Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill

I move, That the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. In April this year I went to Mangatangi Marae in the heart of the rohe of Ngāti Tamaoho to sign the deed of settlement with this great iwi. Some 2 months on from the signing ceremony, I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill, which like many others has been so many years in the making. It has been over 4 years since the agreement in principle was signed, and despite the time it has taken, I have never had any doubt we would get to this stage.

To all those who have worked so hard to make today possible, I offer my most sincere thanks. Nanny Mere Taka, Tokoroa Pompey, Barney Kirkwood, Te Raha Ngarengari, and their various tūpuna before them began this journey many, many years ago. They are in our thoughts today. I also want to acknowledge the various members of the negotiation team, starting with Ted Ngātaki and Warahi Paki; the lead negotiator, Dennis Kirkwood; and all those involved in the negotiation team for the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust. Never have the words of Te Pūea Hērangi rung so true: “Mahia te mahi hei painga mō te iwi.”—work for the betterment of the people. These negotiations have been long and complex, so I acknowledge the hard work, the commitment, and the perseverance to achieve an enduring settlement for this iwi. I also acknowledge the Crown team, officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, and supporting Crown agencies.

Let me say something about the chronology of negotiations. The settlement road commenced in 2003, when the Ngāti Tamaoho lands and resources claim was lodged by Ted Ngātaki, followed in 2008 with the Ngāti Mahanga, Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Apakura (Tahapeehi) lands claim, and the Ngāti Āmaru and Ngāti Pou lands claim, which was lodged by Ben Katipa.

In April 2010, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust to represent the iwi in negotiating a comprehensive Treaty settlement. The trust and the Crown signed terms of negotiation in October 2010, and an agreement in principle was signed in December 2012. During this period, Ngāti Tamaoho were not only busy negotiating the best-possible settlement for their iwi but they were also navigating the complex waters—and, indeed, they are complex—of collective negotiations in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ngāti Tamaoho signed the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau collective redress deed in September 2012. After a 2-year hiatus, Ngāti Tamaoho and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement in December last year.

As is always the case for a first reading, I want to take a moment to reflect on the history of the relationship between the Crown and the settling iwi. It is a long history of gradual but constant land loss and of conflicts that severely impacted on Ngāti Tamaoho.

Prior to 1840, their rangatira sought to develop commercial relationships with Pākehā settlers by entering into land transactions. After Crown-appointed land commissioners investigated these pre-Treaty transactions, the Crown granted land to Pākehā settlers, but retained 400 acres of so-called surplus land in which Ngāti Tamaoho had interests. After the signing of the Treaty in 1840, Ngāti Tamaoho sought economic opportunities by selling land to the Crown. Despite Crown assurances that one-tenth of the land transacted through pre-emption waiver sales would be retained for public purposes especially for the benefit of Māori, the Crown later abandoned the policy. This is an all too familiar story for many iwi. The benefits they expected to enjoy from selling the land were not realised. Crown purchasing activities contributed to tension and, ultimately, to armed conflict between Ngāti Tamaoho and neighbouring iwi.

Can I now turn to a very dark episode of the Crown’s relationship with Ngāti Tamaoho. In 1863 the Crown required Māori in South Auckland to swear an oath of allegiance or vacate their settlements. The Crown did not give Ngāti Tamaoho sufficient time to understand the oath, and despite this iwi never having been in so-called rebellion, Crown troops burnt buildings and looted property at Pōkeno prior to the invasion of the Waikato. The Crown unfairly labelled most of Ngāti Tamaoho as rebels, evicted them from their settlements, and confiscated most of their remaining lands.

This is an acknowledged moment of our shared history, and I wish to reiterate part of the Crown apology that I presented to the iwi in April. The Crown sincerely regrets unfairly labelling Ngāti Tamaoho as rebels and confiscating much of its remaining land. The Crown also unreservedly apologises for the hurt and ongoing grievance caused by the burning and the looting of Pōkeno. The Crown attacked the settlement prior to its invasion of Waikato, despite Ngāti Tamaoho never having been in rebellion.

By 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho had lost most of their land. Many experienced severe social and economic marginalisation and deplorable housing conditions. Something that every member of this House should note is that the children of the iwi experienced discrimination and segregation—and segregation—at a State-run school in Pukekohe. One law for all did not apply to Ngāti Tamaoho.

Pākehā settlement in the Ngāti Tamaoho rohe resulted in significant environmental modifications, over which Ngāti Tamaoho exercised little control. Introduced flora and fauna had an adverse impact on traditional Ngāti Tamaoho resources like eels, while dam construction and wetlands reclamation resulted in significant environmental damage. As a result, they became virtually landless. They have lost their autonomy and their connection with their environment and have suffered from severe social and economic deprivation. It is those facts that led us to the negotiating table, and that is why we have a settlement with this iwi.

The settlement package contains an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and apology, cultural redress, and commercial redress. Other speakers can go into the particular aspects of the settlement, because in my speech I wanted to emphasise the facts of what happened and why we are here.

I mentioned at the deed of settlement signing ceremony what could be called a statement of the obvious. It is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Tamaoho for the loss and prejudice they have suffered. I therefore acknowledge their generosity in graciously accepting the redress contained in this settlement package, and I certainly hope that it marks a new beginning in the relations between the iwi and the Crown.

