Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill

I present a legislative statement on Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

💬 SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be now read a second time.

Tākiri mai ana te ata, ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi. Korihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauri ora.

E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tae mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou. Te whakamānawatia ngā mana o ēnei whenua e tū āhuru nei, tēnei au, otirā mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Dawn breaks, a new morning and a dauntless heart. The voice of this issue now sings, a new dawn leads to the full light of day. I now begin.

Greetings to one and all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed. May you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all. To pay tribute to these comfortable lands, I stand here, we the Government stands here acknowledging the present issue. Greetings to you all. Greetings, greetings one and all.]

It is my honour to support the second reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. This second reading is the next important step in the legislative process to bring us closer to passing this bill into legislation and to giving effect to the redress contained within it.

Firstly, I wanted to thank members of Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, who are watching this second reading online. I acknowledge that while Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu are separate groups and trace their descent from different ancestors, they are closely interconnected and share whakapapa throughout Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. To both groups, I admire your resilience, your energy, your tenacity, and your drive, which have brought us to where we are today. I’d also like to take the time to particularly thank the iwi negotiation teams and trustees of both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu, who have worked together throughout the Treaty of Waitangi historical claims process to negotiate a shared redress package that rightfully sits with both groups. Their dedication to finding a shared path, to carry these taonga forward for future generations, is highly commendable, and I thank them for their continued work in this space, as we continue to support this bill through the House.

Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill gives effect to certain provisions contained in the deeds of settlement signed between Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and the Crown in August 2016, and between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Crown in October 2021. The bill does not settle any historical claims for either Rangitāne or Ngāti Kahungunu; those claims will be settled through the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017 and the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, which has now been reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee. However, echoing the sentiments spoken in this House at the first reading, the joint nature of this bill and the shared redress is notable and momentous for iwi.

Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill will provide joint redress over Lake Wairarapa, Lake Ōnoke, and the Ruamāhanga River catchment to both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, acknowledging the importance of this taonga for both iwi. Significantly, this redress also includes the vesting of the Crown-owned part of the bed of Wairarapa Moana in iwi. The bill will also establish the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board to act as a guardian of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment for the benefit of current and future generations, with six members appointed by iwi and six members appointed by the Minister of Conservation, the Wellington Regional Council, and the South Wairarapa District Council. Furthermore, a property in Mākirikiri will be vested in the tipuna known as Rangiwhakaewa to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangiwhaka-ewa to Rangitāne, and a joint management board will be established to administer the reserve. Undivided half-shares of a property at Mataikona will be vested in both iwi, and an overlay classification that recognises the traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical relationships of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne with the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. The bill also gives effect to cultural and other redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne.

After its first reading, on 30 March 2022, this bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. The committee called for submissions between April and May 2022 and received 28 written submissions from interested groups and individuals. They also heard 21 oral submissions. I would like to thank all those who took the time to share their thoughts with the Māori Affairs Committee. The committee reported back to the House on 30 September 2022 and recommended unanimously that the bill be passed with a small number of technical and minor amendments. The committee’s report also focused on key issues raised through submissions. This was primarily regarding concerns about the vesting of Mākirikiri Reserve and the rights and interests of iwi and hapū there. I acknowledge the time that the committee took to understand and consider submitters’ thoughts, and I thank the committee for swiftly considering those issues. I want to say to the committee that their hard work, especially under the chair of Tāmati Coffey, is much appreciated.

Finally, it’s the Crown’s sincere wish that Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill honours the Crown’s commitments to its Treaty partners Wairarapa and Tamaki nui-ā-Rua Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. I’m hopeful that this bill is an opportunity for all of us to move forward towards a true partnership, one that is based on co-operation, mutual trust, and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. I look forward to welcoming Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne to Parliament for the third reading of this bill and ultimately to seeing this important redress returned to them on settlement date. Until then, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, and as the National Party spokesperson for Treaty negotiations, to speak in respect of the second reading of the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

This bill gives effect to cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. Those are contained within the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown on 29 October 2021, and the deed of settlement signed between Rangitāne and the Crown on 6 August 2016.

This bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, on which I sit. It was a pleasure to travel to Papawai Marae in Greytown and be welcomed on to that marae to hear submissions. A total of 28 submissions were reviewed by the committee; 21 of those were oral submissions, which we heard in one day at Papawai Marae in Greytown. I do vividly recall, as we were welcomed on to the marae, a large rainbow over the entrance to the marae, and that rainbow stuck around for a while. I would say that we did hear some submissions and there were some strong feelings expressed on a variety of different issues—some which directly related to this bill; others which related to issues that are probably best addressed in another bill. But it is my sincere hope that that rainbow which was over Papawai Marae symbolises the intention to get the best for both Ngāti Kahungunu and for Rangitāne and their relationships with the Crown, which is the primary objective of the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

This bill would give effect to cultural and other redress shared between those two iwi, as I’ve mentioned. It “recognises that while Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne are separate groups and trace descent from different ancestors, they are [also] closely interconnected.”, sharing “whakapapa throughout the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua regions.”

“The bill does not aim to settle any historical claims for either Ngāti Kahungunu or for Rangitāne. Rangitāne’s historical claims were settled through the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017. Ngāti Kahungunu settlement legislation is currently going through the [House]”.

“Subpart 1 of Part 2 provides for an overlay classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. This would require the reserve is a site of significance for both Ngāti Kahungunu and [for] Rangitāne through their traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical relationships with the reserve land.”

It also “provides for the making of regulations for the management of customary fishing in [the] Wairarapa Moana (which comprises Lake Wairarapa and Lake Ōnoke, and adjacent wetlands and lagoons) [as well as] the Ruamahanga River catchment.”

