Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3)
I move, That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. The bill is a central feature of a package of reforms intended to reduce costs, delays, and uncertainty, and to promote investment. The bill will reform aquaculture legislation after a decade of roadblocks and missed opportunities. It will provide an efficient legislative framework to enable marine-based aquaculture to fulfil its economic potential. This will advance the Government’s economic growth agenda through increased export earnings and the creation of new jobs. At the same time, the Government recognises that growth in aquaculture must be environmentally sustainable and balanced with other uses of our coastal space, including commercial and recreational activities.
There is growing worldwide demand for protein foods, including those farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner. New Zealand’s aquaculture industry is well placed to meet that demand. New Zealand is a very small player on the global stage but has some considerable advantages: a robust resource management framework, outstanding water quality, strict food safety and biosecurity rules, and strong research and development capability backed by Government funding. All these position New Zealand well to be a supplier of high-value, high-demand products.
The Primary Production Committee reported the bill back to the House on 9 May. It recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. I agree with the proposed amendments and consider that they will improve the workability of the new law. I thank the members of the committee and its chair, Shane Ardern, for their work. I also thank the many people and organisations who took the time to make submissions on what is a very complex bill, and contributed to its development through earlier consultation processes. I am particularly proud of the Ministry of Fisheries and its staff for the way they have worked with the industry and with interested parties both inside and outside Parliament.
The central change to the planning process removing the requirement for aquaculture management areas will streamline planning and processes, and put aquaculture on an equal footing with other activities in the coastal marine area. Removing the requirement for aquaculture management areas does not mean, at all, uncontrolled growth. In fact, councils will still be able and encouraged to concentrate aquaculture activity where it is appropriate, and exclude it from areas where it is not appropriate. In all cases, aquaculture applicants will still need to apply for resource consent through the Resource Management Act processes.
Marine farming will continue to occupy only a small fraction of our coastal space. This bill will enable careful, managed growth. Growth will also come from existing production, which will be increased in value, making better use of existing space from research and innovation. New space is only one part of the equation. Our encouragement of farming high-value finfish species as well as sessile shellfish species is part of that story.
The proposed power enabling the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to amend aquaculture-related provisions in regional and coastal plans attracted comment from many submitters. The committee has recommended changes to clarify the scope of the proposed power and to more clearly establish the requirement for public and iwi consultation. I fully commend and fully support the committee’s recommendations. The undue adverse effects test, which protects the interests of commercial, customary, and recreational fishers, will also remain. The committee has recommended changes to clarify and improve the aquaculture decision and undue adverse effects test processes. Those changes will allow the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consult on preliminary decisions where he or she considers this is warranted. The proposed time frame within the judicial review of an aquaculture decision that may be sought is extended from the 15 days proposed in the original bill to 30 days. I agree that this is a sensible change.
Aquaculture industry submissions raised a number of matters relating to the security of tenure. This is a complex issue, and it involves balancing the industry’s desire for certainty—which is entirely understandable—with the need to ensure that the continued use of a public resource for aquaculture remains appropriate. The bill as introduced aimed to reduce the time and cost associated with the re-consenting process by limiting the range of information that applicants must provide. However, it is unlikely that this, in practice, would achieve much at all, and the Primary Production Committee has therefore come back and recommended the deletion of the relevant provision, which I support. I consider that re-consenting would be better addressed on a comprehensive basis for all sectors, not just marine farming, and that will happen through the latter stages of phase two of the Resource Management Act reforms.
I said when I introduced the bill that the Government was committed to ensuring that the Crown continues to uphold the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Act, and this bill retains the core components of that settlement.
The proposed changes to the Tasman and the Waikato regional coastal plans will enable the industry to diversify into higher-value species, and will enable some expansion of existing farms in the Waikato. This will provide much-needed stimulus to investment and to growth.
This bill addresses problems with the current law, and streamlines processes. I am very pleased with the work of the select committee. Committee members picked up issues that I had overlooked, and I appreciate their input. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
It is an honour to be the first speaker for the Opposition in the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). This is the third round of aquaculture amendment legislation in this House, and it may not be the last round.
I agree with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that the intent of the Primary Production Committee, the Government, and, indeed, the Opposition is to facilitate the growth of aquaculture across the country. In the early stages we saw growth particularly in the green-lipped mussel area, and salmon farming was going quite well. We then went through a period where there was a rush for space. So we arrived at a situation in Tasman and Golden Bay in particular where there was a gold rush, effectively, for space, on the understanding that it would be valuable in the future, and that those who controlled the space would control the industry. A little like in respect of fishing quotas, it was considered that the value would be in the space, not necessarily in the production. That created a dilemma that the last Labour Government attempted to resolve.
I was, and intend to be after the next election, the MP for West Coast - Tasman. I saw the ratepayers of the Tasman District paying a lot of money to try to resolve an issue that was, effectively, an industry battle. The previous Labour Government, seeing this as a potential dilemma around the country, introduced the previous aquaculture legislation. We did not get it quite right. It was a very complex task, as the Minister rightly said about this legislation. We attempted to create aquaculture management areas that would have allowed and facilitated the passage and growth of aquaculture in those areas quite easily. The problem was that we had allocated responsibility to regional councils as the community organisations rightfully elected in most areas—except, of course, Canterbury—where local values, local aspirations, and local concerns for the environment would be considered along with applications for economic development in the form of aquaculture. We thought regional councils were the right place to park this responsibility. As it turned out they had neither the expertise nor the inclination—in hindsight, of course—to progress the space. So we did not see a huge amount of growth in aquaculture.
The lack of growth happened to coincide with a period of declining demand in the market, and some in the industry would say that it actually allowed the industry time to mature and avoid the gold rush in production that we have seen in other primary industries, which effectively led to the market collapse of prices. In some ways, I guess, the changes that we made did not quite work out the way we hoped, but they have allowed time for the industry to mature.