Through this settlement, the Crown hopes to restore its honour and alleviate what can only be described as an acute sense of grievance, and the Crown certainly looks forward to building a new relationship with Ngāti Tamaoho based on respect for the Treaty. I consider that the bill needs to proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Mōkau ki runga, ko Tāmaki ki raro, ko Pare Hauraki, ko Pare Waikato te kaokao o Pātetere, ko Mangatoatoa ki waenganui, hoki ake mai ki Te Nehenehenui. Tēnei ka tū ake ki te mihi atu ki a Ngāti Tamaoho i tēnei rā.

Ka hoki ngā mahara ki tērā o ngā kuikuia i noho mai i waenganui i a koutou, tērā ki a Mere Taka. I te wā e kaha ana a ia ki te kohi i ngā kōrero o Ngāti Tamaoho i roto i tōna oranga, kia mōhio pai ai ngā whakatipuranga ngā āhuatanga kei waenganui i a koutou, anā, ka tū mai ki tēnei rā. Ka whakaaro ake ki tērā o ngā mea o Mangatangi, ko Toko Pompey tērā, tērā kaiwhakangahau, me kī, te manawa ki ngā āhuatanga o tōna kāinga a Mangatangi. Ka nui te mahara ki a rāua, ki a rātou katoa i huri ki tua o te ārai.

Nō reira, i tēnei wā ka whakaaro ake me pēwhea pai te tīmata i tēnei kōrero. He maha ngā whakaaro i roto i a koutou nei tutukitanga, tērā ki tō mātou nei kuia rongonui a Nāneko Minhinnick me tōna hari ki te kaupapa nui, ngā take Tiriti e pā ana ki Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa ki mua i Te Taraipiunara. Ka whakaaro ake ki tōna āhuatanga hei whakatīnanahia i ngā whakaaro o te painga o Te Iwi o Tainui kia tū motuhake tātou ki Tāmaki Makaurau, ki ngā peka katoa o tērā rohe i kīia nei ko Tainui waka.

Nō reira, ko rātou ngā kaihautū, me kī, o te whakaaro. Nā rātou anō i whakatō te kākano, kia kore ai e ngaro ō mātou nei hiahia ki te tutuki i ēnei o ngā āhuatanga, nō reira, ka nui te mahara ki a rātou katoa i hikihia mai ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou.

[Greetings everyone. Mōkau is above, Tāmaki is below, Pare Hauraki, Pare Waikato, the armpits of Pātetere and Mangatoatoa, are in the middle, and then back up to te Nehenehenui. I rise on this day to accord a welcome to Ngāti Tamaoho.

Thoughts go back to that one of the elderly womenfolk living there amongst you, to that Mere Taka. During the time that she was capable and healthy, she gathered up stories about Ngāti Tamaoho so that generations would be better informed about aspects within you, and eventually rise up on this day. I reflect upon that one of the ones of Mangatangi, that Toko Pompey, that entertainer, shall we say, the heart in regard to aspects about his settlement, Mangatangi. Recollections about those two are much; in fact, about all of those who have about-turned and ended up beyond the veil.

So at this moment I am thinking about a good way to start this contribution. Within your conclusions are many ideas, and in particular that one about our famous elderly matriarch Ngāneko Minhinnick and her joy in regard to the important proposal concerning Treaty matters with respect to Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa before the Tribunal. I think about its situation in terms of implementing the thoughts of those back home and those of the Tainui tribe, as a stand-alone to those ideas at Auckland and at all the branches of that area called the canoe Tainui. Therefore, they are the ones in control of the thought, let us say. They indeed planted the seed so that our aspirations to fulfil these ones of the circumstances will be lost, therefore the recollection of all of them is huge now that it has been lifted over to us. My appreciation to you collectively.]

Minister Finlayson and members, I want to stand and support the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. On a number of fronts, it causes me to reflect on a number of things. I was there at Makaurau Marae at Ihumātao in around about the mid-1980s—1984, I think—when the Wai 8 Treaty claim was held. I was just a teenager. All we did was make the cups of tea and make sure the kaumātua were OK. But, in doing so, I witnessed rangatira such as Hēnare Tūwhāngai, and one of the things that he said at the time—it stands out—as he gave his presentation before the Waitangi Tribunal was: “E kore tātou e ngaro, he tāhere waka nui.”—we will never be lost, because we come from the hull of a great canoe. At that time, when Ngāneko Minhinnick brought the Wai 8 claim and gave evidence to the tribunal, a lot of work had happened within the tribe and from across the tribe—all quarters—to be able to take supporting submissions and present them in what was then a very new process.

The hīkoi to Waitangi had happened. Koro Wētere was Minister at the time. There was a law change to make the hearing of evidence retrospective—in 1985, that was imminent—and we were just kids witnessing this kind of a process. There are two people I mentioned previously, Mere Taka and Toko Pompey. At the time Toko Pompey was considered a rangatahi—he presented evidence on that basis—and Mere Taka was a local historian who provided much of the evidence for the raupatu claim but, significantly, was a major contributor and submitter to the Wai 8 claim.

Why do I mention this in relation to the Ngāti Tamaoho settlement? Much of the historical record in relation to the natural resource environment was sourced from the Wai 8 claim. You need not look too far, in terms of a number of interests within Tainui waka, then to the Wai 8 claim to understand the genesis and the emerging thoughts that were falling out from the Wai 8 claim across the iwi about how we could consolidate our interests as kaitiaki in the first instance but to ensure that when development happens within the rohe, we have a critical ability to have a say. The genesis really was within the Wai 8 claim, and I note that it is one of the claims that is mentioned here.

