New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to recap on the basics of this bill. I want to, again, acknowledge all of those interested parties that have acted with dignity and also with a lot of passion as well. I want to say to the House tonight that this is not a Treaty bill, but it is related to the Te Atiawa Treaty settlement and would not have come about except for a heads of agreement between the New Plymouth District Council and Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust. Through that, it has created a process to address the long and outstanding issue of the Waitara lands—of course, the Pekapeka Block, which was the very first piece of land to be confiscated in the New Zealand Wars.

It is great that we have the opportunity to see this bill have its second reading, but, as I said in my previous contribution, the two hapū Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua have still to give final sign-off on this bill, but they have agreed that it would have its second reading. As I understand it, they are very close to making a decision, after proper consultation with their people. So I wish them all the best in that endeavour. It is not exactly what they asked for—what some of the members of those hapū asked for at the Māori Affairs Committee—but, as I have stated previously, the changes are of a magnitude that not only provide them the opportunity to purchase and receive further lands within the Pekapeka Block, but also provide the means by which they can do that. That is a critically important part of what we have in front of us today.

This is a vastly different bill to the one that was first brought to the House. It is a much better bill. I, once again, recognise the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for his leadership in this process and Jonathan Young, as the sponsor of the bill. Nō reira e Te Whare, ko te tūmanako kia tae pai ai ki te mutunga o tēnei āhuatanga, nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, the hope is that the conclusion to this situation is arrived at. So acknowledgments to us all.]

Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, e huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki te iwi o Te Atiawa me ō hapū a Ōtaraua, a Manukōrihi, a Taranaki Mauka, a Tokomaru waka, nō reira, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations to you all throughout this House. I acknowledge you, the tribe of Te Atiawa, your hapū Ōtaraua and Manukōrihi, Mount Taranaki, Tokomaru waka, therefore greetings to you all.]

As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I have to say that this has been one of the more difficult pieces of legislation we have considered, and one of the most contentious as well. The New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, now at this second reading, has had a lot of considerable work done over these past months. That is not surprising in some ways, because here we are dealing with a 150-year-old issue that arises from the very regrettable history of Waitara, which goes back to colonisation and the New Zealand Land Wars caused by the Crown’s confiscation of Te Atiawa land, and specifically that of Manukōrihi hapū and Ōtaraua hapū. What became very clear to us during the submission process was that there was considerable disquiet from multiple stakeholder groups about the content of this bill, as it came to us from the New Plymouth District Council. The issues raised were significant, and it was clear to us that there would need to be a very considered and substantial response to them.

I want to acknowledge the immense privilege it has been to work with the hapū of Waitara and the New Plymouth District Council. I offer my appreciation also to the Taranaki Regional Council, although I do believe that an earlier engagement with the hapū of Waitara could have seen a more inclusive process—I truly believe that. However, what we have is the result of a lot of hard work by the committee and our officials, particularly under the leadership of Nashwa Boys, who was very, very largely responsible for bringing together the Waitara hapū, Te Atiawa, and the two councils. What we have out of this is an example of the innovative solutions that can be found if we really try.

I do not need to recite the history of Waitara; Mr Young has already done that. But what I will say is that I have witnessed at first hand the effects of the Land Wars and Crown confiscations. I had the privilege to attend the Parihaka reconciliation ceremony in June, and what a day that was—what a day. What an incredible wairua was present there. It was a joy to see the real power of kotahitaka—of everyone coming together to forge a new pathway for the people of today and also their future generations.

If Parihaka is the final chapter of the Land Wars, then Waitara was the beginning—Waitara was the beginning. Even though the Crown renounced its purchase of the Pekapeka Block in 1863, the damage had already been done and was compounded by the confiscation of 1865. You also heard in Mr Young’s speech just what happened after the confiscation and how the New Plymouth District Council is in its third attempt to right this matter. I think the councils are pretty close to succeeding this time, because their hearts and minds are open and they have begun forging a new relationship with the Waitara hapū. I commend them for having the courage to see where the original bill was flawed and recognising that if things were going to be different then they had to act differently towards, particularly, the mana whenua of Waitara.

I also want to commend the Waitara hapū and the leadership of Te Atiawa. Their conviction that the issue was of the utmost importance to them showed us through the hearings that the councils had not got the bill right, and that we needed to work through some alternative ideas. I know that there is still some disquiet about what has actually been presented before them in this bill that we have in the House, but I know that at least this heavily revised bill enables the leaders of the hapū to engage through hui and kōrero with their people, and this stage of the bill, I feel, will provide a catalyst for that to actually happen.

This second reading marks the beginning of a period of consultation for Manukōrihi and also Ōtaraua hapū to meet and decide whether they can agree with what is being proposed in the bill, keeping in mind that they have really had only just over 3 weeks to actually look at this bill and discuss it—the bill that we have here in the House tonight. Mark my words: there could be Supplementary Order Papers containing any changes they agree upon with the councils. Ultimately, if they cannot support the bill to the final reading, at least there has been, I believe, a clear and fair process to get to this particular point, rather than the original bill, which was, in some ways, imposed on them.

I am heartened, though, that the revised bill does enable some pretty unique things to occur. I want to cover a couple of them. First, it allows the Hapū Land Fund Committee to have autonomy over the fund, to buy developed and maintained land in and around Waitara. This is an essential pathway for the hapū to rejuvenate its connection to Waitara and also the Pekapeka Block.

When we look at the Pekapeka Block, this is a piece of whenua—a piece of land—that is of national significance, because this was the immediate cause of the New Zealand Land Wars. As such a site of real significance, it is appropriate that this bill provides such a strong co-governance arrangement between the mana whenua, the hapū, and the local authorities.

The next part of the bill enables the Waitara River Committee—a joint council and Māori committee—to have autonomy over its decision making on the river. To the best of my knowledge, that is a first in New Zealand, and something to commend the Taranaki Regional Council for. As we know, the Waitara River traverses through steep hill country, as well as dairy farms, and the Waitara community has raised issues about its cleanliness over many years—over a large number of years. While the Taranaki Regional Council has been improving water quality, the bill will dramatically increase its ability to fund the improvements over and above the Government’s freshwater reform programme.