In making submissions on this bill the submitters, I think, came with the best of intent. They knew the pitfalls around space, around environmental safeguards, and the rest of it, and I hope we have arrived at a better outcome. There are and were some concerns that Labour had when the bill was introduced—for example, in respect of the Minister’s right to override coastal management plans. We have seen that with the National Government before, when it overrode the Canterbury Regional Council. So we did not underestimate the potential for inappropriate interference by a Minister in respect of a coastal management plan that might have been hard won, hard fought, and negotiated with all local people. We have recommended some changes, we looked at the issues, and the select committee, under Mr Shane Ardern’s chairmanship—and I think he always does a very, very good job—made some adjustments to make sure that if the Minister does intervene, it is for the good outcome of protecting environmental issues as well as facilitating economic growth.
As I said, I think this amendment is round three. But we were reminded through the submission process that in Tasman and Golden Bay there is an ongoing battle—in fact, the ongoing battle—between industry players, and that will go on for another 3 years. I am very, very sad about that because it is a waste of money. If people in the fishing industry—fin fisherman, quota owners, or aquaculture developers—have as much money as that to throw around, then they should give it back to the Government for health and education, or they should pay some more tax. If they want to throw it around the courts rather than sit down and negotiate a sensible solution, then I guess Parliament will continue to be frustrated by the actions of the fishing industry.
The second concern we had was in respect of the undue adverse effects test, which has been at the heart of the problem here. To go back to my reference to Tasman and Golden Bay, and the crisis in the courts that led to our changes, I say that those undue adverse effects remain because those who hold the quota believe they have absolute rights not only to the quota and its quantum but to all the water space in which they can catch their fish. I think that goes one step too far, but they have lawyers who are happy to challenge that in court on a regular basis.
When someone applies for space, they will have to go through a Resource Management Act application and they will have to look at all the environmental outcomes of that application, which relates to the progress we are making in this bill. At the same time, the applicant can sit down and talk with other industry players—those who have quotas and those who have an interest; in Tasman and Golden Bay it relates to scallop fishermen who have scallop quota, fin fish, and applicants who are most likely to forward a proposal in respect of green-lipped mussel. Those applicants will work with the Resource Management Act process and hopefully arrive at an agreed solution—that is, that they can mitigate any effects on the quota or on their rights, that they can reduce the environmental impacts, and that they can allow each other to operate side by side. I have absolutely no doubt that that can happen in every single case—absolutely no doubt. The issues of whether one gets to saturation point in, say, the Marlborough Sounds will be environmental issues dealt with under the Resource Management Act. But in respect of the undue adverse effects test, fishing industry participants working alongside one another should be able to negotiate. It is pigheadedness, it is arrogance, and it is the worst of commercial behaviour that cannot allow them to see the vision and the wisdom of negotiating a sensible solution. I guess it comes down to corporate pride, as well. The committee hopes that the changes we made to the undue adverse effect test will allow a fair process, although I do not want to get bogged down in the detail. We stopped what we thought was the industry’s proposal to have domination by the big players, and we wound that back a little bit. All the small quota holders, owners, and fishermen will have a fair say in any application.
The undue adverse effects test has been at the heart of the hold-up in the whole of aquaculture development, and will remain at the heart of the hold-up if the industry chooses to leave it that way. However, the changes we have made will provide a sensible solution to allow coastal management plans developed by regional councils to give some guidelines, to allow for individual applicants to apply for resource consent, given the environmental guidelines and safeguards, and to allow the applicant to work through the undue adverse effects test with other industry players. They can then say that they share the space, that it is public domain, and that all can benefit from it.
If we get this bill right, we will see sensible aquaculture development and growth in this country. We need those export earnings. Labour has been happy to work with the Government on the bill. The concerns we had at the time of the bill’s introduction have been addressed through the select committee process. Therefore, Labour is happy to support the passage of the bill through the House.
I start by thanking the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Opposition spokesman for their complimentary remarks about the process that the Primary Production Committee went through. We had a very simple task, in my view, despite the complexity of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). We had to find a way forward to enable the growth of aquaculture in New Zealand. We had to create legislation that provided the framework for an enabling situation where the industry could start to grow.
As part of the committee’s research, we bid for and won a parliamentary trip to South Australia, where we were able to examine what had happened there. What surprised me was that one-third of the South Australian economy is now provided by the export, development, and processing of aquaculture. That industry did not exist about 15 years ago. A large number of the people who have invested—in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars, and certainly large sums in the case of individuals—are ex - New Zealanders. A large percentage of that intellectual property and that investment had been made by them. They had found the process in New Zealand frustrating and had moved to South Australia so they could make progress with the industry they love.
The select committee received the bill on 16 November 2010. The closing date for submissions was 11 February 2011. We received and considered 120 submissions from a wide sector of the industry, from some pan-industry groups, and from individuals, plus interested parties or stakeholders in the use of coastal and marine areas and waterways. Not everyone was happy with the notion of providing an opportunity for aquaculture to grow. Some people, I suggest, may have submitted that the industry is a blight on society, and that we should stop it at all costs. The committee did not agree with that view, but in considering it we certainly played a big role in considering the environmental and local government concerns in terms of finding a way forward.
The aquaculture industry believes that it can grow—and I believe it is right—to at least a $1 billion industry by 2025. As the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, said, the country desperately needs growth in our export industries. If we look at what is happening internationally, with a growing world population and the demand for high-quality protein foods around the world, we see that a very well-managed and considered environmental production system is the space to be in. There are only three areas where New Zealand can produce those high-quality proteins: fish is one, meat is another, and dairy products are the third.
I am sure that this legislation will bring about an opportunity for a large sector of the economy to grow. Hopefully, the bill will remove some of the roadblocks that have stymied the industry so far. The previous speaker talked about the undue adverse effect test. That part of the bill was the most complex, and probably we struggled with it the most. Trying to strike a balance between development and unforeseen consequences, one might say, in terms of what might happen or might not happen to the environment, is always a judgment call.