I want to acknowledge all those who have worked tirelessly and hard on behalf of Ngāti Tamaoho—Dennis Kirkwood, Te Roto Jenkins, Gordon Katipa, Nicholas Maaka, Tori Ngātaki, Panetuku Rae, Lynette Taka, George Wheatley, and Kiri Wilson—because they have really tried to do as much as they can. The Minister made a comment about the time that it has taken to bring this together. Again, there was a lot of eagerness when Doug Graham, in around about 2008 or so, went up to Auckland to try to consolidate those interests in Tāmaki that were not settled in the Waikato raupatu 1995 claim and primarily extended into Auckland, because there was still residual non-raupatu interests across that area, certainly within the Tainui consolidation of hapū and iwi up there. So there was a lot of optimism that there would be a way of working through this.

Ngāti Tamaoho have continued with their aspirations. It is clear in terms of the redress that they have expressed in relation to Hunua, significantly, that they held on to the relationship—which they wanted to express again—to the rohe but, importantly, to their waterways. I read with interest in schedule 1 about the range of connections and associations that they wanted clearly expressed and it is of no surprise, to the extent that Ngāti Tamaoho have always maintained mana whenua where they have existed in Papakura right down into Mangatangi. They are very accommodating in the way in which they work with local government, business stakeholders, people coming into the rohe, and horticulturists as well, because we know Pukekohe is a food basket for Auckland. Ngāti Tamaoho has such relationships across the Pukekohe area, and I am sure the local member would agree that they are quite immersed very strongly into the community.

It is pleasing to see that they have got to this point where they can bring their settlement into the House and think about how they organise for the whānau. Where they have expressed their interests, there are already things happening that I am aware of. They are wanting to ensure that they can not only express their cultural connection to the area but, I think, be a part of a future consideration around opportunities. The Hunua Falls, in particular, is a well-travelled place, and it is a place that is loved. Some of these other smaller places are renowned locally within the iwi for food-gathering places and also recreational and resting places.

It is a real pleasure to see Ngāti Tamaoho get to this point. They are a part of the Waikato raupatu settlement that was achieved in 1995. There are a lot of challenges within Waikato around managing those Treaty settlement interests that are beyond the raupatu settlement. But as time goes by, and as people mature, I think that there will be a stronger way of ensuring that there is an and/and capability that has been built up through the Treaty settlement space and within larger collectives of iwi. I know that that is a vision of Ngāti Tamaoho, and it is certainly an opportunity for the descendants across all of Waikato.

So without too much more, I want to wholeheartedly support this bill. I want to ensure that as the select committee—and I hope that I am on the select committee, to consider it—goes through the process of considering the Ngāti Tamaoho legislation, the context of those discrete but smaller bits of claims that exist within Auckland need to be resolved in some shape or form, and they are such that it may require more discrete approaches. It may be something that you have given a bit of thought to, Minister.

I mention Ngāneko Minhinnick in the last few seconds I have. Her passion was to ensure that those interests of Ngāti Te Ata and Maioro and the protection of the wāhi tapu there could be advanced. That is a great hope still of her family and I hope that that is an opportunity that can be taken up in the years to come. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe anō e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, huri noa i te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. It is indeed my pleasure to be able to stand to speak in the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I want to thank the previous speaker, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for giving us a very good overview of the rohe—the takiwā, actually—of Ngāti Tamaoho. It takes me back to when I was at Hato Tīpene College, because we used to have a number of representatives from Ngāti Tamaoho come, particularly during the times of celebration at the school but also during the kapa haka. We had a great kapa haka group, and a number of waiata, or the items, actually came from that particular area, so I want to acknowledge that.

I think acknowledgments also are really important, particularly—as has been done previously—around those who have passed on into the long night and who were very, very serious players in taking this on the journey to where it is today. So I acknowledge those who have passed on. I also acknowledge those who have worked tirelessly, and continue to do so, and they were acknowledged by the Minister and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta.

I think the important thing to do is to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, particularly for his work on this particular piece of legislation. As we know, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, and also right across there, there are a number of iwi in those areas, and it is important that we actually address the claims and the concerns as we move through so that there is a kotahitaka thing going on, particularly to include everyone.

The Treaty settlements process, again—and we have talked many times about this—is indeed a healing process, and this particular Treaty settlement is no exception. When we look at the restoring of the partnership between iwi and the Crown—and it was promised as far back as 1840 under the Treaty—it is about providing iwi with an opportunity to look forward to plan for the future, as we all know, and that is really very much the essence of this particular Treaty settlement as well. But before all that can happen, as we also know, it is important that there is a meaningful acknowledgment of the wrongdoings in the past. In the case of Ngāti Tamaoho, the wrongs committed by the Crown were very, very many, and, unfortunately, the consequences were devastating.