In short, the bill turns a significant and contentious issue in the Waitara community into a positive opportunity for the Waitara community to grow and prosper. It enables the township to determine its own future in a way that promotes that growth.

The bill also addresses the proceeds of the endowment lands. The New Plymouth District Council could sell the leasehold land today, if it chose. However, the proceeds of doing so would not be used for the benefit of the community, nor would it provide for mana whenua. This bill provides a better outcome for the whole community than what it has in the present status quo.

So, in summary, because this bill is very different to what we introduced, I appreciate that the Waitara hapū now have work to do to work through this. They have the opportunity to actually kōrero and hui, and then to discuss their way forward. I acknowledge the two councils again, the two courageous hapū, and Te Atiawa itself. If I am given the privilege to be in this House again in the next term and to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to seeing this bill through to the third reading and Royal assent to become law.

It has been a huge journey for Te Atiawa, but, particularly, I come back to the two hapū of Manukōrihi and also Ōtaraua. They have, even in this 21st century, borne the terrible non-communitive way that their ancestors were treated, and so, on that note, I believe that they have shown really huge courage. I commend them and hope that they will find their way through and be able to accept what we have worked really hard to bring to this House. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

I take pleasure in speaking on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill. I acknowledge the work of all those who have brought the bill to this stage: the New Plymouth District Council; its current mayor, Neil Holdem; his predecessor Andrew Judd, and also the former chief executive of that district council, Barbara McKerrow, who worked hard with Te Atiawa to get an agreement that has led to this legislation; the Taranaki Regional Council, which has the immediate legal stake in these lands; the hapū, Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua; and of course, the MP for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, who has shepherded this bill into the House and also assisted with it going through the Māori Affairs Committee. I will come to the work of the select committee shortly.

The course of events that has led this bill to come here and the issues that underpin it have their own interesting path. Mr Korako talked about the origins in terms of the land confiscations in the 1860s, which are these lands. They have been those endowment lands and leasehold lands leased to the occupiers of it since then. Those confiscations followed the Land Wars, about which we are all really starting to learn the true historical significance. But the issue of these lands and the present occupants of them—the residents of them—has been a festering sore in that town for a long time.

Waitara is a small but very proud town just north of New Plymouth. A working town, it serves the local farming district. Once upon a time it had as its principal employer a massive meatworks—Borthwicks—which has gone now. There is a meatworks there, but it is a producer of very fine goods, and there are a number of other industries that sustain Waitara right now. But still there are residents and occupants of the land there who are paying ground leases under Glasgow leases, which come up for renewal every 21 years, and every 21 years there is a massive hike in the ground rents, and the whole argument gets under way again. That is not to take away from the significance of the local hapū and iwi, who have been seeking their Treaty settlement, of which these lands were originally considered to be a part of.

So in the last 20 or 30 years there have been two trains of activity happening side by side. One is Te Atiawa—another Taranaki iwi—pursuing their Treaty claims and finally getting their negotiations under way, and the other is the current occupants of the dwellings that occupy that land trying to get what they perceive as their right to purchase the freehold. That was the question that went to the court—it went to the highest court of the land at the time—based on what those residents thought was a promise made to them, that they could get to own their little plot of land, but they were defeated. As a consequence of the Treaty negotiations for Te Atiawa and some very progressive thinking by the community, by the community leaders, and also by Te Atiawa—who at the relevant point elected not to take up the land as part of their Treaty settlement—these arrangements have come to Parliament for its consideration. That is a good thing, and it has been a good step.

I think it is also to be acknowledged—the way the land has been administered. The proceeds from the ground rents on the land have been allowed to be used for only very limited purposes. It is currently now under the stewardship of the Taranaki Regional Council, but that relates to maintenance of the sea end of the river and the port and the harbour that sits around there. Through the efforts and the energy of those who have now taken up this issue, while respecting the concerns of the hapū and respecting the concerns of the settlors who are currently on that land, they have come up with a solution that allows the hapū to achieve a benefit and some control about the long-term stewardship of the land, as well as those who have been seeking to purchase the freehold rights of land that they occupy, and a happy conclusion is close to being reached.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee—particularly the chair, Mr Korako, who has now spoken—for the close scrutiny it has given to the original bill, and for allowing a set of discussions and negotiations to open up to ensure that the ultimate deal that this House will give its final blessing to in the third reading is one that every party can live with and that every party benefits from. I have to say that in relation to Taranaki settlements, that has been one of the virtues in the last few years of this Government’s approach, where flexibility has been allowed for those deeply emotionally felt historical issues. They have been dealt with in a respectful way and that has led to a resolution of those issues outside conventional Treaty settlements.

I see the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is in the House, and he deserves a lot of credit for the approach that he has taken, which I know in Taranaki has made a significant difference to Māori in that community, and to Pākehā as well. In the end, when Māori are unsettled and dispirited about the inability to achieve a resolution to their historical grievances, it means the entire community faces the same disquiet. That we are now in the process of settling longstanding festering issues I think is a credit to all those involved. The approach that has been taken under this bill alone in allowing further discussion, further negotiation, and a settlement that meets the needs of all interested parties is really giving life to the Treaty, and I think that is to be noted, and credit is to be given where it is due.

The changes that have been suggested by the Māori Affairs Committee are many, and I think that is a good sign that the committee has been fully engaged. It has listened to those who have come to speak to it, and it has been willing to show that change, which, in this great Parliament of ours, is nothing more than we would expect. Giving a place for the hapū, for Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū, giving them a role in the governance, giving them a role and a say over the proceeds that can be generated through the sale of the leasehold to freehold owners or the ongoing rents that will be collected from the land, is a positive step. Defining the Waitara River and vesting the Waitara River not in Te Atiawa but in a separate legal entity that will look after and provide stewardship for that river, from its origins to where it spews out into the beautiful Taranaki west coast, will, I think, ensure the voice of all relevant parties in managing that river, getting it clean again, and bringing life back to it. That is a great achievement.