There will be those who argue, of course, that we went too far in enabling aquaculture to develop, and others who say we did not go far enough. In that regard, I think the select committee has put its best foot forward. I am very, very confident that what we have achieved will allow for a far better framework for the industry to work within and for development to take place.
I am pleased to take a call on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). As a member of the Primary Production Committee, I thank the member who has just taken his seat, Shane Ardern, for the very professional way in which he chaired that committee. Certainly, I believe that the select committee process on this legislation was able to make significant changes to it, which really showed the value of the process. I note that not all select committees are fortunate enough to have a chair like Mr Ardern, who can facilitate that process and ensure—
Craig Foss: The FEC has one.
MOANA MACKEY: The Finance and Expenditure Committee has one, Mr Foss. That is good to know, thank you. I really want to pay credit to Mr Ardern as a very, very good chair of that select committee. I also thank the officials who worked on this.
Hon Tau Henare: That’s not what you said last week.
MOANA MACKEY: The member should not believe anything I say to him. I thank the officials who worked on this very technical legislation, and also all the submitters who took the time to come before the committee and present their points of view. It is important to note that there certainly was not unanimous support for this legislation, and that a large proportion of New Zealand society remains very concerned about what this might mean in the future for the waterways that New Zealanders enjoy and want to be able to continue to enjoy. I guess, as my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to before, sometimes we will have to wait and see where this legislation takes us. Certainly, the previous Labour Government introduced legislation in order to try to better facilitate the development of aquaculture as a serious industry in New Zealand, and we have no problem admitting that it did not work. The process that we set out did not result in any new space being created. The processes were obviously too complex and too costly, and that is why we were more than happy to support this legislation and do what we can as an Opposition to facilitate the development of this very important industry.
I will also note, however, that in 2008 we put legislation into the House to amend our own law, which we had acknowledged was not working in the way we had intended or hoped. Perhaps that legislation could have been picked up and put through a lot sooner than this one has, but that has been and gone, and here we are with this legislation. I certainly hope it will have more success in furthering aquaculture developments than the previous legislation did.
In saying that, I think there remain a few areas in this bill where we do have some concerns. We hope that these will be able to be addressed in the Committee stage of the legislation. I think probably one area is the 20-year minimum for aquaculture consents. This basically says that the minimum consent period will be 20 years, the maximum 35 years. We are told that that is intended to create a level of certainty for those who want to invest in the sector. If someone who wants to invest in aquaculture wants a shorter minimum period, then they can apply for that, but the council itself cannot do anything to request a shorter consent period.
This seems to be very limiting on councils. We need to remember that councils in New Zealand are democratically elected to represent their communities. I sometimes get a little bit concerned when I hear people in speeches talking about councils as though they are just these undemocratic roadblocks to development. The fact is that they are elected by the people of their region to represent them and to make those decisions, and I start to worry when we start tying up councils in red tape from Wellington in a one-size-fits-all type of approach, which may not be appropriate. We can think of a number of scenarios where a local council representing the views of its constituents might have concerns over a 20-year time period for a consent in a particular area. It was an issue that was raised by some of the submitters, and there did seem to be, I have to say, a level of distrust at the idea that we have to tell councils that it would be a 20-year minimum period and they should get no say in that, despite the fact they are the ones elected to make those decisions.
It will be interesting to see how that goes, but I feel we could have shown a little bit more confidence in local government and our elected regional councils to make those decisions, and to make them in the best interests of their communities. It seems to me that a one-size-fits-all 20-year minimum period is not the best way to do that.
It could also have a number of unintended consequences, because councils may indeed act far more conservatively when it comes to approving applications. If there is a 20-year minimum and they have concerns, whereas with a 10-year minimum they might not have had concerns, they may just decide that they will say no. That may be one of the unintended consequences, which may stop, again, further aquacultural development. I hope this does not end up being a kind of false economy, and that we do not end up with councils not feeling confident enough to allow projects to go ahead. Twenty years is a long time and it will restrict the ability of future councils to manage their coastal areas, and that might not be something today’s councils will feel comfortable doing.
I also note that there is a kind of conflict involved in putting in a 20-year minimum provision into these consents to create certainty, but then giving a new regulatory power to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to just completely override regional coastal plans. Any good that is being done in terms of creating certainty with the 20-year minimums will be undone by an overarching, sweeping power that the Minister will have to just override the regional coastal plan. That will create an enormous amount of uncertainty. I do not think we have heard a really good explanation or convincing argument as to why the Minister needs such sweeping and broad powers.
To give an overview, this provision gives the Minister broad powers to change, introduce, or remove provisions relevant to the management of aquaculture in a regional coastal plan without a requirement to consult the community affected, although he or she is required to consult the relevant regional council. This comment has no bearing on the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but I feel that that is an excessive power under this legislation. I would like to hear from someone the arguments as to why it is absolutely necessary. If it is to bypass the fact that there will be contentious issues over the use of aquaculture space, those issues will not go away just because we give a Minister a sweeping power to ignore the community. In fact, that could end up being counter-productive, creating far more issues, again putting councils in a position where they feel they have to pick between their community and these developments, and end up being far more conservative in the exercise of that power.
When Treasury is horribly opposed to something National is doing, we probably need to take note. Treasury pointed out that that power exists within the Resource Management Act but there is a proper process attached to it. I was interested to hear the Minister saying that another tranche of reforms to the Resource Management Act is coming, adding to these reforms, because Treasury said this bill might undermine the work being done on those Resource Management Act reforms. Whether or not we agree with what the National Government has planned for the Resource Management Act, Treasury has said it believes that what is happening here in this legislation is undermining the work being carried out on those reforms.
If this power for Parliament to intervene in particular cases already exists in legislation that people are comfortable working with, and whose processes they understand, we have to ask why we have to go down this path. We have yet to hear that. I look forward to the next Government speaker explaining why we need such an unprecedented power, because it is unprecedented and it creates a precedent, and we should be aware of that. Perhaps it is the Government’s intention. Maybe this is the way it will go, just allowing Ministers to completely undo everything that local councils and communities do.
