Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

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

I move, That the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement 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 koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou. Kia 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 you 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’s my privilege to support the second reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. Second readings are an important opportunity and milestone in the legislative process. It signals that a bill has passed through the select committee stage while facing the scrutiny of the public; and for Treaty settlement bills it indicates one step closer towards reconciliation between the Crown and iwi.

I begin by acknowledging the people of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, many of whom will be watching this reading online. It’s been a long and incredibly difficult journey, but those people have shown real determination and persistence in supporting their settlement and its progression in this House. It’s important that we remember the real people behind bills like this. Their grievances are not forgotten; their desire to move forward with this bill is also not forgotten. I’d like to reassure Ngāti Kahungunu that this Government is in full support of them and their Treaty settlement bill.

Turning now to the consideration of the bill by the Māori Affairs Committee, can I just, first of all, thank the Māori Affairs Committee and its chair, Tāmati Coffey, for their very careful consideration of this bill, because there were some sensitive issues that were associated with it. There was a lot of interest—173 submissions in total were made. Submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee covered a range of topics and were varied in their levels of support. But these submissions illustrate a common occurrence in Treaty settlements, where differing and sometimes irreconcilable points of view must be balanced with the need to move forward. Some members of Rangitāne submitted on the claimant definition and that they did not agree with the inclusion of two hapū in the bill who are also included in the Rangitāne Treaty settlement. I wholeheartedly respect Rangitāne’s right to determine their whakapapa. That is a matter for them. Ngāti Kahungunu members of those two hāpu also told the Māori Affairs Committee that their hapū is both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu, I therefore don’t consider that it’s appropriate for those hapū to be removed. I understand that this will be disappointing to Rangitāne, but Ngāti Kahungunu have the right to have their whakapapa reflected in their Treaty settlement.

The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee also submitted to the Māori Affairs Committee, recommending the select committee request an explanation from Ministers as to why the Crown considers it appropriate to legislate this bill now. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s guidelines state that “Parliament can pass legislation that affects existing legal proceedings if it is justified as being in the public interest.” After considering this bill and the views of parties very carefully, I believe progressing this legislation will enable the true start of the restoration of the Ngāti Kahungunu and Crown relationship, and that that is in the public interest. I’ll come back to this point a little later in my comments to the House.

Next, however, I’d like to thank all members of the Māori Affairs Committee, again, for their time and the care they took in examining the complex issues that were up for consideration in the bill—and their dedicated work to understand these fully before making their findings. The committee voted by majority to commend the bill to the House with only minor amendments. The amendments are technical points that do not change the substance of the bill.

I want to come back to the issue of the litigation that has surrounded this bill. As a consequence of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s submission, the committee invited me to present to them about why, as Minister, I had introduced the bill and why it was important to bring this bill forward. As I’ve already touched on, that litigation has been continuing. The litigation started in the Waitangi Tribunal, it went to the High Court, and there is litigation currently before the Supreme Court that relates to that original litigation. To put that in context, I have to say the Crown has a policy of comprehensively settling historic Treaty of Waitangi claims; settling all claims of a group at once. This policy has existed for many years through all Governments and has been supported through many changes of Government. In almost every settlement, there are claimants who do not agree with the policy. In all of these cases, Parliament has accepted there is a balance to be struck.

As I’ve indicated, the House will be aware of extant litigation around the issues that are related to this legislation. The first relates to a 2017 application for resumption over land at Pouākani which includes Maraetai Power Station. The land at Pouākani is in the rohe of Raukawa and Ngāti Tuwharetoa. In 1915, the Crown gifted 20,000 hectares of land at Pouākani to Ngāti Kahungunu from Wairarapa in exchange for Ngāti Kahungunu’s land and lakes in the Wairarapa. In 1949, some of this land was then purchased by the Crown for the use of a power station. The gifting of the land at Pouākani to Ngāti Kahungunu is the source of great grievance for Raukawa. Parliament passed the Raukawa Claims Settlement Act in 2014, which included an apology to Raukawa for the Crown’s past failures to acknowledge the mana and the rangatiratanga of Raukawa. The Crown meant this apology, and it’s important that the Crown does not undermine that Act in 2014 now. The Crown’s actions back in the early 1900s also left Wairarapa Māori with their own grievances. They lost their land, their lakes, and many were left alienated in another iwi’s land. The Crown is trying to make this right through this settlement as well as through the Raukawa settlement.

The second issue relates to the Ngāumu Crown forest licensed land and was sought by claimants in 2018 on behalf of Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi who whakapapa to Ngāti Kahungunu. The Crown acknowledges there are multiple hapū with interests at Ngāumu, and the forest will return to Ngāti Kahungunu, as a whole, through this bill. The claimants of Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi will benefit from this settlement.

Despite a clear majority of Ngāti Kahungunu voting to proceed with settlement in 2018, the Crown opted to pause the settlement in light of the litigation, but the tribunal decided against these applications in March 2020. There is no ambiguity about the tribunal’s determinations. It said, and I quote: “We do not consider we should recommend the return to the shareholders of Pouākani of the 787 acres … because the value of that land and the [Incorporation’s] assets located there is not proportionate to the prejudice they suffered as shareholders in 1949.” The tribunal further said, “We are satisfied that the return of the land to Wai 85”—that’s the Wairarapa Moana Incorporation—“would not be a just outcome.” And also, “We do not think it is appropriate to return land and compensation to Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi.” These findings have not been challenged in the subsequent court proceedings in the High Court and in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not been asked by any party to find that the tribunal made a mistake when it decided the return of the land sought was a disproportionate remedy to these claims. The Supreme Court is considering the relevance of manawhenua interests to the tribunal’s resumption decisions, as well specific matters relating to the statutory scheme for resumption of Crown forest licenced land. We are still awaiting the Supreme Court decision.

The crucial point is the litigation before the court doesn’t involve any challenge to the tribunal’s earlier determinations, which is that the claimants pursuing resumption are not appropriate recipients of the resumable assets and the assets are disproportionate to their claims. It’s simply not conceivable that the remedies that the litigants seeks would be awarded to them. In order for that to happen, the Waitangi Tribunal would have to abandon the principle of stare decisis. On the basis of this obvious fact and the determination of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, it is in the public interest that we proceed to pass this legislation.

My view is that the balance is in favour of ending further delay and bringing the benefits of comprehensive Waitangi settlement redress to all of Ngāti Kahungunu. This is why I stand here today asking Parliament to support the bill. I am hopeful that the bill is an opportunity for all of us to move forward towards a true partnership, one that is based on cooperation, mutual trust, and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles, and I look forward to hosting Ngāti Kahungunu for their third reading at the Parliament. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, as the National Party’s spokesperson for Treaty negotiations, to speak on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, for its second reading, following the select committee process.