This bill also “provides for the vesting of three cultural redress properties. Two would be vested jointly in the trustees of the trusts for Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, [being] the Mataikona property [which] would be vested in fee simple in the trustees of the two trusts, with a 50 percent share each [and] the Wairarapa Moana property [which] would be vested in fee simple in the trustees of the two trusts, as a local purpose reserve. The Ngāti Kahungunu trust would have a 90 percent share and Rangitāne trust [would have] 10 percent. The third property, the Mākirikiri Recreation and Scenic Reserves, would be vested in the tipuna Te Rangiwhakaewa (also known as Te Rangiwhaka-ewa)”—sorry, different spelling—“and administered by a joint management board.”

The bill also “provides for other joint redress, known as the Wairarapa Moana framework. It would provide for the establishment of the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board, giving it certain functions and powers.”, comprising “four members appointed by the Ngāti Kahungunu governance entity, one member appointed by the Rangitāne governance entity, two members appointed by the Minister of Conservation, two members appointed by Wellington Regional Council, and one member appointed by [the] South Wairarapa District Council.” That would “administer the Wairarapa Moana reserves while protecting and enhancing their cultural, spiritual, and ecological values”, “manage the Wairarapa Moana marginal strips”, “lead the sustainable management of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamahanga River catchment”, and “promote the restoration, protection, and enhancement of the social, economic, cultural, environmental, and spiritual health and wellbeing of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamahanga River catchment, relating to natural resources.”

The select committee took quite some considerable time considering all of the submissions which had been made considering the bill and the purpose of the bill, which, as I say, does not aim to settle any historical claims but to give effect to cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, and, with some minor changes confirmed, recommended that this bill be passed.

So I am looking forward to the third and what will be the final reading of this bill when it passes into law. For now, I would say that I commend this bill to the House.

[This is also a greeting to the home base, to the descendants of Rongokako]

Through this process, it’s been really interesting—being the Māori Affairs Committee, travelling out to Papawai Marae to go and listen to their stories. And what do they want to talk about, here in 2022? Land. They want to talk about Māori land all over again, and some of the injustices that have happened, and obviously what Parliament were looking to do to try and right those wrongs of the past.

So this is a joint redress bill, as previous speakers have gone and addressed. This is not the historical redress; this is not the commercial redress—this is the joint cultural redress between the two entities that we heard from in the submission hearings. This bill gives effect to the cultural and other redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, otherwise known as Ngāti Kahungunu, and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua—Rangitāne.

The redress is contained within the deed of settlement that was signed between Rangitāne and the Crown in 2016, but the deed of settlement that was signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown only happened on 29 October last year. This joint bill recognises that while Kahungunu and Rangitāne are very separate groups and they trace descent from different ancestors, they are—as many of our iwi and our hapū are, all around the country—closely connected across geographic boundaries. And that was something that we kept hearing throughout the course of submissions. They do share whakapapa throughout the Wairarapa and the Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua region.

Now, as I said before, we had the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā settlement, and that happened in 2017. Ngāti Kahungunu are currently traversing their own settlement legislation through the Māori Affairs Committee as well, so there’s been a bit of overlap. And one of those overlaps actually came from quite a few of the submissions that were in opposition to this settlement. There were some people saying that we needed to take a couple of areas out, to the point where these had turned into Wai claims. They went through the Waitangi Tribunal, and it was the position of some of the submitters who were against the settlement, this joint redress—they said “We should be taking those two Wai settlements out of that.” It took a lot for us to actually try to understand the landscape and the ecosystem that sits around this, because there is history; there is a courts process that had been running alongside it. And we had to make a decision, as a select committee, about where we decided to land that.

Where we landed was on the realisation that Ngāti Kahungunu are traversing their own bill through the House, which addresses the historic injustices and grievances that they have. And we felt that it was better dealt with through their historic settlement legislation, and not necessarily through this joint redress bill. We saw lots of synergies where both iwi came together and agreed on lots of parts of their joint redress bill. There were just a couple of contentious points, and we really did have to iron that out.

I want to just talk about the submissions themselves, because we received a number of them. My previous colleague just talked about them: eight in support, 19 in opposition, and one with no necessary positions stated—so 28 in total, with eight in clear support, 19 in clear opposition, and, as I say, one had no discernible position on the bill.

We wanted to make sure that we were still doing due diligence on the rest of the bill, even though there were these issues around the two Waitangi Tribunal cases, and we decided to make a couple of recommendations to the bill, but they were very small, very minor: one being just a recommendation around the definition of “working day”. We now have a new public holiday; it’s called Matariki public holiday, and we needed to include that in the legislation. Also, we updated some of the legal descriptions in clause 101 and Schedule 3 for some of the properties that were declared local purpose reserves. Some surveying had been done; we were able to give more accurate descriptions of the blocks themselves. So that has been amended.

Over and above that, there’s not many changes that the select committee have chosen to make. And that’s because we’ve had to balance really carefully the concerns of some of those submitters, the fact that we’ve got another historic settlement going through the House at the moment, and where exactly the right place was to land those conversations. So we’ve made those small and minor changes. There is still, obviously, the final of the Ngāti Kahungunu settlements to go through, and we look forward to traversing that through the House.

But for the here and now, I do commend the joint redress bill to the House, and I thank all of those people who were there on the day at Papawai Marae in Greytown to be able to extend that hospitality, that mihi to us as a committee—albeit digging deep into their history and some of the pain and the anguish that that brings out through a process like this as well. I wish them all the best on their on their journey; together as well as individually. And I look forward to the historic settlement of Ngāti Kahungunu being passed in this House when the time is right. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to take this call on behalf of the National Party, speaking to the second reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

Mr Speaker, when I addressed the House with the first reading of this bill on 30 March this year, I made reference to the fact that there is a great expectation but also a burden of responsibility with these Treaty settlement bills. Because, as members of Parliament and those of us who were giving service on the Māori Affairs Committee, listening to other debates in the House on these readings—and, importantly, the submissions coming from the descendants of claimants, the descendants of those that have passed on, with the grievances that are being addressed and redressed under these bills—is one of great expectation but also a great burden of responsibility.