When we look at Ngāti Tamaoho, by all accounts this was an iwi that actually welcomed the opportunity to form relationships with Pākehā settlers, and also with the Crown. They welcomed the economic opportunities of trade, and even land transactions. But little could they have anticipated the way these opportunities would be undermined by the Crown’s bad-faith dealings. This was highlighted by the speech from the Minister. The Crown retained land that it had never purchased, and failed to reserve the tenths—the tenths—that it actually had committed to. Ngāti Tamaoho saw benefit in loyalty to the Crown, even while sharing their aspirations for Kīngitanga. I think that is a very important part of this. They were trying to actually deliver a partnership—a partnership with the colonial settlers, and a partnership that was not only a physical partnership but also one about whakapapa. It was also about ancestry, as well—deeply ingrained into the ethos of these people, of this iwi, Ngāti Tamaoho.

While the Crown’s actions gave iwi every reason to be distrustful and to rebel against a regime that demanded both their loyalty and their land, Ngāti Tamaoho, in their passiveness, did not rebel. They did not rebel. Their loyalty to the Crown was rewarded by Crown troops with the inaccurate labelling of their people, Ngāti Tamaoho, as rebels. They were actually branded as rebels, resulting in their eviction and the confiscation of most of their land. When we look at the title to the little remaining land that was gifted, there was some land that was gifted to individual Ngāti Tamaoho whom the Crown considered to be loyal, but they were very, very few. The land was alienated, actually, from iwi ownership. It was just individual ownership, not iwi ownership. That also went against a lot of the ethos about how Māori actually look at land. It is actually about a collectivisation, as opposed to an individual right.

This is now a landless iwi. Taking that on board, they watched as Pākehā settled their lands, changed their traditional environment beyond recognition, and adversely affected their traditional resources. You only have to travel across the Bombay Hills through into South Auckland and into that area and you can see the huge transformation and how economically viable it is, but this was land that was originally owned by this particular iwi, Ngāti Tamaoho. The redress provided in this deed of settlement seeks to provide some reparation for the harm that was caused, but it cannot, and will not, compensate Ngāti Tamaoho for the vast amounts of land that I have just described, or for the economic potential that this land has actually given.

They find themselves today, as I said, landless but also bereft, actually, of the commercialisation that they could have benefited from. What the commercial redress here does, however, is provide an economic base for future development. It provides an opportunity for the iwi to actually be in charge of their own destiny. It provides in some ways, too, their right of tino rakatirataka, and their right to stand, finally, on their land, on the whenua, and also to utilise it—to develop it for their economic well-being as well as their cultural well-being. Particularly, the most important part of that is that it is about their identity. It is about their identity.

As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I say that we really do look forward to considering the settlement and this bill in a lot more detail, and to actually assisting as the kaitiaki to help this bill through on its journey through to the Royal assent. Should the election results and consequent appointments permit, I look forward to welcoming the rakatira of Ngāti Tamaoho and all who would submit on this bill when they appear before the Māori Affairs Committee, and I look forward to seeing the passing of this bill and the completion of the settlement process for Ngāti Tamaoho.

Finally, I want to say to them—because I know there will be a lot of them actually watching this in cyberspace or on television—that it is indeed with great honour that all of us here today, particularly those who are members of the Māori Affairs Committee, really do tautoko this bill, and also wish Ngāti Tamaoho well on the journey through to Royal assent after the third reading. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Te Māngai o Te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa! Ko Maungaroa te maunga, ko Waikato te awa, ko Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa te moana, ko Tainui te waka, ko Mangatangi, ko Whatawhaka, ko Ngā Hau e Whā ngā marae.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively, the authorities, languages, and esteemed ones of a hundredfold and to us all. Maungaroa is the mountain, Waikato is the river, Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa is the sea, Tainui is the canoe, Mangatangi, Whatawhaka, and Ngā Hau e Whā are indeed the marae.]

I am acknowledging that we are here today specifically for the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge all those whānau from Ngāti Tamaoho who have contributed to bringing this piece of legislation to the House.

I want to begin by first quoting some of our Wai cases—these are our Treaty of Waitangi cases. The first one is Wai 1126. It was brought by Ted Ngātaki, and it was the Ngāti Tamaoho lands and resources claim. I note also Wai 1992, brought by Piriwhāriki Tahapeehi. I also note that there are related Wai claims, which we should acknowledge: Wai 2039, brought by Ben Katipa, which acknowledged the overlapping interests between Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Paoa; Wai 2568, brought on behalf of the Minhinnick whānau, which, again, acknowledges the relationship between Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata; and also Wai 898, which was Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry.

I want to acknowledge, actually, that inquiry and a report by Dr Vincent O’Malley, who has over the last couple of years been talking about the Great South Road. I went to a kōrero about the Great South Road. The Great South Road was built under the administration of Governor George Grey, who arrived in New Zealand on 26 September 1861. One of the first things that he did was begin the construction of the Great South Road, which was actually all about the Waikato land wars. It was between 1863 and 1864 that 14,000 colonial troops marched down the Great South Road—which took out a lot of the whenua that Ngāti Tamaoho had—to go and wage the Waikato Wars.

I want to acknowledge that this process was then initiated in June 2009 by Sir Doug Graham, who presented a framework for negotiation that involved the signing of the agreement in principle on 20 December 2012. Signing on behalf of Ngāti Tamaoho were Dennis Rāniera Kirkwood, Warahi (Wallace) Te Huinga Paki, Ted Ngātaki, and Te Roto Jenkins. That history has led us to where we are today.