The key point is that this creates enormous additional uncertainty for people who want to invest in aquaculture. How will they know that everything they are basing their proposal on will not suddenly be whipped away by the Minister or overwritten? Given that this bill is meant to be about creating more certainty, perhaps we will need to look at that in the Committee stage.
I will not talk about the undue adverse effects test, because other people have covered it and I am running out of time. The other thing I will touch on relates to some changes made under the emissions trading scheme to the way fisheries are dealt with. Again, if we are taking aquaculture seriously, it needs to be a whole-of-Government approach, not just aquaculture legislation, or whatever we do. Labour was very concerned when changes were made, with compensation and assistance being put in to enable the fisheries sector to deal with the costs of an emissions trading scheme—and those measures were subsidies, basically, for the fuel—and the Government changed that to give it to the quota holders instead of the vessel operators. Rather than giving it to the people who would be going out and checking and collecting, the Government gave that assistance to the quota holders. Most aquaculture stocks, as far as I am aware, are not in the quota management system. That means that unless an operator fishes a stock in the quota management system, they now get no assistance under this National Government—and the Māori Party negotiated this—and its emissions trading scheme. They get no assistance with the cost of fuel and the emissions trading scheme charges.
The Green Party has some major concerns about the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). We are supporters of aquaculture, particularly in the appropriate places, but we think opening up public space that is highly contested with a bill of this nature is a recipe for ongoing conflict. We are concerned about the years and years of work that has been done, particularly in the area where I live in the Coromandel-Hauraki area, where Environment Waikato and a stakeholders group worked in detail on a plan that has been overridden. That is our concern. We do not think that aquaculture should not be developed or that aquaculture does not have a lot to contribute, but those people, who have all been in touch with me, are deeply concerned that their whole process was a waste of time and has been marginalised, while powers are being given to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Although we agree in principle with and support the aspiration declared in the commentary, which is to “provide an efficient legislative and regulatory framework that would enable the sustainable development of aquaculture within the coastal marine area.”, we do not think, given the difficulties we have seen, that this bill will achieve that aspiration. It makes sense to develop some enabling legislation that focuses on genuine sustainability and long-term strategy and action, but this bill does not do that.
The declared position of the Government and other supporters of the bill is that we need to facilitate aquaculture above other activities. It is being touted as the next billion-dollar industry, which reminds me of investment in kiwifruit or goats, or whatever is the great “gold rush” of the time, without thinking of the long-term consequences of what is a very complex and contested space—that is, the marine environment. We are yet to have an oceans policy, and we are yet to have all kinds of policies in place that are needed before we start carving up and selling off these rights.
The enthusiasm for allowing rapid development needs to be tempered by ecological and social constraints, which this bill falls short of. If we do away with aquaculture management areas or some similar provision of designated space, that will open up what many submitters at the Primary Production Committee referred to as a “gold rush”. The proposals on sequencing of applications by the amendments introduced in clause 35 do very little to change the “first in, first served” default position, which means there will be pressure on applicants to submit an adequate proposal, rather than to devote time to preparing a more sustainable one.
There were repeated references in the first reading debate and at the select committee, and by the Government, to our need for the aquaculture industry to be normalised within the Resource Management Act and treated more or less like any other activity. That denies the reality that issuing permits to use marine areas for aquaculture effectively denies public access in favour of allowing for exclusive use of what is currently public domain. Recreational boaties and fishers are particularly concerned by these proposed changes. I am very aware of this issue. I held two public meetings in the Hauraki area, in the Coromandel and Thames. They were attended by recreational boaties and commercial fishers, who raised major concerns about the issues. No other public events were held, except for a very strange consultation process run by the Government. No one in our area knew the status of or outcome of the process. It was pushed through very rapidly and it did not connect to this bill in a clear way. It has resulted in concern and confusion right across our region about what this bill does, particularly in the Waikato.
Sandra Goudie: That’s crap.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: The local member says that that is rubbish, but then she was not actually at the meeting and has not engaged publicly with the issue. No one has heard her talk about it, so we do not really know what her view is, whereas I have heard what the fishermen say about it. They are concerned about opening up this area, not only for aquaculture as we know it, which is a well-established industry that a lot of us support, but also for cage fish farming in a way that is utterly risky economically and environmentally.
The marine farming industry is effectively freeloading if it is allowed to generate substantial profit but pay no resource rental to the Crown for extracting nutrients, impeding alternative public access or use, and degrading landscape and seascape and amenity values. We have to ask who is really benefiting here and why this is going ahead, because marine farmers do not pay rates. If this was land they would be paying rates for what they do to the environment. Lots of aquaculture is well managed but some of the proposals on the table—which can be opened up through this legislation without proper input from the public, without regional decision-making, and without the stakeholders who have worked on these issues for years—are of great concern and involve threats to the environment that we have not seen before in this country. I am talking about the sow crates of the sea. I am talking about the potential for cage fish farming, which is not sustainable. There is a proposal to do that in the Hauraki Gulf right now.
The mechanisms proposed for the issue of the permits are sufficiently complex and require the participation and agreement of so many different and conflicting interests that we doubt that the outcome will meet the practice in terms of anybody’s wants or needs. Although the proposal to allow for consideration of any undue adverse effects on fishing, which is one of the key issues for the fishing community, to be carried out in parallel with the Resource Management Act process seems reasonable, in practice there will be enormous pressure on the Ministry of Fisheries to consent to the granting of a permit if the relevant regional council has indicated its approval.
It is highly undesirable that consultation with affected parties be at the discretion of the ministry rather than mandated, as proposed in new section 186D, set out in clause 35. I refer to a very good submission from the Environmental Defence Society to the Primary Production Committee, because it made some excellent points. One of them was referred to by, I think, the previous speaker, Moana Mackey: “The Minister of Aquaculture’s powers to recommend regulations to amend regional coastal plans under clauses 65 and 96 should be removed.” The Green Party thinks they are unnecessary. It is interesting that Moana raised the issue of precedent. How many other Ministers will get powers, and what powers? Will we give more power to Ministers to decide on mining on land, for example? I am sure that would be equally as unwelcome as a gold rush in the marine environment.
