time but I proclaim that from the Dogs of Whārei to Tākou in the Far North is the resting place of the Mātaatua canoe these days. Enough, we must weave it into the commentary of our bill.

The House has spoken out strongly about the feature of the comments in the bill. The first one is namely clause 103, and the House has strenuously debated the function of the right of first refusal. I endorse that circumstance and that it be critically analysed by this House and by lawyers who are knowledgeable in the movements of this feature to find a better way, as I see it in the words in the bill. In the first bill today I commented on this function, the right of first refusal—OK? I said that Māori genealogies can never be disconnected but aspects about law can be disconnected. Therefore I endorse the ruling of the House, of the members the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and Catherine Delahunty. I heard the contribution by Tutehounuku Korako endorsing function. I am another one endorsing it as well.

To the first part of the bill I have spoken about the aspect relating to the genealogy where it cannot be disconnected and cannot be evaded, but Pākehā law can be dismantled. In regards to the genealogies and historical accounts listed in the bill, I endorse these with the descendants of Pūkenga, Kūmaramaoa, and Rongopopoia. I endorse that they receive the Government’s apology and all properties in Part 1 of this bill.

I turn now to Part 2 of the bill. One of the positive aspects seen in this bill relates to the ministry, and in particular to the code of the Ministry for Primary Industries, and what indeed is that? They are the primary industries, OK—a thing seen in this bill to advise the Ministry for Primary Industries on matters relating to fisheries, shellfish, and seafood in the regions considered for Ngāti Pūkenga in this bill, which are appropriate for the Ministry for Primary Industries to advise and work collaboratively with Ngāti Pūkenga, and all of the people of Tauranga, to organise, strengthen, and harvest the seafood that Tangaroa the sea god offers in the sea of Tauranga. So that is a good thing to see in Part 2 of the bill.

Turning to Part 3 of the bill, where some members of the House have commented on the size of the funding that they will receive. They told us about Ngāti Pūkenga’s desire to have the right of first refusal over their lands, that they also wanted some of the better lands and housing of that area, and that they do not end up with land covered by thorny shrubs and blackberry but end up getting places that are highly productive. Ngāti Pūkenga will be able to ascend the heavens and reach the levels that they want. And so I endorse that situation, but I do want us all to come back for the movements of the bill until its conclusion in the third reading of the bill.

I am not prolonging the contributions, but without a doubt we will analyse the part that follows about clause 103 carefully in a sitting of the House to analyse the bill critically in the months to come. And so enough at this point in time, Mr Assistant Speaker and officials that I can see listening in the House with the Minister who brought this bill into our House; I acknowledge us and you all.]

Bill read a second time.