This has been a challenging bill in a number of respects, and the Māori Affairs Committee, on which I sit, has heard a significant number of submissions on this bill. There has been a total of 173 submissions on the bill; of those, 93 were in opposition and nine had no position. Many of those submissions were mainly in relation to remedies litigation and the inclusion of Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims in the bill while this is still subject to litigation in the courts. The National Party had concerns, which we expressed in the select committee report back to the House, in respect of extant proceedings in the Supreme Court that have not yet been decided upon or where the Supreme Court has not yet released a decision. The advice from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee was that legislation should not generally interfere with the judicial process, particularly if there are cases before the courts, and that good legislative design will say that, if legislation is being considered that may overturn a court decision or alter the law at issue in existing proceedings, such legislation needs to be justified as being in the public interest and no more than is reasonably necessary to serve that interest.

Having said that, the National Party is very much supportive of Ngāti Kahungunu having its claims settled. It has been a longstanding policy of this Parliament, through different iterations of Government, that these matters should be settled in what’s called the large natural group policy, involving a process of comprehensive Treaty settlements. This has been the way these settlements have been dealt with and have been resolved over many, many years in this House, and the National Party is very much supportive of that process. So the National Party will be supporting this bill through the House, but we will be putting on record some concerns in respect of the way that this has proceeded. I do note, however, that the issues before the Supreme Court are whether the mana whenua position at Pouākani constrains the tribunal recommending transfer to Wairarapa Māori, and what Crown conduct is relevant to the tribunal’s decision whether to apply a penalty interest rate to see if there was land compensation under the Crown Forest Assets Act.

The basis of the appeals to the Supreme Court does not bear, however, upon the essential finding of the Waitangi Tribunal that the assets are a disproportionate remedy for the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims and that the incorporation’s structure makes an inappropriate recipient of resumable assets, with shareholdings rather than whakapapa determining the level of benefit. I note that the point regarding the assets being a disproportionate remedy for the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims was not appealed. In effect, what we would see here is that even if there were to be success at the Supreme Court on the issues that have been appealed regarding the mana whenua position, that would mean that the matter has to be remitted back to the Waitangi Tribunal, and what would be sought there would be to obtain a different decision from the Waitangi Tribunal from the one originally given on the issue of the resumable assets being disproportionate to the claims brought by the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claimants. So there is real public interest here in these matters being resolved. Ngāti Kahungunu have made it very clear that they want to see this resolved and completed so that they can move on with obtaining better outcomes for their people.

In respect of the Wai 429 claim, it’s been made clear to us, in the information given to the select committee, that Ngāi Tūmapuhia-ā-Rangi are not the only hapū with interests in the Ngāumu Forest, and the settlement trust are prepared to work with the hapū to ensure they have kaitiaki rights in the areas of Ngāumu that they have the strongest interests in. And I note that while the tribunal considered that the Crown had engaged in a flawed and unfair process in proceeding to settlement, the Crown does need to balance a range of often competing interests, including prejudice from further delay to the interests of the broader iwi who support the settlement and others such as Rangitāne and Raukawa affected by the ongoing litigation.

It is certainly true that the reality is that, in almost every Treaty settlement, there is disagreement both within the settling group and between the settling group and those overlapping interests, and the path to settlement is rarely smooth; it is often fraught, and a desire to fully resolve every dispute about the best way to settle claims—in particular, in this case, as to whether the tribunal’s recommendation or a negotiated settlement is the better course—must be balanced against the real risk of endless delay to deserved redress. The Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, did explain to the parties—and he explained to the House today—why, in his view, the balance is in favour of ending further delay and bringing the effects of comprehensive Treaty of Waitangi settlement redress to all of Ngāti Kahungunu and that this has guided the decision to proceed to introduce and to take this bill through the House. There is real benefit to Ngāti Kahungunu in that, and something that the National Party is very much in support of is Ngāti Kahungunu being able to come to finality on its Treaty claim.

In respect of another issue that was raised, I acknowledge that members of Rangitāne made a number of submissions about whakapapa and the attribution of specific hapū to Ngāti Kahungunu in this bill based on subsequent intermarriage of Rangitāne tīpuna with Kahungunu. And given that both Ngāti Hāmua and Ngāti Te Rangiwhaka-ewa are already listed in the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017, we certainly hope that can be fully recorded and publicly available during this current process to provide context for all members of these hapū, because I note those two hapū are both in Rangitāne’s settlement Act of 2017 and also in the present bill before the House. There are differing views of that, and those have been reflected in the two settlement Acts—in this case, a bill that will become an Act.

So I do certainly acknowledge and thank all of the people who did make their submissions to the select committee. I can assure them that they have been very carefully considered by the members of the select committee and by the National Party. We do wish to see this proceed in a way that can settle all of the issues for members of Ngāti Kahungunu and ultimately look towards the future to unlock the economic potential and boost the area of interest for Ngāti Kahungunu, noting the great contribution that that iwi makes to this country. I will have an opportunity to speak in more detail on other aspects of this bill at the third reading, and with that I will say that the National Party does recommend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand here as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee to give the second reading of this, the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. Just for context, we in Te Arawa have a very close relationship to the people of Ngāti Kahungunu; it’s a very close one. I’m a descendant of Tūhourangi, and Tūhourangi had a relationship and children with Rongomaipapa. Rongomaipapa was the daughter of both Kahungunu and Rongomaiwahine. Our connection goes back a long way. I just wanted to point that out because it’s really significant.

The whole way through—that we were listening to submissions—we heard time and time again about the history of the people of Kahungunu, specifically from that area. The thing is, in that area, there are no big walls, you see. So there was a free flow of people, of family, of whakapapa between the area that is firmly on the eastern coast side and the area just over the hills. What we heard, time and time again, was that interaction that had gone on between both the people that lived in Tamaki nui-ā-Rua and the people that lived over on the Kahungunu side—there were a lot of people that came through and they talked about how they were both: you can be Rangitāne over on that side, but you can also be Kahungunu on that side too. It just depends on which part of the whakapapa you want to pull that ancestry from. But we heard, time after time in submissions, that people were very concerned about this.

I’ve got to be honest: a large part of the claims settlement bill is actually pretty non-controversial. There’s a lot of it that all parties agreed to, but there were a few contentious points, and the previous speaker, Joseph Mooney, noted some of those. The Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, noted those as well. But it’s very hard for us as a select committee to think that we are some kind of adjudication panel on what whakapapa looks like, because we’re not. And, in the submissions hearings, that came through time and time again, where we had to say to whānau that were talking to us as though we were going to determine whose whakapapa was right and who was more senior and who wasn’t—we had to reiterate time and time again that that’s not our job, and it should never be the job of this House to be able to decide what whakapapa it looks like. But we have to reach a resolution because we have to honour the good faith in which the people of, in this case, the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement trust entered into this, and it’s been going for a long time.