Ensuring a good and fair distribution of the funds to be used for a variety of purposes beyond what the Taranaki Regional Council is limited to doing right now is a positive step as well, and the committee is to be congratulated on ensuring that those concerns have been heard and the ability to do stuff for that community is now to be put in place. The New Plymouth District Council and the role it has played in making other reserve land available to be picked up by the hapū from the proceeds that are generated from the sale of the leasehold lands—that, I think, is also in the spirit of the Treaty settlements and the restoration of land and mana whenua to local hapū, and is to be welcomed as well.

Like all these things, like all of the settling of these longstanding grievances, in the end it is about restoring justice, giving fairness, and giving peace back to communities again—to the tangata whenua and to Pākehā settlers there as well. This bill has the ability to do that, subject to what happens in the Committee of the whole House, and I support the bill.

I want to take a brief call following on from that generous and thoughtful contribution of Mr Little to just say a few words of my own. It is perhaps a little unusual for a Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to take a call on this matter, but let me explain why I have. I think the Māori Affairs Committee has done a really good job on this legislation. It could be described as principled and clever.

I have been very involved in Treaty negotiations in Taranaki during my period of stewardship of this portfolio, and I was very pleased to sign deeds of settlement with Ngāruahine, with Taranaki, and also with Te Atiawa. I signed that deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown on 9 August 2014. All members of Parliament who were present, across all the parties, at Parihaka in June will recall what a powerful ceremony that was, and that legislation has been introduced to the House today. The Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) and I are very engaged in negotiations with Ngāti Maru and with all the Taranaki iwi over the maunga. There is a lot of work that I think we as a Parliament—because it is Parliament’s work; I have been very privileged to be the Minister, but it is Parliament’s work—can all be so very proud of. We have addressed these difficult issues, and we have done so pretty well over the last few years.

But there was one issue that hung over me like a cloud, and it was this question of the Waitara lands. My chief Crown negotiator for Te Atiawa is the former Labour Minister Rick Barker, who did a fabulous job, but a decision was made during the course of negotiations that the lands were not to be taken back, and it met with a great deal of opposition. I was very worried about this legislation when it was introduced, and I wondered what the legislative course would be. But I think, as I say, Mr Jonathan Young and all the members of the Māori Affairs Committee have done a really good job on this.

Look, we are going to deal only with the second reading tonight, and when it gets to the Committee stage in the new Parliament there could well be further discussions about some of the detail. But I want to say to members that I think they have done a great job in a bipartisan way to deal with these difficult issues and bring back to the House a bill that is much improved on the one that was introduced. I know there was a lot of concern when it was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, but, with respect, that was exactly the right committee to send it to. It should not have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It had to go to the Māori Affairs Committee because of the history of the Waitara lands and the history of Taranaki negotiations. It would have been bizarre for it to have gone anywhere else.

For myself, I think that the mechanisms that have been set out in the bill are very good, and I am particularly pleased about the proposals in relation to the Waitara River. Mr Little mentioned I think it was the former AFFCO freezing works, which is now owned by ANZCO Foods after a very interesting case in the courts. It is doing a very good job there employing large numbers of Waitara people, but it is fair to say that while it does not necessarily spread effluent into the river, the river has been very badly damaged over the years, and a lot of work is going to need to be undertaken to get it back to pristine condition. I can say now—I do not think I am disclosing any confidences—that in the course of negotiations with Ngāti Maru, one of the questions that keeps coming up is the health and well-being of the Waitara River. That it is being addressed in this way I think is a very, very clever approach.

There will be matters of detail that a future Parliament is going to have to look at, but I want to commend once again the membership of the select committee and the officials, and I particularly want to mention someone from the Office of Treaty Settlements, Nashwa Boys, who has worked on a lot of these matters over the years and is a consummate professional. I am very, very proud of the work that she and the team at OTS have done because I think the net result is much improved on the bill that was introduced. This is a brief call because I know how keen everyone is to blast through all these stages of various bills so that we can get on to the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill, because it would be great to have that passed by 10 o’clock. So with these brief comments I do not think I have anything more to add, and I will sit down.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare nui. I have found this New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill to be one of the most interesting experiences of my political time here, and I want to acknowledge that after the first reading, the Green Party agreed for it to go to select committee because we thought there were some really important issues that needed to be looked at. I sat here one night with my colleague Metiria Turei, and I said to her: “Metiria, I think this needs to go to the Māori Affairs Committee.” It was Metiria Turei who made sure that it did, and who negotiated that across this House. That is one of the reasons why I honour her—because it really needed to go to that committee, and the committee did a great job.

I think it is because, whatever we call this bill—it does not really matter—this bill is about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Pekapeka Block. At the heart of it is the issue of what happened historically, which is so alive to the people today in Waitara—to the two hapū, Ōtaraua and Manukōrihi. I just wanted to mihi to them tonight—to those two hapū and to Te Atiawa—and to just acknowledge that whatever work we do is nothing compared with the work that they have done. Whatever we struggle with is nothing compared with the struggle that they have been through. I acknowledge that the leaseholders and all the people who have lived in those houses as individuals have been through a lot, but it is not the same as what has happened to those people who, from the 1860s, experienced total land loss and devastation of their culture.

When we went up to te Ōwae Marae, we heard very strong voices saying to us that this was not just about a district council making an arrangement; this was about the Pekapeka. I think what was really good about the work the select committee did was that we all heard that, and the select committee and the officials tried to work with the spirit of that wero that was laid down to us that day at the marae.

The Green Party is very clear—and although I will not be here when the bill comes back to the House after the election, one of us will be—that it is not about the individual; it is about the kaupapa. For us, the kaupapa is that when the consultation is done and when the hapū of Waitara are satisfied, then we will vote for this bill. So we are not voting for the second reading. We are going to look forward to the possibility of voting for the third reading, but we are not prepared to do that until the hapū have had their process. The reason that we say that is because they begged for more time—they begged for time—and they said to us: “Please do not take this bill back to the House unless we can have proper time for consultation.” This situation, as has been described for others, does allow for that—it allows for that time—and, hopefully, for the resources for that to happen. They had a very, very short period of time to talk to their people and they were not ready to make a decision. Until they are ready, in the fullness of their consultation with all their people in Waitara—those hapū—the Greens will not be making a decision either.