The submission continues: “The other functions the Minister of Aquaculture introduced by clause 65 of the Bill including suspending receipt of applications for coastal permits authorising aquaculture activities, and making a direction to process and hear together applications for coastal permits … should be removed. These functions should [be] undertaken by the Minister for the Environment, on advice from the Ministry for the Environment.”, rather than the Minister having the say-so over these issues.
The Environmental Defence Society also made some very good points with regard to the Tasman regional coastal plan and the Waikato regional coastal plan, under clauses 100 and 101. We support those clauses being removed from this bill, because we do not believe that they are in the long-term interests of the industry, let alone the environment. We support the points made at the select committee about the undermining of the integrity of the Resource Management Act, although I do not know why we would expect the Government to listen, because it has already undermined the Act’s integrity on a lot of fronts, and I imagine that will continue.
The Government is undermining public confidence in the Resource Management Act. Undermining confidence in the Resource Management Act is a serious matter, because no matter what powers we give to the Minister, people will fight back about their space. A huge Auckland community as well as a huge Coromandel community use that space. The other key point on which we support the Environmental Defence Society is the issue of favouring one activity over another: “The provisions favour aquaculture against the myriad of other activities”.
We have a lot of issues, and we do not believe that the proposed changes are necessary. We believe that we have Resource Management Act processes that should be respected and we believe that we should actually consider all the work that has gone on in the past.
Finally, I will talk about the specific example I am familiar with, which is that under the current opening up of places like the Hauraki Gulf, Tīkapa Moana, there is a proposal to bring in a totally new sort of aquaculture: cage fishing farming of hāpuku or kingfish. It is entirely unproven, if we look at overseas examples. Are we going to import fishmeal? We were asked by people at public meetings where else this was going to come from. Are we going to import small coastal fish species out of other people’s catchments to feed bigger fish inside cages? The fishing community is concerned about disease and the environmental communities are concerned about pollution, but in the end it is also an ethical and moral issue about other people’s fisheries. It is not going to make money—if that is what other members are interested in—if people have to pay more to bring in the fish to make the other fish get big and fat.
If we want to export fish why do we not look after our fisheries, allow our wild fish to be healthy, and then export those fish? That is proven technology. Cage fish farming, the sow crates of the sea, is highly resisted by many people in the Coromandel area who support aquaculture. Like in the Tasman area, a lot of people support aquaculture, but they want fair planning and they do not want new forms of technology around fishing and cage fish farming to be in conflict. They are very concerned that it is not only uneconomic but also environmentally risky to bring in caged fish under a bill like this and to wipe out all the work that has been done in the district to try to make our aquaculture management areas properly planned. It has always been controversial.
Today is an auspicious day on which to speak to the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), for while we are debating this bill today, which makes changes to the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Resource Management Act 1991, over in New York in the United Nations headquarters some 1,300 delegates are meeting to mark the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. It is with considerable pride that I rise to this bill mindful of the call of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for participants to raise their voices so that the world can hear about the threats and risks that indigenous communities face, as well as about the unique expertise they can bring to issues such as aquaculture.
I stand here also as a direct descendant of Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāi Tahu, proud that we have a Government that is committed to upholding the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, which provided for a full and final settlement of Māori commercial aquaculture interests since 21 September 1992. That Act was very important in terms of ensuring that iwi have access to coastal marine space to develop their marine farming interests. There are two particular sets of obligations to the settlement. The Act commits the Crown to providing the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Trust with the equivalent of 20 percent of existing aquaculture space in a coastal marine area issued on or after 21 September 1992. It requires 20 percent of all new aquaculture space identified in the coastal marine area to be transferred to iwi via the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Trust.
The bill we are debating today enables the Crown’s settlement obligations to be delivered under the proposed new law. This can be done through the provision of either space in the coastal marine area or an agreed equivalent. So we are at a significant point in our journey. But how do we ensure that tangata whenua can indeed raise their voices, as encouraged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations? The most distinctive feature of this work to date is the close engagement between the Ministers and iwi, to ensure that the integrity of the settlement will be maintained. The Crown and iwi leaders established a group of technical advisers to develop and consult on options for a new settlement delivery mechanism. The technical group has reported to Ministers and iwi leaders, and I want to point out a few more details about this innovative type of policy creation that has been a feature of the Māori Party’s influence on the Government.
The role of the Iwi Leaders Forum has been a vital one to get the door open and to establish some foundation principles, so that hapū and whānau have a strong platform from which to launch their input. The aquaculture Iwi Leadership Group has made it clear, as in fact has every iwi leaders group during this term of Government, that its members do not speak for, or represent, any other iwi apart from their own. Each and every one of the iwi leaders forum members is elected to their respective positions by their iwi, and it is not for other outsiders to criticise those leaders. If there is criticism to be put, let it be from the people at home. The key thing, whether it be in New York or in Murihiku, is for Māori to be at the front end of each issue, and that is the assurance we have been able to provide through our position at the Government table. It is about being able to deliver.
Delivery is about far more, of course, than the kōrero, important though that is. It is about doing the mahi—in the case of this bill, working out mechanisms for delivering the Crown’s obligations. The technical group members were chosen to do just that, based on their expertise in aquaculture, resource management, policy development, local government processes, kaitiakitanga, and iwi development. Because of this wide expertise, the iwi leaders have been able to be quite innovative around the acquisition of space, given the current restrictions. This is particularly important in terms of securing other space, such as deep-sea aquaculture space, because that is where the industry and technology are heading. I acknowledge the Minister for working with the Māori Party and for inviting iwi to discuss precisely how the Crown can deliver its obligations under the Māori commercial aquaculture claims settlement for new space. What iwi and hapū have told us repeatedly, over the last decade, is that the Labour Government rushed through the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act, leaving a lot of loopholes that left Māori vulnerable. The bill closes some of those loopholes, so it should be supported.