As members, we come into this belatedly in the process, in this journey that does transcend and transpire through generations. The expectation is that as members of Parliament sitting on a select committee, we are required to accumulate all of the whakaaro, the thoughts; the mātauranga, the knowledge; the kōrero, the stories, that are shared with us—that are in written text but also, importantly, for us to listen to.

So following on from my colleague Tāmati Coffey, who is the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee, in making reference and mention of when we, as members, went to Papawai Marae at Greytown—the importance of us listening to the kōrero, but also being mindful of those no longer there. I always try and make a personal association and connection. Papawai Marae is one of the more important marae in the history of Aotearoa New Zealand, because in the late nineteenth century it was the focus of Kotahitanga, the Māori parliament movement. Kotahitanga means to unify and bring together. Papawai was established in the 1850s when the Government set aside land for a Māori settlement near Greytown. All these decades and time later we return to Papawai to listen to the whakaaro, the thoughts, to listen to the kōrero that has been passed through the generations in terms of this joint redress in addressing those grievances that impacted on Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua.

So the joint redress for those two tribal peoples, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne—when I was sitting there at Papawai Marae, bearing in mind that we were in the presence of a former attempt of unifying Māori under Kotahitanga Māori parliament. Parliament, the French word for “to talk”, “to listen”, to bring together and to take cognisance of. So I was seated there as a descendant of my Whanganui peoples, knowing that my people had been there at Papawai. But I was also there as a descendant of a tupuna of Ngāti Kahungunu, Tamatea-Pōkai-Whenua, who traversed and travelled and went on adventures and exploration and travelled down the west coast of the North Island Te Ika-a-Māui and arrived at the mouth of the Whanganui River. He crossed over from the northern reaches of the Whanganui River to a marae which is my papa kāinga and tūrangawaewae, Pūtiki Wharenui a Tamatea Pōkaiwhenua. Tamatea-Pōkai-Whenua had traversed and travelled the seascape, the coastal-scape and then the river-scape of Whanganui, crossing over after gathering wharenui, a particular flax, and tying his hair into a topknot, and deriving and positioning and placing himself at the mouth of the Whanganui River, which is my ancestral marae. I was cognisant of that, and those have journeyed before.

I turn to the bill. Importantly, this is a joint redress bill of the journeys of the peoples of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne coming together, and the Crown, importantly, recognising and attempting in this bill to address and to redress the grievances and the wrongdoings of lands, of waters, of lakes, of rivers that have been taken—confiscated—wrongfully. This is addressed under three parts of this bill and 122 clauses and three Schedules, as a recognition of the return of those lands, those waters, those rivers, in a co-relationship between the Crown and the tribal peoples for the management—the term that we hear, co-governance, that effectively is about recognising the importance of the relationships of the people affected by the territories, their domains, the mana motuhake of being able to have a co-existence of relationships and the management of those relationships with the assets that the people are living amongst and within.

My colleagues have spoken about the particular aspects of those assets or the environments, the taonga. The three Schedules—and one in particular, Schedule 1—describe the Wairarapa Moana reserves and the marginal strips. Schedule 2 describes the overlay area to which the overlay classification applies between Rangitāne and Kahungunu. And then Schedule 3 describes in detail the cultural redress properties. I won’t go into the detail because my parliamentary colleagues have already done so and those to follow in speaking will too. But what I do stress, and address the House with, is talking about that burden of responsibility that we have as members of Parliament, recently arrived, sitting on the select committee, attempting to resolve those grievances that have been intergenerational. The settlement process is not a perfect process, and often it can create new grievances or perpetuate those enduring grievances. Negotiations are negotiations; where it’s about parties who go there with their vested interests, negotiating the best position and outcome for those particular parties or interest groups. The process is not perfect because it can create and perpetuate new grievances. We in select committee, in the whare tupuna, in the ancestral house on Papawai Marae, listened to some of those grievances and the mamae, in particular, of two claimant groups who, again, are the same claimants that will speak to another bill that will come before this House next week, the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

What was difficult for us—as select committee members and members of Parliament listening to the grievances and the different interest group representations—was being cognisant of how best we move forward; how the peoples, the claimants, the interested parties move forward. And I talk about how the process of these Treaty settlements is premised on negotiations. We as members are advised by Te Arawhiti, the Crown agency body. There is little provision or facilitation for mediation and the expectation that the Crown has on parties that are negotiating can often create divisiveness amongst themselves. The whole point is to unify and be able to move forward, but there is no offer for facilitated mediation. And I put that to this House: the Crown ought to be cognisant that negotiations have their place, but so too do mediations in terms of bringing people together for a meeting of minds to recognise what it is that is going to amalgamate and resolve, acknowledge those grievances, pull together in kotahitanga, to be able to move forward. A negotiated process is divisive and it turns people against each other.

The National Party commends this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou to those members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua who are watching the second reading of this joint bill today, and to all those people who came along to Pāpāwai Marae to speak with the Māori Affairs Committee when we were there, which my colleagues around the House have recalled.

I want to take the House through the procedural history around the negotiations of this bill, and while that might not be the most exciting topic in a second reading speech, it’s really important that the House understands how in, a cross-partisan way, parties around this House have been able to feed in to the negotiations that have happened and that have come together in this bill. But first let me just recall my memory from that day at Papawai. It was a really moving day; it was hard. There was mamae shared with the select committee. All members of the committee, I think, really did come together in a pretty united understanding of how deeply felt the hurt in that room was and of our responsibility as committee members to get this legislation right.

I remember the opening submissions for the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Settlement Trust. It was a negotiator, Robin Potangaroa, who said that the iwi had been waiting patiently for 175 years for this. He said, “We know and understand the Crown breaches in taking our land. Our tipuna were left virtually landless.” He said that settling was in the best interests of Ngāti Kahungunu while acknowledging “that not everyone is happy”, and that is almost a universal experience in these Treaty settlements. Mr Potangaroa said that the Crown had made an appropriate decision on Mākirikiri Reserve, for example, using what evidence was available within those negotiations, and he said that the painful settlement process was hurtful to both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. He said, “It’s been a long road, with a lot of knives in the back and in the front and in the side. But, whānau, we’ve all got to get over ourselves, we all know what we have done to each other in this process, but we are still related. We have to find a way back together. It stops in our generation.”