Preparing for today was quite interesting for me, because on Monday I had the pleasure to accompany Pānia Wilson, who works with my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. We went to Kereru Park Campus in Papakura. Kereru Park Campus’s tumuaki is George Ihimaera. We had a whakatau, and they were very, very clear about their relationship with the mana whenua, specifically acknowledging that for them Ngāti Tamaoho were their primary mana whenua. That is relevant, because in the acknowledgments in this piece of legislation, in clause 9(13)—I am going to read this out—“The Crown acknowledges that, for too long, Ngāti Tamaoho lived with poorer housing and worse health than many other New Zealanders, and that for too long the education system generally held low expectations for Māori educational achievement. The Crown further acknowledges the segregation and discrimination suffered by Māori students while attending a school in the Ngāti Tamaoho rohe during the 1940s.”

The relevance of my visit to Kereru Park Campus on Monday is that it was about Duffy Books in Homes, and was about the aspirations of the tamariki and of the teachers, the parents, and that community for those tamariki and the mokopuna who are dwelling on the lands of Ngāti Tamaoho. I see it as an amazing opportunity for all of our schools within the rohe of Ngāti Tamaoho to learn about the history of Ngāti Tamaoho, which is outlined in this piece of legislation.

It is true that in all Treaty settlements, most of our iwi lost their lands, and that was the same for Ngāti Tamaoho—virtually landless. But, as we debated last night, what that also meant was that Ngāti Tamaoho, to all intents and purposes, did not have a tūrangawaewae. We did not have an ability to stand on our own lands as the kaitiaki of those lands, and from that we were not able to develop housing for ourselves. Being landless, to Māori, actually means that we did not have an ability to have a secure base from which we were then able to reap the benefits of the environment that we were living within.

There is a lot of history contained in this specific Treaty settlement that I hope will be passed down to future generations to come. I must say that having attended the lecture about the Great South Road, I am hoping that all that history will be told. That is the relevance of these Treaty settlements to our curriculum and to our commitment to ensuring that all of us, through primary school, through intermediate, and through high school, understand what happened on the whenua that we all live on today. We need to acknowledge—which is what this bill does—and, in some ways, to celebrate the resilience of our whānau, hapū, and iwi.

One of the interesting things I was pointing out to my colleague Nanaia Mahuta is that in 2012, when the agreement in principle was ratified by 98.69 percent of the beneficiaries, at that time there were 400 members; today, in 2017, Ngāti Tamaoho has 2,710 registered members. What this process has enabled to happen, which should be highlighted, is that people are becoming more and more aware of who they are—their whakapapa—through this process. They are becoming eligible to be registered beneficiaries for our hapū and iwi. It is through that process, I believe, that we will ensure that the next generation of our tamariki, our mokopuna, and the beneficiaries of this specific settlement for Ngāti Tamaoho will know who they are and know about the history, and that we all get over it and start focusing on the future—start focusing on what this Treaty settlement means to our hapū and our iwi.

I too want to acknowledge what Minister Finlayson said about the generosity of our hapū and iwi in these settlements. In no way are they getting what they deserve in terms of a compensation package that will address what they lost through the loss of their lands. I am sure colleagues across the House will know the value of those lands, and if we were to estimate what the compensation would be today, there is no way we would be able to make these settlements happen. It is through goodwill and generosity, and is about the focus on the future from our iwi leaders, that we are able to move on. We must never forget that, but we should also, I guess, celebrate the fact that this enables us as a country to have our truth and reconciliation process, and to move on and to look at the relationships that different organisations want to have with Ngāti Tamaoho moving forward. The kura actually does—Kereru Park. Hopefully, all the schools within the rohe where Ngāti Tamaoho is mana whenua will want to have a relationship with them too. That is the potential, I believe, of this piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to be speaking on this bill, the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I am the local MP covering much of the area that is within the rohe of Ngāti Tamaoho—particularly the area that surrounds the Manukau Harbour, Āwhitu, Franklin, and the Hunua Ranges—so I do feel a certain affinity to this bill, what is going on, and what it is seeking to achieve.

I also want to acknowledge, as other speakers have before me, the recent passing of Dame Ngāneko Minhinnick, who was a proud and lovely woman from Ngāti Te Ata. As rangatira whaea, she was a wonderful leader of that iwi and one of the passionate people in terms of strong advocacy in seeking redress, particularly in the Waiuku, Āwhitu, and Manukau areas.

This bill represents the 84th settlement that has taken place with iwi, but I always find it rather devastating reading the history of what has gone on with the iwi settlements. I think, as Louisa Wall just quite rightly stated, one of the things about these settlements is the great understanding of what has gone on in the past, and the ability to understand that and the need to acknowledge that. The financial settlement is a small component of it, but I think the ability to move forward is very important.

I also want to acknowledge the negotiation team, and particularly my friend Dennis Kirkwood, who, in fact, lives just down the road from me. Part of the settlement and financial redress actually includes his school, Te Hihi School, which is at the end of my road and is where three of my boys went to. So I am particularly glad to hear that this bill is proceeding. I strongly support it, and I look forward to seeing it come to fruition. Thank you.

Ngā mihi ki a koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa ki ōku hoa mahi o tēnei Whare Pāremata, tēnā tātou katoa. Ka huri ki Ngāti Tamaoho i tēnei rā whakahirahira, tēnā koutou.

[Acknowledgments to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to my work colleagues of this House throughout, salutations to us all. I turn to Ngāti Tamaoho on this highly important day, greetings to you collectively.]