The fundamental problem is that too few new players, including Māori, will be able to enter the aquaculture industry. There has been basically no existing space to allocate to Māori, and it is too difficult to get new space, as the process is too difficult and bureaucratic. We needed to think creatively and long term about how to ensure that marine-based aquaculture is able to fulfil its economic potential, while also retaining the existing protections to ensure that the integrity of the settlement for iwi is kept. We also know that iwi leaders have expressed a preference for space, which has been captured in the settlement.
There is no time to waste. As we understand it, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and the Ministry of Fisheries are currently doing forecasting research on new aquaculture spaces to be made available to iwi. This is space based on 20 percent of the aquaculture industry. We also understand that space will be available regionally, so that will require iwi to enter into regional arrangements amongst themselves. This will proceed over a 3-year period. Cash settlement will still be available instead of space, if other iwi prefer that. These are all pragmatic, realistic steps towards enacting the settlement by progressing an innovative and meaningful settlement mechanism. It reminds me again of the words of Ban Ki-moon, who told the New York gathering that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples finally had the consensus that it deserves. Now we need to make the declaration’s principles a reality. One of the other concepts he talked about was the view that indigenous peoples have been living in a green economy for centuries. Ban Ki-moon suggested that when economists today look for new ways to achieve sustainable development, they should look at the old practices in indigenous communities. I cannot help but think, as we look face-on at the growth of the aquaculture industry in Aotearoa, that we should look with renewed respect at the impact of iwi upon aquaculture. Perhaps we can all take a moment to learn from their example.
We are happy to support this bill. We are pleased that the reform package aims to reduce costs, delays, and uncertainty; encourage investment; and ensure decisions on aquaculture fit within an integrated, coastal management framework. Most of all, we are so happy that the legislation has benefited from consultation with, and input from, iwi, hapū, and whānau.
It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). In doing so, I will address a couple of questions that were raised by members on the other side of the House. One of the speakers asked why there needs to be ministerial power. The simple reason is that under the review of aquaculture by Sir Doug Kidd it was designated that there should be a Minister responsible for aquaculture, and this Government is very keen to see aquaculture put on to a sound footing. Therefore, a designated team was set up within the Ministry of Fisheries for aquaculture. I would have to say that as the Primary Production Committee went through this bill, it was wonderful to have the expert guidance and focus of that particular team. What has come out in this bill is to the credit of the officials who advised us.
It is a very, very complex issue. Under the 2004 Aquaculture Reforms (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act we had a problematic situation where only one species could be farmed within an aquaculture management area. What we have learnt, particularly in the Marlborough Sounds, is that with good, sound science we have opportunities where finfish can be farmed. Talking to Work and Income the other day, I discovered we are at the maximum unemployment we have been at for some time. We see aquaculture within the Marlborough Sounds, especially concerning finfish, as providing in the short term another 300 jobs. This legislation will certainly put aquaculture on to a very sound footing, and we look forward to that.
It was interesting also that the industry came to the select committee and said we should take more leadership around legislating how the undue adverse effects would be managed. We pushed back at that and said we would not. But the industry was actually looking for central government leadership, and we are very fortunate at this time to have a very able Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who is able to show appropriate leadership. In so doing we can be very proud of the efforts that the select committee has made on this bill, and the fact that the Government has shown confidence in this industry. The industry has a fine purpose for the future, and we believe it will reach $1 billion by the year 2025. Thank you.
There are a few minutes left before the dinner break. I have been listening very carefully to members on the other side speaking on this bill. We worked very hard in the Primary Production Committee, and I acknowledge the chair. We do a good job in the Primary Production Committee. We work together in a bipartisan way and try to make the legislation that comes our way as acceptable as we possibly can.
The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) amends four current Acts: the Resource Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act, and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004.
The committee members had an opportunity to visit South Australia last year, and, as has been said before, we had a good look at aquaculture in South Australia. In particular we wanted to know what it is that makes aquaculture in South Australia so successful, as compared with New Zealand. I am quite sure that a number of the recommendations that we brought back at the time were helpful in bringing to this House a third amendment bill on aquaculture. We have made quite a few improvements to the current Acts, but certainly there is a lot more to be done in the future. I do not believe that this bill going forward, albeit we all support it, will solve all the problems that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture claims it will solve. I would not be surprised if within a year or two we come back with another amendment. I think there are areas, particularly the area of undue adverse effects, where there has been a lot of submitters who—
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: When we adjourned earlier on, I was talking about aquaculture being an industry in which, when compared with our other agricultural industries—dairy farming, meat, and others—we have not done very well in this country. However in Australia, and in South Australia in particular, aquaculture is doing very well. Hopefully, though, this bill, which we on this side of the House are supporting, will help to promote this industry, which in the next 10 to 15 years we hope will be worth about $1 billion. I hope that this bill will go some way to help promote aquaculture.
As we went through the submission process, we saw that a whole lot of people were opposed to a number of issues in this bill. One issue with which those people had reservations was in relation to the regulatory power given to the Minister to change regional coastal plans without public input. We had a lot of submissions on that issue from customary fishers, recreational fishers, and the ordinary public, who were not happy because they thought that this legislation gave too much power to the Minister. In fact, some submitters even said that a Draconian and undemocratic power was being given to the Minister in giving him the power to change regional coastal plans without any public input. I think that the Minister and the Government should seriously note that this could be another problem going forward. If public input is not there, then we could have the same problem as we had earlier. It also reflects on the Government, just as it has in the case of Auckland City or Canterbury, because it shows some kind of dictatorial attitude towards doing things without proper public input.
Another key provision of this bill removes the requirement for aquaculture management areas to be in place before consents are given. A lot of submissions were opposed to that requirement in respect of aquaculture management areas. So I must say that we did have problems in relation to the requirement for the establishment of aquaculture management areas. Particularly at the regional council level we had a problem in respect of the establishment of aquaculture management areas. I am pleased that this bill allows us not to require aquaculture management areas prior to gaining consent for aquaculture.