That has sat with me since then, not just about this settlement but about how we approach all negotiations between the Crown and claimants in this Treaty settlement process. We as a select committee, as my colleague has said, have been asked to come to this relatively late, and that’s why I want to take the House through what has happened until this point between not only the Treaty negotiations Minister, Andrew Little, but also his predecessor the Hon Chris Finlayson, who we all in the committee agree has done a very good job in coming to this settlement.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua has a population of approximately 12,000, according to the census figures, and it consists of two of the taiwhenua groups of Ngāti Kahungunu more generally. In November 2012, the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to represent that group whom we are talking about here. The Crown signed terms of negotiation with the trust in June 2013, so back in 2013 it was agreed that this group would negotiate on behalf of those iwi members with the Crown.

That meant that by May 2016, significant negotiations had gone on, and the Crown and the trust were able to agree to an agreement in principle. This is a sort of heads of agreement document. It’s short, but it sets out what will be negotiated between the Crown and that representative body in the process. What that means is that between 2013 and 2016 a number of hui around that rohe were conducted between the settlement trust and the people it represented, and then an agreement was made as to within what scope the Crown was dealing with in those negotiations. It’s important to think about the time involved in that—that three years went into what would be agreed in this settlement.

In November 2016, the members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua ratified the post-settlement governance entity—that’s the trust that we’re talking about here—and agreed to transfer the mandate to the settlement trust to continue the negotiations. Then, in the following month, Ministers approved the ratification results for the settlement trust, and the trust was formally established in March 2017. Though it seems rather procedural and legalistic to think about which entity was in charge of it, it’s important to remember that at all steps of the way members were engaged in who represented them and what kind of body they were.

Then, in March 2018, the settlement trust and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. So within that time of almost 2½ years, we went from an agreement in principle—those are those things that we all agree we can negotiate about—to a deed of settlement. That was ratified by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua claimant community in November 2018, and it was conditional on the enactment of the bills that are before the House. So I’ve taken us through that because it is really important for the select committee to be involved in this process, but we do come to it at the very tip of the iceberg in that we see a very small part of a process which is a long-fought and long-argued negotiation.

I think when we talk about our role as select committee members in making sure that legislation is good and that it works all around the House, for whatever piece of legislation it is, we have to really consider that Treaty settlements are different to that in that we as committee members have a huge role in making sure that these are suitable pieces of legislation and that we listen to the claimant community, but we also need to know that the enduring nature of Treaty settlement is absolutely dependent on the conduct of the select committee members and of all members in this House to uphold the unity that we have in this House around Treaty settlements. We, as parliamentary members, may not agree with every part of Treaty settlements, and we may not agree with every part of this settlement, but it’s important for all of us to uphold the responsibility that we have in ensuring that the work that has gone on for many, many years in the actual settlement negotiation—and, indeed, the 175 years that we have waited for this settlement—is upheld and that it is something we can all agree on.

I want to briefly thank, as well, the members who presented to us. I have this photo of the kaumātua here speaking to the select committee. It really did make me think very carefully about our role of gathering historical evidence as a select committee. We were given a huge amount of historical evidence about how people within the Wairarapa were treated and how the Crown took a prejudicial view which resulted in forced sales in the 1840s and 1850s, and how that impacted on people in their daily lives now—that memory of their tūpuna’ suffering but also the way that they were left virtually landless and had no place to call their own.

I think that as members of Parliament, when we receive that kind of evidence, it is upon us to remember it, and to remember the people who have given us that information and have entrusted us with their historical stories, their whakapapa. It will always sit with me very, very heavily on my shoulders, that responsibility, and so I thank them and I commend this bill.

E mihi ana me te ngākau whakaiti ki a koutou katoa o Rangitāne me Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua.

Hau tōtō hau tōtō

Ko Tū hekea ana,

ko rongo hekea ana

Ki te ngahau o Tū

Utaina taku kawa nei,

He kawa tua-maunga

Ka wiwini, ka wawana,

Tara pata tū ki te rangi,

Auē ki

Whano, whana,

Haramai te toki,

Haumi e, hui e, taiki e.

[With a humble heart I acknowledge all of you from Rangitāne me Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua.]

That waiata, Hau Tōtō, was composed to send the Horouta waka from Hawaiki to Aotearoa safely and speedily. I learnt this and the several other that come with it from Derek Lardelli at Toihoukura, the Māori art school in Gisborne where we studied every day for three years with waiata, karakia, and mōteatea.

In thinking about this Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, I was reminded of one of the main things that I learnt during that time, which was to attribute where you learnt and who you learnt your information from, because it’s not my knowledge. Even the knowledge of my whakapapa is not just mine—I don’t own it, I express it, and I’m just the next in line to pass it on. So that attribution actually protects us from other people who will come to us and say, “Oh, they learnt it differently”, or, often, “I’m doing it wrong”, because they learnt something else.

And mātauranga Maōri is like this. It’s not just one truth, it’s not absolute, it’s about multiple threads of knowledges of whakapapa woven together so that we can respect each other’s learnings and have conversations about where we agree and where we disagree, but, more importantly, how we came by that knowledge. And whakapapa is a good example of this. In a best case scenario, we learn that whakapapa since we’re young, growing up on our whenua. The reality is, through colonisation, that most of us do not have that—it’s a privilege. Mihi to those ahikā, the ones who keep those home fires burning and keep passing on that information for those who grow up and there and those who come home when they can.

So we defend that mātauranga, we defend that whakapapa, including in places like the Māori Land Court minutes. During the hearings, we were given glimpses of things that tūpuna had said to justify the claims that we make now. Of course, we know that, just like today, even our tūpuna were arguing back and forth, and when I read the ones from home, that was certainly true.