It is an incredible honour, as always, to speak on the Treaty settlement bills—in this case, the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. As our representative on the Māori Affairs Committee, it is always an honour to go through these Treaty settlement processes, in terms of learning what has happened to our people around the motu. In this, the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill, I want to focus particularly on what has happened to Ngāti Tamaoho—how the Crown, the community, and society has responded and reacted to Ngāti Tamaoho, and what that means for Ngāti Tamaoho and the wider implications on Te Iwi Māori today.

As always, the Green Party understands that treaties, as Moana Jackson says, are to be honoured and not settled, and that the relationship is an ongoing process seeking justice. This is about seeking honour and peace, and that we cannot begin to do that until we truly rectify what has happened to these people. We understand that Treaty settlements rectify only a small part of what has happened.

There is so much in this history of what has happened to Ngāti Tamaoho, and I am standing particularly proudly as a long-time resident of South Auckland, and a long-time resident of South Auckland who has often visited the different territories of Auckland that Ngāti Tamaoho have mana whenua over, alongside the other Tāmaki iwi collective. What I will support, alongside my colleague Catherine Delahunty, through all of these Treaty settlements, is the need to review the whole, entire process. I am picking up particularly on how Ngāti Pūkenga highlighted the right of first refusal and how it is actually not a right of first refusal in the legislation. I am wondering how that pertains to every single Treaty settlement, including all of the ones before us and Ngāti Tamaoho.

I will start now on the history, and give my gratitude for and understanding of Ngāti Tamaoho being at the front line of the invasion into the Waikato rohe, what they have come to bear, and how they were responded to by being at that front line of active resistance into their rohe. I want to acknowledge Minister Finlayson for putting into the history books the historical account that reignites the story of that invasion and puts the resistance by Ngāti Tamaoho into our Crown records. It is always something that I reflect on when we go through these historical accounts. I wish our country, I wish every single tamaiti in school, and I wish our adults and our communities had a deep understanding of what has happened and how that has shaped our Māori communities today.

There are so many important points in the historical summary. I guess I will reiterate that after the Waikato Wars, the Crown considered the majority of Ngāti Tamaoho ineligible for compensation. The Crown made small land grants and payments to one loyal Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira—

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Ha! “Loyal”.

—“loyal”—and set aside three reserves from a Crown purchase for the few Ngāti Tamaoho people whom the Crown considered had not been in rebellion. So all of that and many other actions of the Crown led down to the fact that by 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho were virtually landless.

I do just want to make a quick contribution about what being landless actually means for us today. Many of us do not have the biggest understanding of whether we are even owners of land. We actually do not know what is happening with the land that we may have whakapapa connection to. That notion of being virtually landless has certainly happened to Ngāti Tamaoho, and the impacts are generational and profound, and they manifest themselves today in terms of our wealth—our wealth as iwi Māori, our wealth, our cultural wealth, our whakapapa wealth, and our ability to stand on our tūrangawaewae with pride and connection.

So I really want to focus on the notion of Ngāti Tamaoho being virtually landless by 1900. This is in contrast with some of those lands that they have mana whenua responsibilities over. I love learning in these historical accounts about what has happened, and it is also saddening. But I was really interested in the fact that after Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed in 1840, Ngāti Tamaoho continued to seek new economic opportunities by selling land to the Crown, and that Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira also sold land in Remuera directly to Pākehā. It was part of the Crown temporarily waiving the pre-emption clauses. But with those pre-emption sales, those understandings of those pre-emption - waiver sales, the Crown was supposed to ensure that one-tenth of those pre-emption - waiver sales would be retained for public purposes. That was the understanding and the expectation from iwi and from Ngāti Tamaoho.

I raise that specifically in reference to the land in Remuera and all around Auckland, the heart of so much vibrancy and the contributions from Auckland to the rest of the country that this House certainly upholds and refers to all the time—the importance of Auckland, its location, and the transactions that go through it and go from it and come into it. We know that in this House. It is incredibly interesting for me to learn, alongside all the other Tāmaki-makau-rau iwi, about the transactions and the mana whenua responsibilities that Ngāti Tamaoho have.

It does not always align for Māori. Being in Auckland, as a bustling, vibrant, contributing part of our country, Māori have not seen the benefits of that necessarily, and not collectively. We know this in terms of housing, imprisonment, education, health, and employment. Yet iwi like Ngāti Tamaoho and other Tāmaki iwi have so generously fought with dignity and honour to uphold that responsibility, without receiving the collective benefits. So as an Auckland resident, and a South Auckland resident, I did want to particularly focus on that aspect of this settlement—the contribution that Ngāti Tamaoho have made and the lack of benefits that Ngāti Tamaoho have seen over generations.

I want to end my contribution by picking up on the incredible acknowledgments that we must make in this House to Dame Ngāneko Minhinnick, because she also received that award on the very same day as my father. I was very honoured to be there for her when she received that award for her work in bringing kaitiaki into the thinking of conservation and the effect it has had on our other collective iwi claims and our work on kaitiaki. In particular to Ngāti Tamaoho as well, because of the wetlands that Ngāti Tamaoho are connected to and the fact that across the country—I think it is 90 percent. We have lost 90 percent of our wetlands, and Ngāti Tamaoho would have been able to make an incredible difference if they had exercised that very kaitiaki responsibility that they lost.