So we had to go way back into the history to understand the history, first and foremost. Then we had to understand the hearings process that they went through; the reports that were given as part of that; the Waitangi Tribunal decisions that were made as part of that; the Supreme Court litigation which overlays all of that. It makes it a really confusing story, but we are charged with the job of moving this bill through the House to be able to give closure to some of the wrongs of the Crown from the past. And it’s really important for everybody in this House to note that, as we talk about this settlement—and we’re coming up to the third reading—it was actually the actions of the Crown that left the people of Ngāti Kahungunu between a rock and a hard place. Essentially, they were uprooted and told by the Crown they had to move: “Sorry, you fellas, you have to move; all of you guys all over here, you’re all going to have to move. I’m going to have to send you 15,000 kilometres up the road. We’ve got some land for you up there.” And that’s exactly what happened.

So the people left their hau kāinga, they left their whenua, and they had to go all the way—well, a part of the tribe were relocated, re-dispatched into another tribal area, Ngāti Raukawa. So you can imagine their reaction when Ngāti Raukawa said, “Oh, well, what are you guys doing here?” And there’s Ngāti Kahungunu saying, “Oh, well, actually we got given land here by the Crown. We’re here now.” You can understand that all of this complexity came through in the submissions. All of the history that the Crown has bestowed on the people of Kahungunu came through in those submissions hearings. There was re-traumatisation in that, there was pain, there was heartache, there was whānau fighting whānau through that process, too. And, unfortunately, that’s what the Treaty settlement process does. But we have to have good faith in this, and I believe that what we’ve done as a Māori Affairs Committee is to the best of our ability.

We took the opportunity to invite the Minister back into the committee so we could ask some questions ourselves. We made it a closed session so that there wasn’t any politicking. There was no media involved. It was just an opportunity for us to sit there and ask questions of the Minister about this interesting position that we found ourselves in, where, essentially, the parliamentary process has been enacted whilst there’s still a Supreme Court decision waiting to happen. So we had to ask that question: why are we doing this? Why are we not waiting? And the Minister came and he fronted up and we all got a really good chance to be able to ask questions. The decision was that he said we have to push forward on this. There’s a lot at stake. There’s a lot of people that have put a lot of time into this. And, of course, we want to get it right but, in his words—and I noted them down when he actually said them himself—he said, “There are differing and irreconcilable positions that sometimes get made.” And that’s the position that we found ourselves in.

I believe that we’re doing the right thing here. I believe that there will still be parties that will be disaffected by this and they won’t be happy with the decision to proceed past the second reading on this. There had been many submitters, that day, submitting on the fact that they wanted to see a couple of these big areas taken out of the settlement bill. We acknowledge them; we acknowledge all of the stories that came through. And they may still choose to take action off the back of this decision. But it’s our job as select committee members to take a step back and actually to look at the whole picture, and to try and—as the Minister said—balance it all up. What we know is that it was the Crown’s wrong. When we come to the third reading, and when we finally travel to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, we’ll be able to stand there and read the apology in front of their people, to try and put to bed some of the hurt and pain that we heard through the various submissions. But that’s the goal: that we can actually address the wrong—not forget it, not forget it at all—and try and let Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua get on with their lives.

There was one submitter who fronted up and he brought photos with him, and it’s very hard when you get the photos, because the photos represent people that have passed on. That’s exactly what the message was that he wanted to send to us. He said, “This has been going on for far too long.” He said, “This is my family here. This is my parents. This is my sibling.” He said, “They all started this journey and they’re all dead. And I’m here to tell you that this needs to move on because we can’t wait any more. We can’t wait any more. I don’t want to be another photo on this table while we go through a court process and another parliamentary process to do that.” He said, “Get a move on. We’re none of us getting any younger. We’ve got the heart to want to do the right thing by our people. Give us the faith to be able to do this, and then let us make decisions on what it is that we see as being rongoā for the iwi after the travesties, unfortunately, of the Crown in days gone by.”

So the day that we had finished the select committee hearings, I walked away and that was the one submission that stuck in my head—the fact that there were all of these kuia, kaumātua, uncles, aunties that had all passed on. And I looked at that room and I thought, if we take any more time, who’s next? Who’s next for the table, you know? And, unfortunately, it’s taken too long already. So to that submitter, I want to say that I heard, and our committee—we’ve decided that it is the right thing to move forward on this and acknowledge that not everybody is going to be happy, but it is the right thing to do. And I look forward to the third reading when we have our whānau from Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua here in the gallery. Third readings are always the end of this parliamentary process for us but, for them, it’s the start of their journey. It’s the start of their journey to be able to receive the cultural redress, receive the financial redress, start organising themselves, start setting some goals into the future about what they want to do with that money, start making some real hard decisions about what they consider to be the fix—the fix to the problem that the Crown started many, many years ago. I look forward to that time in the third reading. For the second reading, though, I do commend this to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been listening carefully to the debate and found the contribution by the member who’s just resumed his seat, Tāmati Coffey, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, quite moving in his description of the desire of many involved and affected to move on and to be allowed to move on. I do want to acknowledge, of course, as others have already done, that the process is not perfect. The outcome, in the eyes of some, will be somewhat less than perfect, and we can acknowledge that in the context of the litigation that is now still ongoing. But I think the chair of the committee puts in very real and, frankly, helpful terms the desire that is heartfelt from the point of view of those who wish to have closure in the sense of this legislative process in order to be able to open a new chapter going forward.

He’s spoken a lot about the process from the point of view of the select committee. I didn’t sit on that select committee, so I’ve listened carefully to this debate so far, as well as its first reading, and been made aware of some of the discussions that have taken place. I know that we’ll hear from other members of the select committee, including my colleague and friend Harete Hipango, in addition to having heard already from Joseph Mooney on our side of the House, and I think it’s really important.

Sometimes, process is almost as important as the substance of the outcome, and I think it demonstrates a good-faith approach to lawmaking—in this case, what is, in many ways, a negotiation of a commercial nature, albeit that it is, of course, much, much more than that. I think the good-faith basis that is reflected in the process is important because there will be some people who are ultimately dissatisfied with the outcome. In order for them to feel that their view wasn’t disregarded, albeit that it might ultimately not have prevailed—I think that’s important for the cohesion of those on the ground for whom this will be a very real part of their family, whānau, iwi, hapū, and, indeed, the life of the area moving forward.

Before I humbly offer a couple more reflections on those bigger themes before closing my contribution, I do want to acknowledge what is in the settlement. We’ve heard a certain amount about what is not in the settlement—and that’s appropriate, because it’s important, for the sake of the record, that the Minister first, and then other contributors to the debate, acknowledge the extent to which legislators have not been able to give effect to the desires of everyone involved, or potentially involved, in the process. But, nevertheless, it’s worth acknowledging and, dare I say it, celebrating the things that have been able to be concluded by way of agreement.

So, without delving into the detail entirely, I will say, in the legislative statement put forward by the Hon Andrew Little, we’ve seen reference to the deed of settlement that does rely on the legislation. That’s the point of us being in this House, Parliament—being outside the negotiations on the ground, beyond the select committee, and in the place where laws are made to give effect to what has been agreed. Of course, the purpose is to finally and comprehensively settle all the remaining historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Kahungunu, so that’s an important matter. It almost goes without saying, but I think the Crown’s acknowledgment of the wrongdoing—indeed, the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and its principles regarding those people—is important, not only because we get to dollars and cents at the end of the process but, along the way, the cultural redress, obviously, is part of that. I understand—and forgive me, again, speaking to process, but I understand that the issuing of a couple of protocols by the responsible Minister will follow this process in order to give effect to that which has been decided.