So we will not be supporting the bill tonight, but we will be reserving our judgment and committed to trying to see. If those hapū come back satisfied that this is sufficient for them, then we consider supporting it, and that, to us, is the principled position for us to take. I appreciate that others see it differently, but that is our principled position, because this is Pekapeka and because the endowment land, whatever percentage of it, is not the whole block that was lost. We are very cognisant of what was told to us by the people up there at te Ōwae about the whole block and what it means to them. What they simply kept asking us is: “Why can’t we have it back?”.

I recognise that this bill, and the Office of Treaty Settlements, particularly Nashwa Boys, did a fantastic job in getting people to the table—they did. They did a great job, and they got people to the table—people who should have been at the table a long time before, like the Taranaki Regional Council. The New Plymouth District Council transformed its approach, and I hope that is forever, not just for the satisfaction of this bill. To me, if it is now ready to have a proper relationship with those hapū in that rohe around these issues of land and awa, that does not depend on this bill. That should be what the councils do forever, so let us hope that this is not just about: “Let’s get rid of this nasty little problem of the Waitara leasehold lands.” Let us hope this is the beginning of a permanent Te Tiriti - based honourable relationship from those councils to those hapū, because it has been missing. I think the New Plymouth District Council has moved widely, but the Taranaki Regional Council had to be dragged screaming, and that is not really the spirit that we need.

That is why time must be given for this process to be worked through, and that is why we will be giving it serious consideration and more time before we decide whether we can support the third reading. It is with all due respect to everything that has gone on and all the efforts, but the faces of the people are before me and all I can hear is their voice. I know that the hapū fund and the river fund are great initiatives, but there is a bigger picture that they need to have time to talk through. It is their mamae, and they have to be satisfied that this is the best that they can hope to negotiate.

I am very aware that the leaseholders have been through a number of processes and have been waiting for a resolution as well. What I like about one aspect of the bill is where it talks about spending some of the money, if it goes through, on educating the people about the history. That is where Parihaka has been such an inspiration and is still such an inspiration. I do acknowledge that the whole process that we went through—those of us who went to Parihaka to see the Crown there, to see the people together—is inspirational, and the Waitara people deserve no less. They deserve no less—those mana whenua hapū deserve no less.

Yes, I think it is great about the river. It is interesting, because I have been working on that river for some time with some other mana whenua, and have been viciously attacked in the local media, which has said that there is nothing wrong with the river. But there is only so much denial—you know, Waitara is not a river in Egypt; it is time to get out of denial about that river. I would welcome that funding to happen under the control of those guys—under the control of the subcommittee that is being suggested to be appointed through a committee of all of the tangata whenua groups associated with the awa.

It is the same with the hapū land fund. An opportunity to build an economic base is crucial for the well-being of those hapū. But if those guys have their consultation process and decide that now is not the time for them to accept that some of those houses will be sold, that they will lose, forever, what has always been their long-term passionate heart’s desire, we will stand with them. It is up to us in this Parliament to exercise absolute creativity, as this bill tries to do, and absolute patience as well for what has not been dealt with. If these people say they want the Pekapeka and we need to keep working on it, the Green Party is prepared to keep working on it. We will not be saying: “Take it or leave it.” Yes, there is momentum here and we recognise that, but that momentum has to be based on justice, and justice for all does not include marginalising people who said to us at te Ōwae: “Kia tūpato, this is Pekapeka.”

We are reserving our judgment. We are hopeful, but we are also respectful that the people of the Taranaki have continually said to us: “Be careful. Be aware of what has been taken from us. Be aware of how we are sick of giving and waiting for trust to be built.” We recognise their position very, very strongly in this House tonight.

It has been a positive process to see the first bill—which was, you know, quite honestly, unacceptable—transformed by the work of a select committee where people were all dedicated to trying to do what was best. We remain pleased by that, but it is in the hands of those people—the hapū te Manukōrihi me Ōtaraua. Their rangatiratanga is what is at stake here. They are not required to sort out the mess that colonisation imposed upon them, but if they can come to a party that meets their needs, we are there as well. We are still going to be listening and we are still hopeful, but justice under Te Tiriti comes first. I look forward to hearing what the hapū have to say back to us. Whakarongo ki te Pāremata—listen. We need to whakarongo, and then we can hold our heads up. Kia ora.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tenā tātou o Te Whare, tēnā hoki koutou e whakarongo mai nā i ēnei kōrero e pā ana ki te pire e kī nei te New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill.

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us the House; salutations, as well, to you there collectively, listening in to these contributions about this bill here called the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill.]

For those of you who are listening and do not understand Māori, I am just acknowledging the people of Te Atiawa, Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua—that this is their bill, that it has come before the House as part of the process, and that it is in its second reading.

This bill is a reminder to this country of the dark history of Aotearoa. I do not need to articulate anything more about that history, other than to note that the people of Taranaki suffered not only loss of life but a grave injustice—suffice to say. And I need to put in a plug here: on 28 October, in the North, we will be commemorating the New Zealand Land Wars. So we are starting the process. I do not know where it will be next year, but it will be in Tai Tokerau on 28 October, and it coincides with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and that is causing some discussion at home.

Be that as it may, back to the bill, it involves land that is very important to, particularly, the people of Waitara. I want to say that New Zealand First has certainly looked at the intent of the bill, and we have no difficulty with that. We have provided a minority view, and it covers two issues.

One is that we believe that the remedy of the damage referred to, to the river, should be something that should be picked up by central government. I note from today’s New Zealand Herald that there is a comment here, “River clean up: Around 100 New Zealand rivers will be cleaned up with the help of $44 million in grants, the Government announced yesterday afternoon.” Having read that, the first question that I ask myself is whether the Waitara River will be a recipient of part of that fund. If it is, then that would make available the funds that will be drawn from the income of the lease properties available to the subcommittee that has the responsibility of recommending the purchase or otherwise of the lease land as they come up for sale. So that is something that I think will be subject to a Supplementary Order Paper from New Zealand First.