Now, in earlier times, differences in opinion about that mātauranga and about whakapapa often resulted in issues around boundaries—for our iwi and for our hapū. They might have been resolved through little skirmishes at the border, through negotiations, and sometimes gaining peace through marriage. In our time, the deeply, deeply flawed process that is Treaty settlement often undermines that mātauranga and that whakapapa. By its use of large, natural groupings, it pits iwi and hapū against each other, mostly making hapū invisible in this process. And it’s never good. It is not the Crown’s job and it is not our job in Parliament to tell any other iwi what their whakapapa is and, worse, to maybe put a mistake into law.

The redress in this bill, as my colleagues have said—there’s some land that’s been jointly vested, Mākiriri gravel reserve, the Mataikona property, and the bed of the Lake Wairarapa, which forms part of the wider Wairarapa Moana, a wetland of international significance. Just incredible work that the whānau have done to restore something which was pristine and has been damaged over many years. In the overlay classification—I’ve just learnt what one of those is—it enables Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to identify protection principles and make their value statements about how that will work.

Now, I acknowledge the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey: thank you for your mahi, and my colleagues—it is not my normal subcommittee, so thank you for having me to do this bill and its companion bill. I would say our role, though, on our select committees is less about just being unified and automatically accepting the bill that the Government has presented to us, and more about gaining consensus across the House on what’s best for the people involved. And the hearings, as my other colleagues have said, were really special because they were held at Papawai Marae, a beautiful and really significant whare. And can I say ngā mihi aroha ki ngā ringa wera [acknowledgements to the cooks]. We were fed really, really well. The whare was warm and the kai was yummy. However, it was the kai o te rangatira—the kōrero—that we were there to hear. And so that’s when we heard—and there’s nothing better than being in the whare; I wish there were mattresses, but we were at chairs and tables—about that whakapapa. Hearing that mātauranga from the place where it comes from is much better than reading pieces of paper in this House, here.

But, as my other colleagues have said—our deputy chair, Arena Williams—there was also mamae expressed in that, that it’s a tough, arduous process that people go on when they try to settle their claims. And there’s not always the support that’s needed to mediate all the things that need to be discussed, because 180 years of injustice—it’s a lot to come back from. It’s a lot to have calm conversations when that hurt continues to affect people to this day.

But we also heard from some who didn’t feel they’d been heard at all through this current process, and they wanted to make sure that their views were on record.

We heard how the Crown’s breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi have left the Kahungunu hapū whānau of the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua virtually landless. That’s why the return of land is so critical in this and every other bill. In particular, we heard that Wairarapa Moana is a living entity, treasured by their tūpuna for its supply of abundant food, and I’m quoting, “And other customary resources traditionally harvested and traded to benefit people from near and afar”, that it was a gift from the atua, and an immense source of tribal mana. At the very, very least, what we need to do is to restore that mana back to its people.

So of the, kind of, three main issues that whānau raised when we were there, one of them was to do with Mākirikiri and the tupuna called Te Rangiwhakaewa. So there were discussions about how that should be pronounced and whether a hyphen should be used or not. One thing that they were in agreement with, though, was that that original tupuna, despite all the intermarriage that might have happened afterwards, was Rangitāne. So that’s part of that mamae that says, “Yes, we’re going to do this thing. You’re going to set up a 50:50 share for this particular property, but the tupuna that it comes from was Rangitāne.” And we went and apologised to Rangitāne. We missed the part—not being regularly on that committee—where we did want to put into the report that we did think that, and we did try to change it inside the bill. And I think the use of a hyphen is such a tiny—literally tiny—thing to denote mana of a particular tupuna.

Quickly, just acknowledging Ngāi Tūmapūhia-a-Rangi and their wishing to be withdrawn from the bill related to Ngāumu Forest. I think that, and also Wairarapa Moana Inc. and their mahi around Pouākani—just saying that we hope to resolve those or we will definitely address those in the bill, which will be heard next week, for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

So, in conclusion, we uphold the mana of all the negotiators who were involved in this, but, especially, we remember those who we’ve lost throughout this process. We hope that when this is done, it can go back to the iwi, who can use their tikanga, without Government interference, to resolve the remaining issues and work out those final details. In that spirit, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. This is a bill that puts into practice, or into legislation at least, a Treaty settlement negotiated over the last decade or so between the Crown and two iwi—Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne. There are many great things about our country. I can think of a few: fish and chips, the All Blacks, the Black Ferns, splitting the atom, the best farmers in the world—or the most efficient—but if I was to pick one thing that makes New Zealand truly special, where it began, I think it’s the fact that our country, unlike almost any other, was founded by a voluntary agreement well, well ahead of its time, that gave “nga tikanga katoa rite tahi”—the same rights and duties to all citizens. It was a magnificent achievement, without parallel anywhere else in the world.

Yet no story is perfect, and the observation of that promise of the Treaty, of the same rights and duties, protection of taonga or property rights, has been far from perfect. But if you were to take a positive from New Zealand, just as I can’t imagine any other country on earth packing a stadium to cheer a world cup - winning women’s rugby team right now, I can’t imagine any other country that would have gone back over 30 years with Governments and politicians of all stripes and carried out a process of forensically examining its history and seeking to put right the many wrongs, hapū by hapū, iwi by iwi, location by location. And yet here we find ourselves today at a point in our history where we are closer than ever to fully completing all of the Treaty settlements that were lodged prior to 2008. It is only Ngāpuhi, a somewhat disorganised iwi from somewhere up north that I happen to know a few things about, that haven’t managed to present fully for this process, but we live in hope, and for members who take an interest in these things I highly recommend a book I’m reading at the moment—Chris Finlayson’s He Kupu Taurangi: Treaty Settlements and the Future of Aotearoa New Zealand. Chris Finlayson was the former Minister for Treaty settlements who managed to organise and get through a great deal of these settlements over a previous term of Parliament. That is the background for bills like this, and I think it’s a wonderful thing of which we should all be very proud.