Geographic place names: I understand we’ll allow some 30—three zero—geographic place names as listed in the relevant clause of the deed to be put forward, and that will feel significant to some in that part of the world, and good luck to them. I see as well, actually, interestingly, right of first refusal over land, defined as such, within the Ngāti Kahungunu area of interest for a period of 170 years from settlement date. No doubt, those involved will understand why that’s a significant period of time.

So having addressed, at least to that high level of detail, that which is in, it’s appropriate to acknowledge that which is not in. Specifically, for those who have sought inclusion by way of litigation—and, I understand, it is before the Supreme Court even as we speak—we’ve heard from the Minister his reasoning that such a claim would be unlikely to succeed without a departure from what he has described as stare decisis or the doctrine of precedent. In other words, it would be unprecedented, quite literally, for the action to succeed. And so while this House shouldn’t lightly pass laws in the area that looks, on paper, as though it’s very much similar to that being considered by a court of this land, nevertheless, I think we should take some comfort from the Minister and take him at his word that he’s been advised and has made a judgment call that, as much as it’s ever possible to be certain about the outcome of litigation, it’s unlikely that that result would cut across the decision, effectively, being made by Parliament in a parallel process.

All previous contributors to the debate have talked about the determination of whakapapa not being within the role of this Parliament. That’s right. That’s something that can neither be given nor taken away by us as parliamentarians; that is inherent to a people themselves. And so, of course, at the risk of stating the obvious, we confine ourselves to understanding what can best be done to acknowledge the rift in the relationship but to do as much as possible, at the same time, to repair the relationship between Crown and those affected by the actions nearly two centuries ago.

My final remarks would be along the lines that, while it’s sometimes sad to say, we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and an aspect of that is the philosophy that the Minister has rightly outlined already in relation to Treaty settlements. Oftentimes, large groupings are preferred because it advances the cause of settling claims, as opposed to having unsettled claims, uncertainty, and a lack of access to resources, quite frankly, so a balance is needing to be struck. I should probably mention in passing, as well, as others have, too, the view that’s been expressed that the claims by others who have ultimately found themselves outside the tent—and I should probably use that phrase gently. But the claim that has been made by those in that position could risk being viewed, in a way, as being disproportionate to other Treaty settlement claims that have been made, and, therefore, there’d be a risk that we would be taken backwards and not forwards in the Treaty settlement process as a whole for New Zealand.

So, adopting the words of our colleague the Māori Affairs Committee chair, for those who have found themselves between a rock and a hard place, that can sometimes be an uncomfortable position, but if there is to be closure, then we hope that smoother paths will lie ahead that way. And so, on this side of the House, taking it all into account, the National Party does continue to support this bill.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou. Kia whakamānawatia ngā mana o ēnei whenua e tū āhuru nei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings to you 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. Therefore, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

It’s my privilege to support the second reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua bill, and during the time I was lucky enough to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee and hear submissions, it reminded me about what a hard and gruelling process the Treaty settlement process is.

I’d like to first acknowledge the people, which is what this bill is about—the people behind this legislation. Their grievances are not forgotten; in fact, they are etched in this bill. Their desire to move forward with this bill is also not forgotten. I would hope to let Ngāti Kahungunu know that this Government is in full support of this bill, and for them moving forward.

I remember back to my first days working in the Office of Treaty Settlements, and I remember a publication that we would refer to in the policy document, called Healing the past, building a future. I think now, after a few years around the traps—I think how presumptuous that statement is, because no one can assume to heal the past; those grievances are carried forward. But we can hope to build a future, and I hope that that’s exactly what this bill does.

I would like to acknowledge the interest that we got on the bill: 173 submissions made in total. The submissions covered a wide range of topics and were varying in levels of support, but the submissions illustrated a really common occurrence in Treaty settlements, where there are different, differing, and sometimes irreconcilable points of view that must be balanced with the need to move forward. I’d like to acknowledge all of those people who gave their time, energy, and aroha through the submissions process.

Some members of Rangitāne submitted on a claimant definition—they did not agree with the inclusion of the two hapū, and it was really heart-wrenching to hear the views from both sides in and around that issue. I’d just like to state that we fully understand those views of Rangitāne, in terms of their right to determine their own whakapapa.

I’d like to just acknowledge, also, what my colleague Tāmati Coffey referred to in terms of the outrageous actions of the Crown. The lands at Pouākani are Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa rohe, and the Crown gifted 20,000 hectares of land at Pouākani to Ngāti Kahungunu from Wairarapa—miles away—in exchange for their land. In 1949, some of this land was then purchased by the Crown for the use of a power station. The gifting of the land at Pouākani to Ngāti Kahungunu is a source of great grievance for Raukawa. Parliament passed the Raukawa Claims Settlement Act back in 2014, which apologised to Raukawa for the Crown’s past failures to acknowledge the mana and the rangatiratanga of Raukawa.

This Crown’s actions, back in the early 1900s, also left Wairarapa Māori with their own grievances. They lost their land, their lakes; many were left alienated in another iwi’s land—outrageous. The Crown is trying to make up for this through the settlement. It can never repair the damage done, but let’s hope that this paves the way forward for further generations of Ngāti Kahungunu to go forwards.

I would like to conclude by saying that Treaty settlements are never easy; they are painful processes. I’m really hopeful that this bill is an opportunity for all of us to move forward to true partnership; one that’s based on cooperation, one that’s based on respect, and also some trust—I hope we’re able to build that. I hope there’s respect and trust built for Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its principles, and I look forward to Ngāti Kahungunu coming back here for the third reading of their bill to see this finally passed, and so we can move forward together. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa i raro i te mana o Ngāti Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings to all of you representing Ngāti Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua.]

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this bill, the compendium bill for the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill that we considered last week. It gives effect to the final settlement for the historical Treaty claims of Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Crown. Thank you to all the whānau, hapū, and iwi organisations who submitted in person and in writing. We saw strength and passion. We felt their mamae and the anger in the room. We held the hearings for this bill in August here in Parliament. It’s a very different feel when you hold it here and not in a marae. We’ve also met with and had contact with many members of the whānau who are involved in this. I acknowledge our chair, Tāmati Coffey, in the Māori Affairs Committee. That is not my usual committee, so I thank them for having me join them for these two bills. I really appreciate hearing our chair acknowledge the fault of the Government in this and the very real grievances that have arisen from it.

In the hearings, we heard from the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua how those successive Crown actions over nearly 180 years have impacted on them, leaving them virtually landless. A fulsome apology is the absolute minimum that they need to hear, along with the appropriate redress. I’m pleased that they’ve been able to come to this settlement. I think it’s not nearly enough. They could at a minimum double or triple that amount, and it still wouldn’t make up for it, but I’m glad that we’ve got somewhere—we’ve got to this point. It just enables them to keep moving, to do the things they want to do for themselves.