The other thing that has always been an issue for us is the membership of the subcommittee representing both the regional council and iwi. The bill actually refers to members nominated by the council. That could be anyone, but if the nominations are to be councillors who have been elected on to council, then we certainly have a difficulty about the non-council membership of that committee not being subject to the same process. So I would just signal that, but I think that the fact that the bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee was a very wise decision of this House. It just re-emphasises to me the importance of things Māori being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee and the fact that the people of New Zealand and of this House should not be afraid of things that clearly have some impact on Māori being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The acknowledgment of previous speakers of the work that the committee has done is testament to the fact that the Māori Affairs Committee certainly has the capacity to do so. The work done by officials—and reference has been made to Ms Nashwa; I will just refer to her as Nashwa. The work that she has done is testament to the work that she has certainly done not only for this case but, obviously, for other work on behalf of the Office of Treaty Settlements. I just want to join with previous speakers in acknowledging her in that respect.

The other thing is that I want to acknowledge Mr Young, and I think that he has done a good job in shepherding the bill through the House, and he is an example of a member of Parliament actually representing and assisting his community—two things that I think that all members of this House should be responsible for.

There is not too much else that I would like to comment on at this stage, other than to just reiterate that our position at this stage will be to abstain, in terms of the bill, but we recognise that although this is not a Treaty of Waitangi settlement bill, it certainly has some association with Treaty settlements.

I can recall in the 48th or 47th Parliament, where Ngāti Mutunga came before the Māori Affairs Committee—these two young gentlemen representing their iwi and being awarded only $14 million. I can remember quite clearly asking them: “Why aren’t you asking for more given the history of colonisation in that area?”. And I can remember them quite clearly saying to me: “Pita, the problem with us is we don’t have the same political influence as other iwi.” And I knew what he was referring to. He was referring to Tai Tokerau, who had Sir Graham Latimer, God rest his soul, and then we had Tainui with Koro Wētere, and others. And here were these two young men representing their iwi, making that plea. But suffice to say that those same young men are today leaders within the Māori world, and I am talking about Jamie Tuuta and his cousin Dion Tuuta. I will never forget these two young men, with all their kaumātua and kuia sitting in the back putting their faith in them.

I believe this bill is similar to the people of Waitara putting their faith in this bill to address a situation that has been with them for quite a long time. I think that, to a certain extent, while the original Māori owners do not get exactly what they want, this bill goes a long way to achieving (1) their desire to have the land returned to them, and (2) the allocation of those funds that they draw from those leaseholds being utilised to do what they would like it to do. So without further ado, I again say that we will abstain, but that does not mean to say that we do not believe in the intent of the bill. Kia ora.

I stand to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill in the second reading. I want to acknowledge Te Ātiawa, ngā hapū o Manukōrihi, and Ōtaraua and the many years that they have waited for this day to come. I want to add my acknowledgments to Nashwa Boys, sitting up in the gallery there, for the mahi that you do in the Treaty settlement bills, and especially on this particular bill. I realise it was not the easiest one to do, but we got there and it was all because of your hard work and your diligence to get us there, so thank you very much. I also want to take time out to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I do not think I was on the committee when this bill came, but I think, like other members in the House, that it was a bill that needed to come to the Māori Affairs Committee. I think that the work that the committee has done, led by Nuk Korako, the chair, has been amazing.

The lands of Taranaki have been such a big, real dent in our history. When I look at the Taranaki Wars that began back in 1859, because the Crown wanted the land, and especially the land at Waitara—the iwi said no, and that kicked off the first Taranaki land war. It was an atrocity. Even though all the other iwi around the motu came to help out, lives were unnecessarily lost and so was land—485,000 hectares of Te Ātiawa land was confiscated, leaving Te Ātiawa, basically, with a loss of their social, their cultural, and their political structures for the iwi. However, history is a great thing; it teaches us a lot, I believe. It teaches us things that we should not do and places that we should attempt to remedy.

Over the history of this Waitara lands bill, there have been several attempts from the New Zealand Government to redress the past. We have a number of important dates as they have gone through in history. In 1999 Te Ātiawa signed the heads of agreement. In 2004 the New Plymouth District Council resolved to sell 146 hectares on the condition that proceeds would go to be used in Waitara, and there was the settlement of Te Ātiawa claims. There was big opposition to that, which was mounted in 2008—and enter the Hon Chris Finlayson. Through his work, he has been able to resolve the issues that had been facing the iwi, the council, and the leaseholders.

As I move through my kōrero, I look at the actual bill itself and the three main policy components of the bill. Just through listening to the kōrero in the House, the discussions that actually went on between the Māori Affairs Committee and the submitters at Waitara, at Ōwae Marae, and the discussions that actually helped to shape the bill, it might not be to everybody’s liking but it is something that has actually got us to a point now that we can move forward with the support of Te Ātiawa.

As I was saying, there are three main policy components in this bill. The first is that the council will bestow 40 hectares of land in Te Ātiawa; that includes 13 hectares of vacant land, zoned residential in the district plan and other coastlines. Te Ātiawa can use and develop a new base in their Waitara homelands—yay. Te Ātiawa will also be acknowledged as the owner of three pieces of reserve lands with the council providing the day-to-day administration. As we have heard in the House tonight, there is joint decision-making on strategic issues for these reserves and Te Ātiawa will also have the opportunity to purchase over 30 hectares of land in Waitara in the future through the right of first refusal (RFR) if the council wants to sell. That is a very key component of this bill as well, because it gives Te Ātiawa the rights to be able to do with their lands what they want under the RFR.

The second part of the bill—as I said before, there are three components to this—is that the leaseholders will have a right to freehold. In other words they will have a right to buy some of the land underneath their family homes, and I am sure the leaseholders will start to feel some sort of comfort around that rather than being bound by those 21-year Glasgow rent cycles, the lease agreements. I am sure that the leaseholders will be very happy with where we have come to on that.

Lastly, the proceeds from the leasehold land will also be invested back into Waitara. That is really key, because Waitara will be able to actually develop and grow the area for the benefit not just of the people who are living there but also mainly for the iwi. I applaud that—I absolutely applaud that. So the economic development for Te Ātiawa will actually grow in leaps and bounds, I believe, because that is an important area but it is also an area that has got considerable potential economic wealth for the iwi.