But this particular bill, as I mentioned, is about the history and the grievance and ultimately the redress and the future for two iwi from the south-east coast of the North Island, and that, as we said, is Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, two iwi that have their own story of losing their assets, losing their connection with their rohe, and losing so much that they held dear, to the point that for many people at the time it seemed like all was lost and that perhaps they should give up. But we see over the last decade, the process beginning with a claim, with negotiation, with an agreement, and ultimately parliamentary legislation—this Treaty settlement process that sets New Zealand apart, carried out for them.

The bill comes in three main parts. Part 1 sets out those preliminary matters and tells the story. These bills are worth reading. They have a lot of very interesting information. They go to great lengths to set out exactly what happened and why, even when much of it is well before and beyond any current living memory. It then goes on to give rights to an overlay over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, a place that is special to both iwi. It gives rights over customary fishing management, something that the ancestors of the people today had enjoyed for generations and still have a connection and a right to. That is affirmed. It gives three cultural redress properties, which will be managed by a combination of the two iwi and trusts operating on their behalf, and it gives other joint redress in the form of the Wairarapa Moana framework; in other words, a framework for managing some of the seas of the coast of the Wairarapa in order that people who have an interest in those fisheries and in the health in particular of the river there, the Ruamāhanga River—people that have an interest in those territories can also have an input into its management. Those are the key points of this bill and the redress that it brings about.

I hope that this redress will give the people of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne a sense of ownership—not only literal ownership in some instances but also a sense of connection to the land, a sense of place, but most of all a sense of right; that New Zealand is a place where in the end people do the right thing even if they didn’t always, and in the future people can achieve their potential in a modern, multi-ethnic liberal democracy that has a place for everyone. That’s what bills like this are about. That’s why the ACT Party has always been proud to stand and support them, and we wish the people of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne all the best for their future and for a wonderful celebration when this bill passes its third reading—I understand, as soon as just next week.

Tēnā koe te Mana Whakawā, and thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.

I enjoy being about this time in the speaking order because you get to hear a snapshot of what has gone on from a range of different perspectives. But the greatest thing about listening to the Treaty settlement process is just the fact that the House comes together, united, and reflects on what has happened with the history in Aotearoa New Zealand. Can I acknowledge the Treaty relations Minister, the Hon Andrew Little and his predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for their work.

This bill, as people know, is the joint redress bill. I know these are important in my rohe, which includes Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands. When you’ve got imi, iwi, I think one of the most significant parts of redressing past hurts and harm in this Treaty settlement process is to look at those areas where history outlines conflict. One of the ways that I’ve really applauded those that, I guess, set up this structure to address the issues is to look at the idea of a joint redress.

So this is something that, whilst there is still some mamae which has been articulated by others, I think it’s absolutely critical in the process that iwi can come together and say, “These are the common elements of harm, of hurt, in our history, and we will work together and use this process—which it allows for—to accommodate that redress.”

There are some similarities, and one of the benefits about being on the Māori Affairs Committee is you see these come through and we are supplied with plenty of information. There’s often a simple document—very detailed, the deed of settlement—and that will outline, for you, the history. And very quickly—you only need to read for a couple of lines and you think, “Wow, this has not been something we should be proud of.” So very quickly, you get a sense that there was a lot of hurt and harm, and there are certainly some highlights which this process acknowledges it will never fully, ever, redress. But none the less, you have a process here in place that goes some way to attempt to bring about some justice to those who have pursued it and who have been resilient in that.

I want to acknowledge the members of Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua. Because these groups, these iwi—who I know watch carefully this process through—it’s difficult for some to understand why it takes so long and why we go through these different readings, but each time, I think we articulate the reasons why and we get a much better result in terms of going through such a process.

But I admire their resilience. Certainly as someone who went to Papawai Marae in Greytown, it’s always good going to their rohe. It takes extra time—a lot of extra time—involves you going into the rural heartland of Aotearoa New Zealand. And just to hear the history—we’ve heard how it was the Parliament or some part of it back in the 1850s, and I always try and picture what it would look like thinking, “Wow, even the structures or the buildings, how would it have looked or how would it have functioned?” But none the less, that’s what it was and here we are, all those years later, being part of redressing and putting back the pieces on the very rohe—or land; the whenua—where these buildings and structures and communities once stood or once were part of.

It always comes with a differing of opinions, too. Comes as no surprise to me that we are treated with a huge amount of respect as part of this, but there is certainly no lack of forthrightness in terms of articulating the issues around what their concerns are. And they are at odds—and this was no different—with how some saw the process. Some saw what the outcome should be, some see what a sense of justice should look like, and some can be quite dismissive because the pain is so strong and the offer, the pūtea, what’s been offered on the table—in their view—is just not enough. And sometimes their own iwi entity structures and processes let them down from their perspectives, too. The whole idea about having a trust board or a post-settlement entity, how that works, who gets on it, who should be on it, who shouldn’t—whānau politics. This has become a feature of the—I’m not going to say “barriers”, just some of the mahi you to work through to get these settlements sorted.

So I want to certainly thank both groups there. Also those who are a part of the negotiation process and the trustees, because they had been involved in this process much, much longer. By the time they’ve come to us, we are looking at the finer details, and a previous speaker certainly looked at something. It might just be a hyphen, but it’s critical that these things reflect the accuracy of their particular ancestors, tūpuna, and how they are reflected. No, none of us like our names being said wrong, spelt wrong, and so this is the time to get this right.

I note, as part of the shared redress, it does focus on cultural redress. And previous speakers have talked about the overlay classification as the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, customary fishing, and I know that this will provide regulations for the management of customary fishing in the Ruamāhanga River catchment and the Wairarapa Moana. The Minister, in particular, talked about the detailing around the Wairarapa Moana framework in terms of establishing a statutory board, its functions, its membership, procedure, how that will work, the logistics of that. And I think that’s valuable. I think you could also say that that’s a great example of co-governance, where you’ve got Māori working together with others in the community to manage natural resources—assets—and ensuring that the interests of their property are managed in a culturally appropriate way.