We also heard from the settlement trust how long and how hard they’ve worked on this. You know, that work started many, many moons ago, and it shouldn’t take over two decades to get to this point, but we know how common it is. We heard the impact the settlement would have, though, once that money’s in the bank, and that land is there to ensure that our—not our, but their; I do have connections to te Kahungunu—tamariki and mokopuna can flourish, that their whānau flourish to grow businesses, develop their whenua, build houses, strengthen their papa kāinga, and develop a better relationship with the Crown, one on a much more even footing. And we definitely want that for them too.

As with every settlement bill, others have talked about some of the tensions and some of the issues that arise because of it. But we heard of the efforts the trust went to to try and resolve those themselves over, again, several years. We heard how they were aiming for equitable outcomes for everybody and just trying to make sure that they had those conversations. What we heard in the hearings is that those many issues are still not resolved. We particularly heard about the concerns about the resumption applications, how that would hold up this bill potentially for years, and that was not something that they were prepared to put up with—not something that they wanted at all.

So one of the areas of contention was around whakapapa with the links to Rangitāne. I think it’s impressive that of a list of 110 hapū that is in the schedule of this bill, only two were really in contention: Ngāti Hāmua and Ngāti Rangiwhakaewa. I’m just noting that I’m aware that Rangitāne spoke very eloquently that their preferred pronunciation is Te Rangiwhaka-ewa, in terms of how they prefer to name their tupuna. We note that both of these hapū are already listed in the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017. And we understand that Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua did not dispute the inclusion at the time, because the agreement was made, back then, that those hapū would appear in both. And it is absolutely the prerogative of members of Rangitāne to not agree with that original decision that they be shared or to change their minds because they’ve gotten more information since. We did raise this in select committee. However, this bill will go through with them listed—as originally agreed.

Now, I spoke about this last week in the joint redress bill, and, actually, I have to issue an apology to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, because I misspoke when I was in this House. I said that one of the things that people at the hearings were in agreement with was that Te Rangiwhakaewa was a Rangitāne tupuna, but that was incorrect—I mixed up the names. I’m really, really sorry—because that is disputed. I meant to say that there was general agreement that Hāmua was a Rangitāne tupuna, as stated by Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust. I apologise for the upset that this has caused, and I thank those who brought it to my attention. This perfectly illustrates my point that it is not the job of MPs or this Parliament to determine whakapapa. We will never catch up with the years and decades and centuries of whakapapa that has been handed down to those who are now the experts and who are feeding into this process. It also illustrates that the Crown could have done more to help resolve those issues at that level before it came here so that those disputes had to be aired in front of all of us—because they’re recordings which will last for a long time—in front of everybody. I know that some things, though, are absolutely worth fighting for. And as submitters said, the kōrero around whakapapa is not about money; it’s about identity; it’s about mana.

We heard how successive Crown errors and misjudgment continue to rebound on Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. In particular, the Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc. spoke about their Wai 85 claim and how they wished that it would be withdrawn from the bill—removed from the bill. We heard from Ngāi Tūmapuhia-a-Rangi about their Wai 429 claim, related to Ngāumu Forest, and how that should be withdrawn from the bill. Regardless of the content of those particular claims, by proceeding to settlement, the Crown will extinguish the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims as part of this bill. And so there are implications of such actions on the constitutional arrangements for other hapū and iwi, and we’re really worried about that.

To our knowledge, it is unprecedented for the Crown to introduce legislation that, once passed, will extinguish the rights of any party with a case in front of the Supreme Court. We must remember that the Crown is not neutral here; they have a clear conflict of interest because they have a financial interest in the outcome. In terms of Wai 85, we acknowledge it is also a grievance for Ngāti Raukawa, who lost land at Pouākani because the Crown decided to transfer it to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa many years ago. We note that the Government—and the Minister said it in his first kōrero tonight—issued an apology to Ngāti Raukawa for that at the time, but they’ve decided to deal with it in this bill. We’ve often spoken against the practice of large natural groupings, and we feel it stretches it well beyond reason to include whenua from a completely different iwi.

As we do every time we speak on a settlement bill, we acknowledge that the claims settlement process is deeply, deeply flawed because it enforces Crown control at every stage, it often undermines whakapapa and mātauranga Māori, and it’s designed to pit iwi and hapū against each other—often invisiblising them. So we do not consider the settlements to be at all fair, full, or final. But during these hearings, one submitter Mr Potehoki showed us a photo of his dad and his dad’s siblings. He asked, “How many more must die?” Hopefully, no more. No more. We all want this for Ngāti Kahungunu. This bill is going ahead, so Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua is another step closer to settling. We continue to have major concerns with the actions of the Crown, so we must continue to abstain for now, but we wish only the best—only the best—for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to support the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

I’m by no means an expert on settlements, and, being Māori myself, I was not privileged enough to hear from my grandmother the stories, which I’m sure there were many. But I had a thought about, “How could I relate to this and understand this: the pain and the anguish that the generations feel hearing the stories from the past and the wrongs that have been done to them?” I understand history is important and stories being passed down from generation to generation—and keeping that alive and making sure that nobody forgets the pain that the last generations went through—is really important so that we don’t forget and that we don’t repeat history.

Every person in New Zealand deserves to be treated with equality before the law, and they deserve to feel that their property rights will be protected. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen and the Crown did not meet their obligations under the Treaty when it came to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. It’s happened multiple times across many different iwi, and I think it’s really important that we have these conversations here in Parliament to acknowledge the wrongs that have happened.

I’m actually really proud to be standing here in a country that is willing to have these conversations—that is willing to go back over 30 years with Governments and politicians from all across the board—to acknowledge this and to try and right the wrongs. No amount of money and no amount of redress will completely take away the pain and take away what has happened—we’re not trying to do that.

What we’re trying to do is help people to move forward and see a better tomorrow. And part of the healing process—when you have been victimised and when you have gone through something as terrible as this—is actually having an acknowledgment that you were wronged. I think it’s really important that we acknowledge that wrong was done here, and I’m grateful that that process has started.

The injustices of the past, I cannot comprehend. I sit in a household where I’m married to somebody whose parents had horrific injustices of the past. I listened to the stories and I listened to the history and I listened to the pain and I listened to what has happened, and I see in my household how that affects the next generation and how they live their lives—and the generation after that. But I also think it’s important that those conversations happen, and we keep it going. We must acknowledge it, because if we don’t acknowledge it, there’s no way to move forward and there’s no way to see a better future.

I’m very grateful to the Māori Affairs Committee, who went in in good faith—listened to the people who came forward—and came here and gave very good explanations to what was brought forward before the select committee, and I’m grateful for that.

I feel for those who have lost people before we got to this stage, and I hope that the next generation that has carried this on—and has got this to this stage—realises that the past generations will be proud of the fact that you’ve carried on their fight to be acknowledged and to try and get some kind of redress for the wrongs that happened in the past.