So, again, it is an honour and a privilege to be learning about the history and the contribution that Ngāti Tamaoho have made, and the responses that they face. I hope we all continue to review this process of seeking real justice and peace. Settlements are to be honoured. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā hoki koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Tamaoho, koutou i tae mai nei i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei, koutou e noho tonu ana i te wā kāinga ki te are taringa mai, mātakitaki mai i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te pire i roto i Te Whare Raiona i te rā nei.

Ka hoki mahara ki ētahi o ngā hunga i rārangitia e Te Minita, me ētahi atu o ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au, nā, ko Toko Pompey tēnā, ā, ko Mere Taka, ko Ngāneko Minhinnick. Ka nui taku mihi ki a rātou nā te mea i te wā e ora ana, nā rātou i tū kaha ana ki te āwhina, ki te whāngai hoki i a au i te wā i tīmata ai au hei kaimahi mō Te Tari Māori i roto i taua rohe. Nā reira, ko rātou ki a rātou, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations also to you, the descendants of Ngāti Tamaoho, you who have arrived here amongst us on this day, you who remained back at home to listen and to watch the contributions relating to the bill in the lion’s den today.

The mind returns to some of those listed by the Minister and other speakers who got up before me: that Toko Pompey, Mere Taka, and Ngāneko Minhinnick there. My appreciation to them is huge because when they were alive they were resolute in helping and nourishing me when I started as an employee for Māori Affairs in that region. Therefore, they, the dead, to themselves and we, the living, to ourselves; salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively.]

It is my pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to contribute to this, the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I say “pleasure” because in naming Mr Pompey, Mere Taka, and Ngāneko Minhinnick, I say that they were three people who offered help and, in fact, looked after me when I started working in the South Auckland area, and all of them epitomised what manaakitanga is all about. I am not quite sure whether, in fact, their manaakitanga was as a result of them understanding the whakapapa between ngā uri o Hineamaru ki a rātou, ngā uri o Rongo-patu-taonga, ēngari kia ahatia [the descendants of Hineamaru to them and to those of Rongo-patu-taonga, but what can be done about it]?

I will always remember those people, particularly Ngāneko and Mere Taka, because they certainly epitomised how people should treat one another. I hope that what they exercised in those days—I have retained some of that learning—reflects in my attitude to other people of that generation.

From my reading the background of this claim—the way the Crown treated what could be regarded as friendly natives—I just want to say that Ngāti Tamaoho had sold part of their land interests in order to accommodate the new settlers to the area and provide a platform for commercial enterprise so that they could benefit their people. However, the actions of the Crown, as is recorded, shows that they were certainly—I should not say “misguided”, but their trust in dealing with the Crown was certainly misguided in that regard.

I want to just quote a certain paragraph from some written notes that I have here. This is the quote: “By 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho were virtually landless. Many experienced severe social and economic marginalisation and deplorable housing conditions. Māori children experienced discrimination and segregation at a state-run school in Pukekohe.” Can I say that that is probably the beginning of a dark part of our history for that area, because up to the 1950s and 1960s, there was this activity still going on. It was not amongst the schoolchildren in the way that it is described here, but I know that within the township of Pukekohe itself, a lot of my relatives who had migrated from the North to work in the market gardens experienced the discrimination and the segregation that is talked about here. I think that the fact that while it is not recorded in terms of the 1950s or the 1960s, it is certainly a reminder of that dark time in our history as a nation, particularly when it was only 40 or 50 years ago. To have that sort of thing—and some would say that it is still happening. However, in terms of Ngāti Tamaoho, this is certainly acknowledged in their settlement bill, and the Crown has, quite rightly, extended its apologies for that.

I also want to say that this is about seeking honour and peace, as one of my colleagues has already mentioned. While Ngāti Tamaoho might seek honour and peace, we ought to recognise that this claim will not be fully settled, nor will they be fully compensated. Given the number of settlements that have passed through and the records of those settlements, we have come to appreciate that we could never fully compensate the claimants for their losses, but it is very interesting to note, though, the people of Ngāti Tamaoho and the extent of their area of claim. I can understand the reference that Waikato often make about Tāmaki ki runga [up above], and probably the people of Remuera would be very surprised to know that we have an iwi of 2,700 people who can claim, so to speak, Remuera as being part of their tribal area. I just wonder how many of them are actually living in Remuera. A lot of them are probably providing services to the suburb, but again I digress.

I look forward to this bill being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. I look forward to submissions. I hope that many people who have an interest in this bill and who may have some concerns about the terms of the settlement will make a submission, so that we can actually hear their concerns and we can have it on the record as to what those concerns might be. But, in conclusion, I want to commend this bill to the House and I look forward to discussing it further in the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ā, e Ngāti Tamaoho tēnei ahau e tū ake hei mihi ki a koutou, kua tae mai tō koutou pire ki mua i te aroaro o Te Whare nei. Kua rongo ai mātou mai i Te Minita, kua whā tau kua pāhore mai i te hainatanga o te “agreement in principle”, ā, kua roa koutou e tatari ana kia tae mai ki tēnei rangi. Nā reira, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou Ngāti Tamaoho. Kei te huri ngā whakaaro hoki ki tērā o ngā kahurangi, a Nāneko Minhinnick kua pahore atu ki tua o te ārai. Ko ia nei tētahi o ngā kaihāpai o tēnei kaupapa, nā reira e Te Whaea, e moe, e moe e moe. Nā, ko rātou ki a rātou te hunga wairua, ka hoki mai ki a tātou ngā kanohi ora, tēnā rā tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. And so to you, Ngāti Tamaoho, I rise to acknowledge you. Your bill has arrived before this House. We have heard from the Minister that 4 years have passed since the signing of “the agreement in principle”, and you have waited a long time for this day to arrive. Therefore, I acknowledge you profusely, Ngāti Tamaoho. Thoughts are turning as well to that one of the highly ranked persons, Nāneko Minhinnick, who has passed beyond the veil. She was indeed one of the supporters of this proposal, and so to you, esteemed mother figure, sleep, rest, slumber. Now then, they, the spiritual ones, to themselves; I come back to us, the living. Salutations to us.]