Finally, for the Waitara River, there is the plan to clean the river and keep the river and look after the river—the ability for the Te Ātiawa whānau to be able to have some say in how that river will be managed into the future. That is a great big plus for the people of Te Ātiawa. Just like the Waikato River there is that agreement between the regional council, the council, and Te Ātiawa to have their say and to be able to co-manage that awa.

As I stand here tonight and I wind up my kōrero to support this bill, I am a little bit disappointed that New Zealand First is just going to abstain. I think that this is too much of an important bill to be abstaining on the vote for the second reading. And also to the Greens, I think that everybody needs to step up, have their say and say that yes, we support this, because this is very important for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. Yes, it is Te Ātiawa; yes, it is Waitara, but they are people, they are tangata whenua of their area, and I believe that we all should be supporting this bill no matter what.

So without any further ado, I am very pleased and very proud to stand and support and commend this bill to the House. Again, I congratulate Jonathan Young for the work that he has been doing with the people of Te Ātiawa and Waitara, the leaseholders, and the council. I understand that it would not have been an easy task, but you have persevered and you have got to this stage, so I commend the bill to the House. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe e Te Whare nei, ā, tēnā koutou ngā whānau o Waitara.

[My appreciation to this House and salutations to you collectively, the families of Waitara.]

To all the Waitara families out there who are watching this, I am speaking by accident, in some ways, because the minor parties are not here to take a call and the Green Party is not taking a second call.

I want to start by just acknowledging our member of Parliament for Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian Rurawhe, for the awesome work that he has done with engaging with the stakeholders on this, with engaging with hapū and iwi, with the insights that he has brought to this particular bill from his experience working with our Māori community and his experience with Treaty negotiations as well. It has been invaluable in this, and it is not just the work that he has done within the community or on the ground on the bill; it is also feeding back to us, as interested members of Parliament, his colleagues, who want to know and have wanted to be kept up to date with what has been happening with this particular bill. Many people know that my interest comes from the fact that despite not being Māori I was born and raised in Waitara—literally born and raised in Waitara, born in that Waitara maternity home—alongside many people who have a stake and a vested interest in what happens here.

I want to refer to the time—maybe a year ago—when I went with Adrian to consult with locals about what they thought about this particular bill. This particular meeting was one of those ones where you have a massive turnout. There were two people who showed up. The thing that really struck us was that you had an older Pākehā woman who was retired and not in a position to purchase a home or pay the inevitable increased lease that was going to be asked of her, and on the other side you had a younger Māori man, Sheldon Healey, who had a family and a vested interest on behalf of his family with regard to being able to purchase that property.

The thing that struck us was that, despite the fact that they had different perspectives, they respected each other’s position and had consensus around the fact that an answer had to be found. The feedback that we get from Adrian, from the process that he has been engaged with, is that that is exactly how the process has run the whole way through. Whether it be hapū, leaseholders, Te Atiawa Trust, the council, the district council, or the community at large, it has been a respectful process and people just want to come up with a solution. So we are here tonight supporting this bill—supporting this bill under the recommendation that came to Adrian from the wider community, but from the hapū as well, to support it to its next stage, and to keep considering what we have in front of us so that we can come up with a solution that meets the needs of all of the stakeholders that have been engaged with this process.

I want to acknowledge both the hapū, Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū, and the Te Atiawa iwi. I want to acknowledge all the leaseholders. I want to acknowledge everyone who has been engaged, not just our MP for Te Tai Hauāuru, on this side of the House, but also the MP for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, over there. I just especially want to just—you know, we all have the hope that, actually, some of the hurt that has been caused by past actions would be healed in this process, and I think it has been great that there has been general consensus across the House that we need to look for the best outcome for Waitara here. It has not been used as a political football, which is unusual in this place, actually, to be honest. I think everyone is looking for the best results. Kia ora koutou.

💬 Kelvin Davis: Mr Deputy Speaker.

Is this another 5-minute call? This is not, sorry. I call Barbara Kuriger.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I have not been part of the Māori Affairs Committee but I have had a knowledge all of my life in growing up in Taranaki about the hurts and grievances that have been around Waitara. I will say that for a big part of my life I knew there was hurt and grievance but I did not really know the full history. As some of the speakers before talked about, as we work through this process, we should be looking at telling the story and making sure that people in generations to come fully understand. My grandparents actually retired in Waitara before they passed away. That was many, many years ago—my dad’s parents; they actually passed away when I was 8 years old—but I do have memories of going to Waitara.

I was doing a little bit of research before, not just about the history of the Land Wars, which are an atrocious piece of history, but for both sides there has been disappointment. The town was apparently also supposed to have been the capital of the Taranaki province, and would have been, they say, if chief surveyor Carrington had been a better sailor and had enjoyed the trip over the Waitara River bar. Instead, he was terrified and decreed that all the locals’ cunning plans were to come to nothing and went ahead with a breakwater and a port at New Plymouth instead. It is amazing how that disappointment at Carrington’s perceived treachery has carried down over the years and how coming, as it always did, from the town’s business elite, it may have hampered growth and formed the “poor relation” attitude that the town has had about itself.

I do not think it has just been an attitude thing; Waitara is town that really has not had a fair go. It is a low socio-economic town. Waitara east is decile 9 and Waitara west is decile 10. The iwi have not been given a fair go, due to those horrific events. When I think about it, 1860 was 100 years before I was born, so there has been a lot of grievance and a real lot of hurt for a very long time.

I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, which has spent so much time working on this. I know this is a second reading, but I really hope that we can make this work going forward, because I think this community has suffered for far too long. I would like to acknowledge Nuk, the chair of the committee, and Jonathan Young, as the local MP and the sponsor.