We support this process and we’re very grateful for the hard work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done. And with that, I support the bill.

Mr Speaker, tēnā koe and tēnā koutou to the members of Ngāti Kahungunu who may be watching this online today. It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak to what is the second reading of this bill that makes up part of the process for the settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. This speech from me will be technical. It’s the first opportunity that I have had as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee to comment on the work of the select committee, which has been broad and wide ranging into the history of how we came to this settlement.

So let me take this opportunity to comment on the history of how we have come to this bill over what has been, broadly, a 200-year process to get to this point and to say that I hope I get to speak in the third reading of this bill about the more substantive elements of this settlement. The select committee’s work on this bill—really, we did need to focus on the history of it and how both the negotiations between the Crown and this part of Ngāti Kahungunu had come to be, but also how those breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that the Crown committed had led the Crown to negotiating this in the first place. Because this rich historical tapestry that the committee uncovered through the select committee process—through advice from officials, which was very, very helpful, and the very useful submissions of the various groups that have an interest in this—is really important.

It began in 1845 during the Crown’s first encounter with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, where the Crown pre-judged their guilt in what was a dispute with settlers and forced Ngāti Kahungunu, in response, to cede tens of thousands of acres at Maungaroa with threats of armed violence at that time.

During the late 1840s and early 1850s, the Crown threatened to end Pākehā settlement in Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua unless Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua sold their land to the Crown and gave up what were then pastoral leases, which were providing that hapū with income and trade benefits whilst retaining ownership of the land. So this history starts with misunderstandings that resulted in huge land losses for a people who were cooperating with settlement in their area and who wanted the economic benefits of that.

By 1853, the “Chiefs and people of Ngatikahungunu” signed the Castlepoint deed, which is their first land sale to the Crown. And in that year, Governor George Grey met with the Komiti Nui, which was the large meeting of Ngāti Kahungunu, to hear plans for future land sales. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua were led to expect substantial educational, health, and economic benefits from settlement as the real payment for land sales, and the Crown agreed to use some of the profits it made from on-selling certain lands to provide a koha fund to be managed “in committee” with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua in settlement of some of these benefits. That didn’t happen. In fact, immediately following that agreement, the Crown purchased approximately 1.5 million acres, well over half of the traditional rohe of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, and those obligations continued not to be met further into the 1860s and early 1900s. From 1866, the Native Land Court operated in Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua determining the ownership of Māori land and converting customary title into title derived from the Crown, a process which resulted in further land losses for those people.

Fast forward, then, to the process which we are in today. In 2012, this document was signed and agreed—it’s the deed of mandate—on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. And in this deed of mandate—this is a process which has come to be a part of Treaty settlements, where we agree who represents who, at the table, who’s in a Treaty settlement. So, much of what the select committee was having to consider at this juncture was actually on the table then. It was: which hapū are within this group who are being represented? It was discussed then in a process which went around the rohe and involved claimant groups from the marae who are involved. It named those hapū that we are still having debate about at this point. It has gone around the traps since then. So it’s useful to understand how that document kind of came to be, which was this iterative process that began then.

That took about four years to get from that deed of mandate ratification process to, then, the Crown and the trust signing an agreement in principle. That sort of document is about this long. [Holds up a thick stack of paper] You’d think that an agreement in principle might be a heads of agreement and a short, wee thing. But, actually, a substantive amount of the agreement, about the lands that would be settled with the Crown, about what sort of area the Crown was discussing, and, again, the hapū that were involved and the people who would ultimately be represented—that was agreed in 2016.

Then we run into the trouble that a number of my colleagues have discussed today and was at issue in the select committee’s determinations. I think the Minister did a very good job at summarising for the House those issues that we were discussing, but they really come down to these two Waitangi Tribunal claims, Wai 85 and Wai 429.

It’s useful, I think, for the House to understand the select committee’s process when we considered these things. We were always aware that there was a potential for the select committee to be making recommendations to the House which included issues of legislative rights which might have been extinguished. It was incumbent upon all select committee members around the table to make sure that we understood exactly what those rights were if we were going to recommend to the House that they were extinguished.

Now, my process for going through those decisions was to ask the submitters. I asked the representatives from those Waitangi claims what they thought those rights were and what they thought their paths to resumption were. It was important for all select committee members to be able to do that, but what was most important was to be able to ask the Minister to further explain his rationale for determining that there wasn’t a path forward for those resumption applications.

If you’ll just indulge me, Madam Speaker, I will give you some of the reasons that the Minister gave us for his determination that, on balance, the path available to those claimants in the courts needed to be considered in light of these other factors.

We were advised by officials that the Minister had taken into account that the settlement trust, who are part of this deed of settlement, made an informed decision to proceed to settlement and continued to support the settlement legislation being introduced before the Supreme Court hearing. That’s relevant to the select committee’s considerations because, as my colleague Tāmati Coffey said, we heard from these submitters that they want to be able to move on, that they do not want us to continue what has been an almost 200-year history of delay in realising the rights that these people, the tūpuna, thought they were getting from the Crown.

The second is a clear majority of Ngāti Kahungunu claimant community who engaged in the vote on the enhanced settlement package—so this is after that history that I took us through—voted in support of proceeding to settlement. This is after those claims were considered; Ngāti Kahungunu came back to the table, and they voted once again to proceed.

There had already been a three-year delay, since progress with the deed of settlement was deferred to allow the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims to be heard by the tribunal. This was also a factor in deciding, for the select committee, what our recommendation would be. I think, on this point, the fact that there had been a delay in the opportunity to come to the table was an important one.

I would say that the select committee have really carefully considered our responsibility here to really carefully examine this legislation, inviting the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations back to the committee—and also hearing his explanation today in the House about why he made those determinations are all part of why we, as a committee, are recommending to the House to support this bill. At its third reading, we will be able to traverse the benefits of the settlement package that we believe, on balance, are the right thing from the Crown to do, and that’s why I support this bill to the House.

I call Harete Hipango—five minutes.

I rise as a member of the National Party and also I have the responsibility as spokesperson for Māori development. My colleague Joseph Mooney, as the Treaty settlement spokesperson, has addressed the House initially. In my role as the lead on the Māori Affairs Committee for the National Party, accompanied by my colleague, and cognisant of my role, in terms of Māori development, I take this call with trepidation, because there were a number of developments that were exposed and revealed to we members on the Māori Affairs Committee. These developments, the journey of Ngāti Kahungunu over a period of 30 years, to arrive today, the 22nd of the 11th month of the year 2022—now, if anybody follows numerology, which I don’t, there has to be something significant in that, with this being the second reading—another development.