I want to finish by just going back to the submissions in the time that I’ve got left. We had 28, and some of those were quite detailed. I think when you look at some of the issues that were raised, this process was never going to—what’s the word—fully allow for them to have the remedy that they saw fit, because this part of the process wasn’t the time to do that. But I admire how they have the guts and know-how to say, “Well, if we can get some airing on these issues, we will use this whatever to have our say.”

I think the report was really well done. We always get a great committee report, and I know that we have a great select committee that does work genuinely and authentically to try and get these things worked through. We embrace views from across the House, and everyone works hard to make sure we can get them because it’s not about us; it’s about the iwi. Madam Speaker, kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on this, the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill in this second reading. In doing so, I acknowledge the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne and I congratulate them, like the previous speaker Paul Eagle did, on their perseverance and their resilience during this settlement process, this redress process, as well as their original deed of settlement process.

This bill has gone through the select committee process, and I note that my colleague Joseph Mooney, in his speech in the first reading of this bill, hoped that they would get out and about during the select committee process; indeed, as the previous speaker has said, they did. They went to the Papawai Marae in Wairarapa and heard 21 of the 28 submissions. Again, noting some of the comment from the previous speaker, I’m sure, in the tradition of marae debate, that the kōrero was robust and forthright and indeed an opportunity for opinions to be expressed.

The bill gives effect to cultural redress that is shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne and contained within the deed of settlement for Kahungunu that was signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown last year in October and the deed of settlement between the Crown and Rangitāne that was settled on 6 August 2016. So a long time to get those settlements, but then even longer to get this cultural redress of shared matters. The legislation is necessary to give effect to certain aspects of the settlements. Exclusive settlement redress for each of the groups is provided in their respective deeds of settlement, and this, of course, is the areas of common cultural redress being concerned there.

The second part is the area where the joint cultural redress provided to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne is laid out and the provision for that overlay classification over Castle Point Scenic Reserve and also the provision for the making of regulations for the management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana and in the Ruamāhanga River catchment. There’s also the provision for vesting in fee simple of the three cultural redress properties. And the previous speaker spoke a little bit about the implementation of that and the representation going forward.

Part 3 of the bill makes that provision for the Wairarapa Moana framework, including the establishment of the statutory board, giving it certain functions and powers, including the powers as an administering body of the Wairarapa Moana reserves.

So the Bill recognises that while Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne are different groups and trace back to different ancestors, they are certainly closely interconnected, sharing whakapapa and hapū affiliations.

The grievances of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne include those which most settlements include, and they are the Crown’s acquisition of the vast areas of land and failure to ensure adequate reserves were protected in their ownership; the Crown’s failure to provide ample reserves near Lake Wairarapa, as it had agreed; the Crown’s failure to protect iwi from virtual landlessness; and the erosion of their tribal structures and the social deprivation that resulted.

So we acknowledge, as other speakers have, that it has been a long journey: first, to get to their settlements, but now also this joint redress bill. We thank them for their perseverance and hope that, in the future, meeting their potential will be enabled by this redress bill. Thank you.

I call on Willow-Jean Prime for five minutes.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. He tū poto noa iho tēnei.

[This is just a short call.]

I just rise to take a short call as the Māori Party—no, I’m here to take their call.

I have been a temporary member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I was sad to learn, when I arrived, that, for this particular bill, they had actually gone out to one of the marae—Papawai Marae—to hear submissions regarding this bill and that I had missed the opportunity to do that, being a temporary member. So I want to acknowledge the chair, Tāmati Coffey, and the deputy chair, Arena Williams, who shared some of their experience—and also the member who’s just left: Paul Eagle—of hearing those submissions from the claimant groups on their own marae, traversing those historic grievances. I note that the select committee received 28 submissions regarding this particular bill and heard from 21 of those.

So it has been, I think, well traversed and expressed and explained by members of that committee what exactly this bill intends to do. It is to give effect to the settlements that have been reached by the two iwi groups—firstly, in 2016, and then, secondly, in 2020. So this bill will give effect to that joint redress, and they have their own separate settlement legislation, as well.

So I just want to acknowledge the mahi of the Māori Affairs Committee, that they went to Papawai Marae to hear those submissions, for the work that they have done on this bill and also the one that will be coming again next week. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be able to take a brief call on this bill, Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee for a period of time when some of this bill was being considered. It’s good to see that this bill gives effect to the specific cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. It’s good to see that we have a separate piece of legislation that provides for the cultural redress. There are some great pieces of cultural redress in here that are very important to all three of those iwi, as well as to New Zealanders as well.

The cultural redress is intended to recognise the cultural, historical, and traditional associations of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne within these areas of interest, and it provides for some interesting specific cultural redress items. The one I’d like to speak about briefly is the overlay classification, which is a pretty flash, long word for having some special relationship with Castlepoint, which has got a wonderful name in Māori: Rangi-whakaoma, which refers to the speed of the way the clouds race across the sky, because the wind blows so strongly. And, if you’ve ever been to Rangi-whakaoma, or Castlepoint, you’ll know exactly where that name was derived from. It’s got some great stories around that area. That’s a very special location. It’s where, when Kupe was chasing Te Wheke o Muturangi, he hid in the cave underneath. I still point out to my children that that’s the cave where the wheke hid out. It’s got some very special stories in relation to the first discovery of Aotearoa, and so it’s only right and appropriate that we have some special acknowledgment for cultural redress for those iwi and the history in that space.

The bill also provides for making regulations and management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana and Ruamāhanga River catchment. I know that river has had issues in the past, in terms of keeping it clean. So I really hope that, having greater iwi management and oversight in terms of how we’re looking after the kai moana or kai awa in those areas, we have greater involvement of iwi to keep our whenua and our natural environment to a good standard for people to enjoy.