If one is to drive along the Southern Motorway heading from Auckland through to the Waikato, you will pass through areas such as Karaka, where the horses are raised, and that is pretty fine, fertile land. You get to the Bombay Hills and the site where St Stephen’s School used to be. It is situated on a very fine piece of property—an ideal place, actually, for a school. It is a pity that the buildings at St Stephen’s are in the state they are in now. But then, if you go over the brow of the hill, you get to where the market gardens are, and those market gardens are quite substantial blocks of land that create much employment for New Zealanders. They produce vegetables.

💬 Peeni Henare: Food basket.

It is a food basket. It generates a lot of money and business, but, sadly, the area that I have tried to describe was part of Ngāti Tamaoho’s landholdings in years gone by. I can almost guarantee that next to none of that land will be in Ngāti Tamaoho’s possession these days, and that is a direct result of the actions of the Crown. We have heard how Ngāti Tamaoho was treated by the Crown all those years ago, and it is set out in the acknowledgments in this bill.

In the mid-1850s, Ngāti Tamaoho were, in fact, very friendly to the Crown. They tried to work cooperatively with the Crown. They tried to establish economic opportunities. They participated in land transactions that actually contributed to much of the site of where Auckland City is now.

The Crown was pretty hopeless—I guess that is the easy way of saying it—in terms of making sure that the interests of Ngāti Tamaoho and the land of that area were looked after. Settlers came in and, basically, plonked themselves there, and nothing was done about it. Ngāti Tamaoho sort of woke up one day and said “My gosh! What are these people doing settling here? We didn’t agree to them settling on this land.”, but nothing was done. Certainly, their customary interests in the land were not looked after. The streams were degraded, the land was cleared, surplus land that was taken from Ngāti Tamaoho in pre-Treaty purchases was not returned to Ngāti Tamaoho, and, basically—as our colleague Pita Paraone from New Zealand First said—by 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho were left landless.

As Peeni Henare said earlier in the day, it is not just about the loss of land; it is about the loss of mana and it is about the loss of wairua. For many people it may be hard to understand the connection that land has to Māori and to Māoridom and how the loss of land leads to a loss of all those other aspects of what it means to be Māori, and this has been a direct result of the actions, or lack of actions, of the Crown.

The Crown failed to set aside a tenth of the land for Ngāti Tamaoho. Ngāti Tamaoho expected to benefit from land sales, they expected to have schools developed, and they expected to have medical care, and none of this happened. In fact, Ngāti Tamaoho were expected to swear allegiance to the Crown. They were not given any opportunity to actually discuss what the oath of allegiance would mean for them, and when they did not actually swear that oath of allegiance in a timely manner, they were considered to be rebels. They had their kāinga—their homes—destroyed. Maybe that is the start of the homelessness situation and the lack of housing we have in New Zealand, because the Crown actually just came in and wiped out people’s living places.

If we can equate that to a modern context, maybe it is sort of like David Seymour asking the people of the Epsom electorate to swear allegiance to him, and when they do not he goes in and burns downs Parnell. If that happened these days, there would be one heck of an uproar. There would be lawsuits everywhere. But, of course, back in those days, Ngāti Tamaoho did not have the benefit of fancy lawyers to make a stand for them. They were expected to swear allegiance to an entity they did not quite understand, probably in a language that was their second language, and, basically, it left them in the situation they are in now, where we have had to come to the House to settle it.

As we keep saying in these settlement bills, the compensation that is coming to Ngāti Tamaoho will be just a fraction—probably less than 1 percent—

💬 Louisa Wall: Way less.

—less than, probably, a tenth of 1 percent—of the value of everything that they have lost. So it is important that we stand in the House—and it is great to see all the parties standing up to speak to this bill—because we do value it highly.

It is sad to see, though, that the Māori Party has decided not to take the opportunity to take a call on this bill. We figured that the Māori Party would be the one party—oh sorry, no. It would be one of the parties that you would expect to stand every time to speak on every Treaty settlement bill, like the Labour Party certainly does. To know that members of the Māori Party have chosen not to take up this opportunity while they are on the precinct—that they have got more important work for themselves to do—is really bitterly disappointing. As we say in Māori, it is whakaiti—it is belittling this bill, it is belittling Ngāti Tamaoho, and it is a very sad state of affairs from the Māori Party.

So I will leave things there. I look forward to following the progress of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill through the Māori Affairs Committee. It is important that we do get to the end of these Treaty settlements for the benefit not just of Māoridom but of all New Zealand. Tēnā koutou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The House adjourned at 12.45 p.m. (Thursday)