So in the short call I have, there’s a lot to traverse, and I’ll try and encapsulate that with the trepidation that I stand here in addressing the House. The National Party caucus supports this bill going through, acknowledging Ngāti Kahungunu’s journey of 30 years. I know what this Treaty settlement negotiations process does to our people. Being of W’anganui—the W’anganui River claim being the longest litigated case in terms of a Māori settlement, having gone through the courts, having gone through negotiations with respective tribunals, negotiations with the Crown, and 128 years later—in the year 2017, I stood as a member of W’anganui tribal peoples up in the gallery at the third reading and the passage of our Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill into law. So I know full well the anguish, the anxiety, the mamae, the hurt, the history, and the journey that our people go on, and I acknowledge Ngāti Kahungunu for that.

However, mixed up in the turmoil of that journey, because the process that the Crown invokes and requires of our people to participate in to arrive at a negotiated settlement creates division and creates divisiveness—and when I rose and took a call last week on the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, I talked about the process where the Crown requires the interested parties to go into a process of negotiation with the Crown in having to compromise on significant aspects and elements of getting to settlement. The Crown facilitates negotiation; the Crown does not facilitate a process of mediation for the divisiveness that’s created amongst the interest groups. Our whānau, our hapū, our tribal people who all whakapapa are actually arguing and negotiating a better position for their particular interests, so I acknowledge Ngāti Kahungunu.

I also acknowledge the claimants of Wai 85, the Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation, and the claimants of Wai 429, Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi, who put their case and their claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, and the tribunal ruled and said that Ngāti Kahungunu did not have the necessary mandate from the two claimant groups of Wai 85 and Wai 429. As a result of that, that mamae, the raruraru, the conflict, the tension, the hurt that’s been created from that—because the Crown requires negotiating with a large natural grouping who has been identified, who in this settlement bill is Ngāti Kahungunu. The Crown has also seen fit that this bill is going to be progressed in advance through the House, whilst there are Supreme Court proceedings extant that have been brought by Wai 85, Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation.

Now, there have been different levels and layers and complexities of this journey for this bill. I’ve heard the Minister address the reasons that it is in the public interest for this bill to progress. I have also heard the Minister of Justice in this House merely two weeks ago stress the importance of, “I can confirm that this side of the House, the Government, the executive, understands the separation of powers. I can confirm that we, the executive, have the obligation to administer legislative tools and that we understand principles of comity.” So that has been one of the perplexing, conflicting issues that we, as members on the Māori Affairs Committee, have had to deal with. One second left—I’ll address the House further at the third reading; the National Party is supporting this bill thus far.

I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five minutes.

Tēnā tātou i te Whare. Tēnā koutou Ngā[ti] Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua, ko koutou te kaupapa i mua i a tātou.

[Greetings to all in the House. Greetings Ngāti Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua, and your issue that is in front of us today.]

I stand on behalf of Te Paati Māori to make a short call to speak to support this second reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. I recognise the mahi of the Māori Affairs Committee and, having attended their hui last week, I have confidence that they acted pono and tika, with empathy and dignity, respecting all the dynamics that make us uniquely us.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, we recognise the disarray, the contentiousness, and hardness of all you have endured and are enduring. You resisted passively to protect your whānau, your lake, your tuna, your whenua. Numerous times you have been let down, and I mihi to you all for your absolute resilience and humility—a humility that many in Aotearoa don’t understand. Every day, hapū and iwi are settling in the interests of public good, and, hopefully, one day the public good will respect the sacrifices and resume the partnerships intended by our tūpuna and for our mokopuna.

Settlements are divisive, and we’ve heard that here this afternoon. They draw lines across w’akapapa—having to identify as groups, as one iwi, ignoring the displacements, the significance of our tūpuna and their many inter-relationships.

It’s hard not to, I guess, feel real aroha and taumahatanga that our many hapū and iwi are having to endure being forced into Crown processes—they often tell you when to walk left, when to walk right. Nowhere else do we see a justice system where the perpetrator determines the restorative process. Nowhere else do we see a justice system that awards those who lost 100 percent having to be compensated and settle for 1 percent. That is why we’ll never support settlements as being full and final, and we look forward to seeing you and your mokopuna coming back for the remaining 99 percent.

Treaty settlements are flawed. We will never repair the mamae of being forced to grow up on another iwi whenua, and the sense of displacement, the forcible removals, the forced conflicts that today remain unresolved, are painful to watch. I can’t imagine how it must feel when you ask yourself where are your haukāinga, where you tangata whenua, contribute in communities that aren’t your mara. We are also protective of what little mara we have, so that in itself is really hard to watch and endure.

We recognised that settlements are never about money; it’s about mana and it’s about whenua. Te Tiriti must be honoured, and this is an example of why. The dilemma the Crown has left, and, when we have our beautiful whānau and hapū having to reconcile through these painful differences, we must have hope that you are able to rebuild and reclaim. I mihi to Matua Haami Te Whaiti, the chair of the Treaty trust who’s been carrying this kaupapa since birth, and the kaumātua present and not present.

If nothing else, settlements are an opportunity for you to focus on you. For you to focus on you without Crown intervention, to reclaim your future, to remember what it’s like to work together, to reassert your own rangatiratanga, and, most importantly, to find your kotahitanga as whanaunga. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora rā.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. He hōnore tēnei mōku te tū i tēnei ahiahi ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire, Ngāti Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua Claims Settlement Bill.

Tuatahi māku e mihi ana ki te Minita, i tū ia ki kōrero tuatahi i tēnei ahiahi, otirā ki ngā iwi e whai pānga ana ki tēnei o ngā pire i tēnei ahiahi.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. It is an honour for me to stand this afternoon to talk about this bill, the second reading of this bill, the Ngāti Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua Claims Settlement Bill.

Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister who spoke first this afternoon, and also to the iwi who have an interest in this particular bill this afternoon.]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. In my brief mihi, I just acknowledged the Minister, who spoke first in the House, and I’ve sat through the debate this afternoon, and also, too, the iwi to whom this settlement legislation applies. This is the second reading, as we have heard this afternoon. I want to mihi to the iwi and to the negotiators, because it is never easy to negotiate a settlement, and to get to this point where we are doing the second reading in the House, it has passed through yet another significant process, that being the select committee process.

I think that the issues that were raised in select have been well-traversed by all parties who have spoken in the House this afternoon. As I was only a member of the select committee for a short amount of time, I won’t focus so much on those issues through the select committee process, but just to, again, identify briefly, for those that are listening, what this bill does and what it includes in terms of the settlement. So the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement package will be finally and comprehensively settled—all remaining Ngāti Kahungunu historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. The settlement package includes the Crown apology redress, cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress to the value of $150 million plus interest. So this will settle all of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua’s historical claims. And last week, we heard in the House the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, which will give effect to specific cultural redress which is shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitane o Tamaki nui-a-Rua, which is provided for in their prospective deeds of settlement.