In conclusion, I’d like to acknowledge all of those submitters. I wasn’t able to be there at Papawai Marae to hear those submissions. I know this has been a long and hard process for the iwi involved. Settlement processes are never easy, and they are never by any means perfect, but I genuinely hope that this cultural redress enables those iwi to have a stronger and lasting relationship with parts of the whenua that, in the past, they have not been able to have that relationship with due to the impacts of colonisation in New Zealand. I hope this redress goes some way to re-establishing a stronger relationship between the Crown, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. Anei te mihi nui ki a koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe.

Well, Madam Speaker, I don’t often get the chance to speak—well, actually, I do get quite a few chances to speak—on these bills. But I’ve never had the opportunity to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, which is really quite frustrating because—well, there’s various reasons for it—you certainly get to understand these sorts of Treaty settlement bills in a much better manner if you go through the process than you do if you don’t.

I listened to members of the select committee and the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, speak on this bill, and I wonder what’s left for me to say. So I suppose I’ll put my own perspective on the process. Whilst Rangitāne and Kahungunu occupy the same region, they’re separate groups and they’re subject to their own Treaty settlement claims bills, one of which passed, I think, some four or five years ago, and Kahungunu is in process right now, and we look forward to that coming back to the House. This bill, interestingly, deals with the cultural redress of some, I suppose you could call them, assets or whatever you like to call them, but certainly some recreational facilities, fishing areas, and other areas of significance—reserves and things like that—that the two iwi have joint interests in, and so this bill specifically deals with those issues. I just want to talk about one or two of those things that it in fact deals with.

It deals with, for example, the Ruamāhanga River, which starts right in the top of what I suppose we know as the Wairarapa—and, in fact, Rangitāne o Manawatū could partially claim it, because it probably starts right at the top of the Tararua ranges, just above Shannon—and runs down through the Wairarapa and comes out to the coast; runs, interestingly, past what’s known in this bill as the Wairarapa Moana, which, I guess, some of us would know as Lake Wairarapa and the surrounding wetlands and areas adjacent to it, as the interests of the iwi cover a large part of the Wairarapa area.

The other interesting issue for me—and the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, spoke of the fast wind that goes through Castlepoint—is, of course, Castlepoint for many years has been the venue of a historic race meeting in the Wairarapa. So some fast horses have run around that area, as well, and a hugely popular event it has been for many, many years in the Wairarapa area. And, of course, Castlepoint, for those who have been there, is a very attractive and unusual piece of coastline in New Zealand, and it just shows the rugged nature of that South Wairarapa coast—and, in fact, of a lot of the east coast of New Zealand—and a very different environment than the west coast of New Zealand, which doesn’t look as attractive but certainly, I think, is equally as impressive.

I’ve watched successive Treaty Ministers—Finlayson and Little—deal with these very complex issues, and I’ve always been impressed with the manner in which they deal with the iwi concerned. I’ve also been hugely impressed—on the occasions that I’ve been invited to attend parts of the agreements that usually are resolved and agreed to on various marae around the country—with the respect, the mutual respect, that both the local iwi and the Ministers and their parties are held in. And I think that signifies a great will, I guess, on behalf of all parties to try and resolve these issues as best we can. And clearly, given the history of these things, we can’t always do that in a manner that’s entirely satisfactory to everyone.

The one matter that always concerns me in the course of these bills being agreed to is that they invariably bind the Crown. One can only hope that the modern vision of the Crown treats these bills with a great deal more respect than perhaps our earlier vision of the Crown treated some of the so-called agreements that we might have had with iwi and local Māori. And I think it’s hugely important that those issues are upheld in the course of these Treaty settlements, moving forward.

I want to comment briefly on another comment that David Seymour made, because I thought it was very relevant to some of the issues that are going on around the world. He made the comment that he couldn’t imagine any other country in the world, I guess, revisiting or unpicking its history, to settle our historic grievances. Well, recently, some of us, under the leadership of our esteemed Speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, had the privilege of visiting four Latin American countries, and this very issue was hugely topical, particularly in Chile. Mexico, I think, has 68 different languages—pretty amazing, really—so these issues were very topical on our visit to those countries. And I think we’ve got quite a lot to offer those countries, and hopefully they’re certainly watching the process that we’re undergoing with respect to our Treaty settlements very closely. Hopefully, in the future, New Zealand may well be able to assist, assuming that our Treaty settlement process does get to a satisfactory resolution and the process is, I guess, upheld by all parties.

I think we’ll get to the point where we could have quite a lot of influence in other parts of the world with respect to the way we’ve managed these Treaty processes, and I think it will make quite a difference to some of those countries. So that was one of the things I noticed as really quite interesting as we travelled round four countries in South America. Particularly, as I said, Chile had a lot of interest in this issue. You know, the other interesting thing about those South American countries—two of them are our nearest neighbours; quite a long way away but none the less our nearest neighbours. So we have quite a lot in common with them.

So, Madam Speaker, I don’t want to add any more to this bill. I just think it’s all been said by those people who know a lot more about it than I do, but I do think that it’s a good process, and it’s as good a process as we can manage given the history of a lot of these issues in New Zealand. And, just as I said, I hope that the Government or the Crown in future honours these agreements in the manner in which they’re made. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to take a brief call on Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. I’d like to echo the comments of the previous member there, Ian McKelvie, who spoke quite in depth about the excellent work that has been done over successive Governments in this area around the Treaty settlements and the redress. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, and before him, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for the work that they have both done—and other Ministers—in this area.

The Māori Affairs Committee, we’ve heard, shepherded this bill through. I’d like to acknowledge all of those members and all of those who made submissions on this bill. As a Parliament, we appreciate the engagement of the public on all of the bills that we put through this House.

This Labour Government has made a commitment, in our manifesto, to completing all historic Treaty settlements, and this bill is a step towards completing that commitment. It’s an important piece of work. It’s an important next step, in terms of this redress.

I’d also like to acknowledge the groups that have come together in this area, and admire their resilience, energy, tenacity, and drive to bring us to this point in terms of the second reading—the iwi negotiation teams, trustees, and all of those who have worked hard on this bill.

As the previous speaker said, the bill has been well canvassed. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.