Another issue was in relation to the length of time given for coastal consents, which is from 20 years to 35 years. The maximum limit given is 35 years, but the minimum can be 20 years. That is appropriate for ensuring that we have a process that gives investors the opportunity to invest money with the hope of a good return over a long period. In terms of relicensing, or re-consenting, if you like, the process in this bill is simplified, and hopefully the requirement will require less information. Any entrepreneur or investor who wants to re-consent will, after the first initial consent, have to provide less information to make sure the consent is forthcoming.
Another issue is with regard to the clause that regulates the powers for the Minister of Conservation to approve the use of an allocation tool by regional councils for managing high and competing demands. I think that it is important that the Minister of Conservation has been given that power.
A lot of submitters were opposed to the powers given to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This bill gives very broad powers to change, introduce, or remove provisions relevant to the management of aquaculture in a regional coastal plan without the requirement to consult the community affected, although the Minister is required to consult the relevant regional council. This particular clause was opposed 2:1 by submitters because they thought the powers given to the Minister to change the requirement provisions were too Draconian. A lot of people, particularly environmentalists and customary and recreational fishers, were all opposed to that particular power.
A further issue in this bill relates to Māori aquaculture. This bill, I am pleased to say, retains the core component of the aquaculture settlement in respect of the Māori commercial aquaculture claims and the 20 percent allocation of new space.
The final issue was the test for undue adverse effects, as explained earlier by other speakers. This bill retains the Fisheries Act requirement to assess whether a proposed aquaculture activity will have any undue adverse effects on commercial, customary, and recreational fisheries.
With those comments, I suggest once again that Labour will support this bill. Apart from a couple of areas—the test for undue adverse effects, and the lack of having a commitment for consulting the people affected—the bill is very good. Thank you very much.
A previous Labour speaker, Damien O’Connor—I think he is the spokesperson on aquaculture—pointed out that during the Labour administration there was not much growth in aquaculture in New Zealand. We can talk about spin, though, because actually there was no growth whatsoever—absolutely none. Zero. The speaker himself realised that this is the second or third time around on aquaculture industry legislation in New Zealand, but not much growth came from the Minister of such matters under Labour—in fact, there was zero growth. So it was an interesting angle of spin there, I think.
Just very quickly, I say that other speakers have identified issues about why there has been no growth in aquaculture in New Zealand over the last 10 years or so. Interestingly, as other members have said, the Primary Production Committee operates very well. It is a bipartisan committee, and as we can see from the commentary on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), its deliberation is all very good.
But what we hear from a couple of speakers on the other side is that there are particular issues around changes in the Minister’s direction on coastal planning, existing consents, etc. That is interesting, because these are main items in the bill: coastal planning and the allocation of tools to manage demand, the operation of coastal permits, the variation of coastal permits, and the re-consenting of coastal permits for aquaculture. The full committee has presented this bill to the House, and it has the endorsement of all parties across the House. OK, other members might want something to talk about, but if members read the commentary and go through some of the other papers about this bill, they will see that those issues were not of enough concern for select committee members, including members from the Labour Party, to amend the original bill as intended across the committee. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to take a call in support of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), but we have some reservations. It was interesting to hear the member opposite Craig Foss, because I was very closely involved with the Ōpōtiki District Council at the time when it was trying to get consent to aquaculture space. There was a bit of a gold rush on, actually, during the 9 years we were in Government. It was unfettered access to the coastal margin, and that caused us concern. The member may laugh about the lack of progress, but I believe that this bill has just gone from one extreme to the other. We were deeply concerned.
Some aspects of our Labour bill, the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, are in this bill, but the crossover and the pick-up, as any Government is entitled to, have given us concern. The industry is not happy with the process for determining whether an aquaculture project would have undue adverse effects. Representatives from the industry came to the Primary Production Committee. They proposed a mechanism whereby they would work collectively to look at undue adverse effects at any time. I suggested we put that test in during the consenting process, but, no, this Government knew best. The industry thought it had come up with an idea. There is great collective intelligence there, but the Government, in its wisdom, just rejected that request from the industry, which, of course, it has the prerogative to do.
I think that is very indicative of why we are in the House debating the role of consenting authorities under the Resource Management Act, the Coastal Policy Statement, coastal plans, and the powers of consenting authorities. The legislation gives unfettered powers to the Minister yet again, which is very similar to what we have seen in Canterbury with the Environment Canterbury intervention there, and in Auckland as well. Again the Minister has powers to override regional coastal plans. Regional coastal plans are not an instrument developed overnight, as you know, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. They are developed after some time, and at times it is a lengthy process. But we now have a Minister with the powers to override those consenting authorities. The Government is quite wrong to say those powers are controlled; they are unfettered powers. It absolutely arrogantly undermines those who have participated in the development of a regional coastal plan.
I say that as a previous Minister of Conservation I started to promulgate the Coastal Policy Statement. I have real concerns that the Minister Kate Wilkinson sat on that piece of work for 18 months, and released the Coastal Policy Statement in this House only because she was put under pressure by Labour. Labour members started to ask the hard questions in the hard basket about what she was doing about the Coastal Policy Statement. That was a guiding document for regional councils and local authorities. The Minister herself delayed releasing that Coastal Policy Statement. So why would the industry have faith in this Government and the Minister, who has the powers in this bill to completely override the regional planning in relation to coastal activities? I think it is a worry.
We have gone from one extreme, where there was a bit of a gold rush for coastal space and for aquaculture development, to the other. Labour too wanted to see that $1 billion unlocked and that $1 billion of potential earnings from aquaculture flow back into the coffers of New Zealand. But it has not yet, it still has not, and now we have given the powers to one Minister to step in, override regional councils, and override other consenting authorities under the Resource Management Act. I think that this bill is a reflection on the Government, which has put its own flavour on it, as it can do.