Just briefly, I wanted to highlight, in terms of the cultural redress, that there are a number of instruments in the legislation to give effect to the cultural redress which has been negotiated. It includes protocols, vesting of properties, statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, a Manawatū River catchment advisory board, and Te Upoko Taiao. I just wanted to note that in terms of official geographic place names, there will be over 30 geographic place name changes, which are listed in the deed. There’s also the vesting of 27 sites; four of which will be vested in fee simple, 22 in fee simple to be administered as reserves, and one vested in fee simple subject to a conservation covenant. Those cultural redresses, I know, are just as important, perhaps, if not more important for some claimant groups than the commercial redress. A lot of focus is put on the quantum, but I know for claimant groups that cultural redress is really significant as well.

I do want to acknowledge the select committee. I know that it was a challenging select committee process with the issues that were raised. I acknowledge the contributions that have been made across the House regarding that. I know that as a select committee we worked really hard to understand those issues and to seek more information and responses. And for the small part that I played in it, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great privilege just to conclude the National Party’s contribution on the second reading of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. As is often the way when we have iwi settlement bills in front of the House, the level of contribution—both in terms of substantive reflection on the cause for why we find ourselves here and some of the particular challenges that we have had to navigate, or at least the claimants have had to navigate—that we have heard as parliamentarians, has given us a substantive and eloquent voice, and that has occurred yet again this afternoon.

I do not intend to navigate the issues that have been traversed in any great detail. Indeed, I was going to reflect on the key settlement outcomes that are reflected in the deed, but the previous speaker has done that—again, very eloquently. But I thought, when reflecting on one of the core challenges that have been in front of the select committee with respect to the balance of progressing the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement with the other interests that are in front of the Supreme Court, that in the words that were reflected in the departmental report—that is, for those listening, the summary of all of the submissions, the perspectives that have been brought together by the officials for the parliamentarians that sit on that committee to finally reflect on—there are some perspectives that I thought could be relevant to this debate.

In particular, point 49 of the departmental report explored the balance struck between the Minister’s decision to introduce settlement legislation with that of policy relevance. It goes on to say that “the Crown’s comprehensive settlement policy for large natural groups” sits at the core of this decision. “All such settlements settle multiple Wai claims, often with some level of dissent within the group.”—and we have heard that traversed very specifically this afternoon—“However, Parliament has long supported the policy as the preferred way to settle multiple claims within the large natural groups where there is shared whakapapa and experience of prejudice from the same Crown Treaty breaches.” And, “the requirement in every settlement to balance the interests of multiple groups with relevant and often conflicting interests is very common—as is particularly the case in this instance.”

The other area that I thought was quite useful that the departmental report covered was that the basis of appeals to the Supreme Court does not bear upon the essential finding of the Waitangi Tribunal—that the assets are a “disproportionate” remedy for Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims, and that the Wairarapa Moana Incorporation structure makes it an inappropriate recipient of resumable assets—with shareholdings, rather than the whakapapa, determining the level of benefit.

The other point acknowledged in the departmental report that I thought was revealing was the statement that the removal of Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims could result in “significant ongoing liability [for the Crown] which undermines the policy of full and final comprehensive settlements.” Of course, it is noting, as the House has already heard, that Ngāti Kahungunu have voted twice to settle with the Crown based on the terms now agreed.

The report went on to say that, ultimately, the appeals before the Supreme Court, “will not end the matter” and that “the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claimants seeking an indefinite pause to reargue their case in the Tribunal … [would result in a] delay … with costs (not limited to financial) on all parties.” I think that gives a sense of the earnest reflection that has gone on, both through the Crown’s representatives—in this case, the Minister, but particularly the various MPs on the select committee, regardless of political philosophy—to try and get the balance right here in terms of our final recommendation back to the House.

As we have heard today, the Minister’s view—and the select committee’s view—is that the balance is in favour of ending further delay and bringing the benefits of comprehensive Treaty of Waitangi settlement redress to all of Ngāti Kahungunu. Certainly, the National Party reflects that that is the right landing point.

But as I said at the start, I think the various contributions from all sides—including our various National Party members—have talked to the complexity and challenges that sat behind that ultimate judgment of balance. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. He hōnore nui tēnei māku e tū ana ki te tautoko i tēnei pire hei tēnei pānuitanga tuarua.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. It’s my honour to stand in support of this bill at its second reading.]

It’s a pleasure to speak in support of this bill at its second reading. Whilst I’m not a member—no longer a member—of the Māori Affairs Committee, I do acknowledge that the work that goes on with that committee, as has been evidenced by the contributions today in this House. Treaty settlements are difficult—there are a lot of competing issues, and it’s a very hard position that the select committee does find itself in at times, and it’s no different for every other settlement that has gone through this House. There are always competing Waitangi Tribunal claimants, hapū groups, disputed whakapapa, disputed areas, or disputed history. That’s the nature, I guess, of navigating through to a settlement.

So I would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, and his officials for the work that they have conducted in, first of all, signing the deed of settlement and also in bringing this bill to the House to enact certain aspects of that deed of settlement. And the deed of settlement is the fundamental document which has been signed. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, the negotiators, their leaders, their rangatira, their hapū, and their whānau, for the close to 20 years, maybe beyond 20 years, of pursuing this settlement and ensuring its enactment.

I just want to make a brief contribution. I know all of the difficult issues have been thoroughly canvassed, and I support the position that has been reflected in this bill and the decision—particularly the balance that the Minister had to make in his consideration of the various aspects that were raised at select committee. But I want to just speak to one point, and that is in relation to aspects of the settlement which actually aren’t included in the bill, but are part of the deed of settlement, and they relate to cultural redress. I’ve had the pleasure, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to Minister Parker for Oceans and Fisheries, to see firsthand the good work that is going on with the marae of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa in particular—oh, ki Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, as well—through the Mai Paritu, tai atu ki Turakirae fisheries forum group, and that spans all of the East Coast, all of the takiwā of Kahungunu and Rangitāne and the Wairarapa especially, and I want to just acknowledge the work they’re doing.

We’ve heard a lot today about Ngāi Tūmapuhia-a-rangi, and I have seen that wonderful, beautiful hapū and their beautiful marae at Motuwairaka and the wonderful work that they are doing. This is what these settlements are about: it’s about ensuring the continuity, the continued expression of the permanency of tangata whenua of the hapū of Wairarapa. Those rights are being exercised daily; they are the custodians, they are the kaitiaki of that beautiful moana. If you ever go to Riversdale, you’ll see a beautiful Motuwairaka Marae and the wonderful work that they do—not least of which is the beautiful hākari that they serve at that lovely marae as well. Very commercially-minded as well: not only are they customary fishers, and they are doing wonderful work in that forum group, but they’re also commercial fishers of their fishery as well—especially the pāua fishery. So, for me, it’s wonderful to see, actually, hapū life in action when you go and see the beautiful people of the various hapū up and down the Wairarapa coast, visit their marae, see the wonderful work that they are doing. That is what these Treaty settlements are about; it’s about recapitalising our iwi groups.

I congratulate Ngāti Kahungunu and the two remaining taiwhenua that are included in this bill, and them having continuation of the wonderful work that they already do, which has been established mai rānō [long since]. And so with that, I commend this bill at its second reading. Kia ora mai tatou.