I have got a couple of tiny little wee pieces in this area in my electorate, the golf club being one of them. I must admit, I have never played a game of golf at that golf club. I have played only one game of golf in my life, very badly. But it is a part of my electorate that I fully respect in terms of this bill. Look, you know, I now realise the relevance of it—the horrific history and how this was a place where we started a piece of our New Zealand life that really is not very memorable. So I would really like to thank the iwi and the hapū, both Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua, and the New Plymouth District Council—those people who are currently in the council and, particularly, the past mayor and the CEO, who were very instrumental in getting this going—the Taranaki Regional Council, and I would also like to acknowledge our Minister Christopher Finlayson, who has done a lot of work around Treaty settlements. He is a very well-respected Minister and member of Parliament who does a fantastic job.

Tonight a few people in the course of this have talked about Parihaka. I grew up, again, about 20 minutes from Parihaka, and we all knew that there was something terrible that had happened there and did not quite know the full story. I feel very blessed and very special that I was able to be at that celebration that we had recently.

So what I would ask for tonight is to have some tolerance, and it really is disappointing for me that we do have some parties that are abstaining and some parties that are voting against this, because my view is that if the people in the community and the iwi and the hapū are happy with what we are doing, then it really is not up to us to then turn round and change what they agreed. And so, not having been part of the process—I understand there is more listening to go on, and I understand there is a wee way to go with this, but I really feel like it is important that we show some tolerance and we take that on board.

So this is a community that I want to see reach its full potential. We often talk in this House about housing and people buying homes and people buying first homes, and I know that for a long time those people of Waitara have wanted to freehold those homes. So for them it is a win. For the iwi and hapū it is a win in terms of being able to get some funding over time. And, look, always acknowledge that there is a generosity in all of these things. With any settlement, it takes a big heart for people to accept what is being offered, because it can never make up for the wrongs of the past.

Te Atiawa is seeking the return of their land. The leaseholders, as I said, are seeking to freehold their houses, and the community has not been able, up until this point, to make the best use out of the proceeds of the land. So all of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done with the local community and iwi is going to be very, very beneficial to people going forward.

I do not really want to extend this speech or contribution for much longer—just to say that I fully support this as a relatively local MP and someone who has been seeing this go on for a long time. I think we really owe it to ourselves going forward to ensure that we get this to fruition, because these people—all of them—have suffered for long enough, and I would like to see Waitara go forward. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a very proud member of the Māori Affairs Committee—we have been patting ourselves on the back here tonight. But I really do want to acknowledge the work of Nashwa Boys, who is sitting up in the gallery there. To a person on our committee, we were absolutely amazed and thrilled at the work that she had put in to bring this all together. We were at a stage when we were pulling our hair out, and then, I think, within a week or so we were all smiles and full of joy.

So I just say to Minister Finlayson that Nashwa is worth her weight in gold, and having pulled this one together for us, I would suggest a couple of months in the United Nations sorting out the Middle East tensions and then, when she has resolved that, there is a little issue of a not-insignificant iwi up North, north of Whangarei. It straddles the Bay of Islands and Hokianga. Maybe she could work her magic there as well.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cut her teeth in Palestine.

Yes, cut her teeth in Palestine before she starts on Ngāpuhi. Not putting too much pressure or expectation on her, but I am sure she is up to it.

So the Māori Affairs Committee—we have done a great job, and I do want to acknowledge Jonathan Young and Adrian Rurawhe, Jonathan in particular coming in to sit in on the committee and doing some fantastic work running around in the background, bringing us updates on a regular basis, and also Adrian Rurawhe, of course. It would be really nice to have heard the Māori Party’s take on this bill, but maybe it has given up on Te Tai Hauāuru.

The changes made by the select committee include redrafting the preamble to acknowledge Waitara’s role in the New Zealand Land Wars, remembering that the first land wars occurred up around the Bay of Islands in my neck of the woods, but in the 1860s, Waitara was where the first shots of the—if you could call it—second lot of wars began. As Barbara Kuriger has said, it has been 150 years of angst and pain, and it is great that we are on the cusp of actually resolving this for the tribes of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua. Te Atiawa turned down this opportunity to purchase the lands themselves as part of their claims settlement. They were not happy about having to pay for the return of the land and that it was encumbered with perpetual leases. Now, let us just put that into a modern-day context about having to pay for your own property that was stolen. If someone was to steal my car and the police came along and said “Kelvin, we’ve got your car here, but we want you to pay to have it returned.”, I would not be terribly happy. In effect, this is what Te Atiawa were being asked to do: “Here’s some money, but buy back the land.”

The Manukōrihi hapū and Ōtaraua hapū are being defined as Waitara hapū in this bill. The bill also includes a definition of “Waitara hapū entity”; it is an entity that represents both the Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū. The Waitara River is being defined as “the body of water known as the Waitara River that flows continuously or intermittently from its headwaters to the mouth of the Waitara River on the Tasman Sea and is located within the Waitara River catchment;” and includes all tributaries and streams. We have heard that funds are going to be set aside to tidy up that river, and that is only a good thing. As Pita Paraone has made comments on, there is a fund that has been established to clean up rivers, and he posed the question of whether the Waitara River would be eligible for some of that clean-up money, and whether that would actually free up some of the money for other things.

Land is going to be vested in the Waitara hapū entity rather than Te Atiawa, and there are going to be more complex governance structures and arrangements for expenditure of the relevant income by the New Plymouth District Council and the Taranaki Regional Council. I also take the point that Catherine Delahunty made—that the engagement by the Taranaki Regional Council, in particular, could have been better. There is this reticence by some organisations to engage early with Māori organisations, hapū, and iwi, and if people just put that reticence to the side and genuinely engaged at an early stage, we would probably have these types of issues, these types of matters, dealt with in a much swifter manner. Notwithstanding that, we are where we are now, and it is great to see.

I do not intend to carry on much longer. I am really looking forward, in the next Parliament—assuming that I will be here—to seeing this go through the Committee stage and then the third and final reading. The people of Waitara and all the stakeholders—and I will just read them out: there are the leaseholders in Waitara, there is the Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū, Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, the New Plymouth District Council, the Taranaki Regional Council, and the Waitara community in general, plus all of New Zealand. They have been waiting for way too long for this very complex Waitara situation to be resolved. We are almost at the finishing line, and this is a great thing for all those stakeholders and for the country. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege to breach protocol and give a speech on a bill that I have been sitting on. Next Tuesday is my valedictory, so by the time I get in trouble I will be out of here. It is pertinent to stop and have a look at how the bill got before the Māori Affairs Committee, and we will have various views, but I recall sitting in the Chair there and thinking that this should be coming to the Māori Affairs Committee. I was approached by Jonathan Young, then Nuk Korako, and then a number of others, and we saw the discussions going on around the Chamber. People realised very quickly that this looked and smelled and sounded like a Treaty settlement bill, and the committee that was rightly placed to be able to consider it was the Māori Affairs Committee.

I am glad that that decision was made. Albeit where cognisant of the parliamentary processes, there would have been the fear that if the matter had gone before another select committee where the Government had a majority—it was a local bill, and the convention is that you support local bills right across the House, regardless of whether you are Government or Opposition. It no doubt would have gone through in the form that it was in, and it was in a flawed form. The fact is that every commentator on this bill, everyone who has had a look at it, has recognised that it was not in good nick when it came to the House the first time. Thankfully, there has been an awful lot of work going on to get it in that space.

So we have mentioned a lot tonight, such as—quite rightfully—Jonathan Young, the member of Parliament for New Plymouth, and the work that he has done. We have also quite rightfully mentioned Nashwa Boys sitting up there in the gallery now. It is good to see you there, Nashwa. The work that these two did particularly, and others who moved within those stakeholders, as articulated by Kelvin Davis earlier, is very, very significant, because what I hope it does is it gets across to the public that they can have confidence in this parliamentary process, that everything is not a done deal, and that things can be changed. Over a period in Parliament, you can see a number of occasions when common sense prevails—thank God.

I also want to commend the work of the select committee members, who kept asking difficult questions, not only before the select committee but when we were spoken to by our caucuses. We are in a difficult situation, because the guts of it came along after the settlement with Te Atiawa, so the immediate response from one sector of the community was: “Well, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They got monetary compensation through the Te Atiawa settlement bill—$23 million for not getting the land back. They agreed they weren’t going to get the land back, and here you are trying to give them the land back. Well, how does that work?”. Those stakeholders were concerned because the leaseholders had been told, quite wrongly, at the time that they took out the lease, that they were assured of having an opportunity to freehold their land at some time down the track. They went ahead and went through those transactions of buying that land for their own uses, but many of them—some of them, rather—went out and speculated by purchasing other land in the hope that they would be able to freehold it later on down the track to their own benefit.

I think the saddest thing in looking at this, in considering the bill, was that it set Te Atiawa against the iwi of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua. It is sad when you see families fighting, and that is the situation that we had here. The hapū walked away from the Te Atiawa settlement, and quite justifiably so. But it is great to see that through the work that has been done by those people whom we have mentioned, and the fact that they have managed to sit down with one another, they are now in the space where they are having the opportunity to have a look at something that is much more palatable in reconciling history and also in acknowledging the hurt that still continues today.

The fact is that raupatu lands that were confiscated in the 1800s have had an ongoing and material effect on communities. Living in Taranaki for the last 30-plus years, I can say it is obvious. It sticks out like the proverbial. When you look at colonised people around the world, they are all in exactly the same spaces—overrepresented in areas of health and welfare and employment and prosperity. It sticks with them. These injustices stay with them for generations upon generations.

Another feeling of sadness I have around the hapū, in having to consider this, is that they have not had the time. The benefit of the Treaty settlement process is—because it goes on for an extended period of years, people work through the processes and consider then what the profit and loss is going to be, and end up in a place in their minds where they are ready to settle albeit not rewriting history, albeit understanding they are not going to get back full value and full monetary compensation, but actually getting to a place where they are saying: “Let’s just have this settled.”

That is a process that takes years. But, in this case, the two hapū have had weeks. It was very, very difficult then for them to be able to get that place in their mind, where they can actually say: “OK, we’ve chewed this over and we are going to settle on this.” If they get to that space in the next couple of months, all power to them. The decisions that they make, and hopefully they will make, to proceed with this bill will be something that will not rewrite history. It will not tart it all up and make it something acceptable. But what they will have is tangible assets that will be able to be used for the betterment of the future of them and their families living in Waitara.

Another part of this bill that I am very happy with is the obligation to educate. Earlier on in the select committee, last year, we had a petition from two young girls from Ōtorohanga about having a commemoration day for the Land Wars. This was something that many others had tried, including none other than Dame Tariana Turia, who could not make it work through the House. These two young girls have petitioned the Parliament, and before it had even completed its transaction through the select committee it was agreed that this would happen. Now, as we heard from Pita Paraone, on 28 October this year will be the first recognition of those Land Wars.

I have got to wonder, when I was going through school—quite a number of years ago—why it was that I was learning about the unification of Italy; why I was learning about parliamentary reform in Britain, or the former provinces of New Zealand; and why I never learnt a thing about the Land Wars in New Zealand, some of which we are talking about right here and now. It is good to know that that is going to be a different situation for my grandchildren—hopefully I will have some, one day, in this country and not in Canada—and they will have the opportunity to learn about the history as it is. I never came across any of this until I moved to Taranaki, and as the local policeman in Pātea, started learning a little bit about these things.

People have had land confiscated from them in these horrible Glasgow leases that go on ad infinitum, with 21-year leaps—totally disproportionate leases being charged either far too light if they are well into the 21 years, or far too heavy if they are newly into the 21-year period; never having an opportunity to be able to remove the improvements, and being locked into a situation where they are kept within perpetuity.

Of course, the other problem that we have within this land is harbour board endowment land, kept for a specific purpose. Leases that are charged on harbour board endowment are then going for the betterment of the harbour, not necessarily being spent in there in the past, and never being spent locally in Waitara for the benefit of those people who are living there and have been there for some time.

It is certainly a situation where there is much pleasure in being able to commend this bill to the House. It has certainly been, for me, a great experience to see this piece of legislation transact through the Māori Affairs Committee. I do commend it to the House. I commend it to the people of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua, and hope that it will be passed into law next term. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.