Giving the Minister that power has added uncertainty for investors in aquaculture space. The Minister lauds in the House the idea of giving confidence to the industry with this bill, but now members of the industry themselves are saying they do not know and do not have confidence for investing in the long term in aquaculture and aquaculture development. I think the Government has gone completely to the other extreme.
It also ties the hands of councils in the consent process by requiring them to grant consents for a minimum term of 20 years. When we look at developments in the coastal margin, and we are looking at Petrobras and its issue about access to mineral exploration, we see that there are some real problems. If a mineral exploration happens on Ngāti Porou’s coastline and they are looking for consenting for aquaculture developments, what happens to aquacultural products if there is an oil spill on those very fields of gold? This bill gives power for 20 years, and I think we should be worried, iwi should be worried, and the Māori Party should be worried. The Māori Party is fighting the good fight about Ngāti Porou, Petrobras, and mineral exploration. I would worry very much about the threat of contamination if there was an oil leak on the very aquacultural products we see as gold.
I have enjoyed taking a call on this bill. We remain deeply concerned about lots of aspects of this bill, but we feel too that there is great potential economically in aquacultural space. I have worked with Ōpōtiki District Council, and it is ready to unlock some wonderful potential over there on the coast in a community that is really struggling. We have some problems with this bill. I suppose the test will be when we see application after application and the use of ministerial powers in this space. Thank you.
I rise to take a brief call on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3). I am pleased that both sides of the House seem to believe in this industry, and to want it to become a billion-dollar industry by 2025. However, on this side of the House we will try to actually make it happen. We are committed to streamlining consent processes and red tape—which, of course, only gets in the way—to help businesses grow, boost our economy, and create jobs. With those few words, I commend this Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) to the House.
on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. Mai i te ūranga o te rā ki te tōnga o te rā, ki ngā iwi e toru me ō rātou take Tiriti e tū nei ki mua i te W’are Pāremata; nō reira, mai i te Waiapū ki Mōhaka w’iti atu ki te awa o Waipā, o ngā uri katoa o ēnei iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[From the direction where the sun rises and sets upon the three tribes and their Treaty settlements at present before Parliament, I therefore extend salutations to all the descendants of these tribes from Waiapū to Mōhaka and across to the Waipā River. Greetings to you and to us all collectively.]
I intend to move at the appropriate time that these three bills be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 June 2011 on the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill and on or before 30 August 2011 on the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, and that for all three bills the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Today is a significant day for these three iwi. It provides an important opportunity to build for the future and move ahead. These bills represent a monumental milestone in their development. They are about mending a broken relationship and, critically, they are about agreeing to the signposts of a better future for all. The relationships that are core to the heart of Maniapoto, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Pāhauwera are given meaning in the agreements set forth. They will enable the iwi to grow and their future descendants to be nurtured in their heritage and their history. They provide a living, working partnership model for the benefit of their people, their rohe, and the Crown. I mihi to them all for the courage they have shown in forging a new era.
The Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill formalises the enduring relationship of Maniapoto with the Waipā River. It is a relationship that is based on profound respect and gives rise to responsibilities to protect te mana o te wai and to exercise kaitiakitanga in accordance with the long-established tikanga of Maniapoto. To Maniapoto, the Waipā is a taonga, a sacred river where the tohi rituals were performed, where the umbilical rites were observed, and where the purification rituals were undertaken. Indeed, for Maniapoto, Waipā is the river who chants her farewell to the departed ones and the river whose murmuring waters bid welcome to newborns and to visitors from afar.
Under this bill, Maniapoto achieves co-management arrangements specific to the Waipā River and its catchment. The arrangements are extended to the headwaters of the Waipā River at Pekepeke Spring in the Rangitoto Ranges. The overarching intent is to restore and maintain the quality and integrity of the waters that flow into, and form part of, the Waipā River for present and future generations, and the care and protection of the mana tuku iho o waiwaiā. Waiwaiā refers to the essence and well-being of the Waipā River. To Maniapoto, waiwaiā is the personification of the waters of the Waipā River and its enduring spiritual guardian.
The Ngā Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill complements the Waikato River settlement with Waikato-Tainui and the Waikato River co-management deeds with Ngāti Tūw’aretoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi. Together, they establish a single, unified co-governance framework for both the Waipā River and the Waikato River. For these reasons, a shortened consideration of the bill is both feasible and desirable.
I now turn to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, the second of the three bills having their first readings. The grievances of Ngāti Porou are significant and longstanding. They emerge out of the Crown’s failure to honour its Treaty promise to respect Ngāti Porou rangatiratanga over their own affairs, from Pōtikirua in the north to the mouth of the Tūranganui River in the south. The Crown imposed land tenure reform on Ngāti Porou, which deprived iwi members of collective control over their land and made it difficult to utilise their land for economic development. This has helped to make the East Coast one of the most socioeconomically deprived regions of New Zealand—a legacy that endures to this day.
Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Porou—nor, indeed, any claimant group—for the loss their people have suffered, the cultural redress in this bill seeks to recognise Ngāti Porou’s longstanding cultural and spiritual association in the region. It is both innovative and strategic. It includes the vesting of sites of cultural and historical significance, a strategic partnership over specific public conservation lands within the rohe, a financial settlement of $110 million, a commitment by the Crown and Ngāti Porou to develop a relationship accord, and much more.
Finally, I speak to the third bill having its first reading in the House today, the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. Ngāti Pāhauwera is a confederation of hapū with historical interests in northern Hawke’s Bay. The claims of Ngāti Pāhauwera include the failure of the Crown to make sure that Ngāti Pāhauwera had sufficient lands for its future needs during the process of land alienation that began in the 1850s. By the middle of the 20th century Ngāti Pāhauwera was virtually landless, and ever since they have suffered economic, social, and cultural impoverishment. During the New Zealand Wars the Crown provided only minimal assistance to help Ngāti Pāhauwera recover from a brutal attack on their pā and kāinga, even though the area had been left virtually defenceless because Ngāti Pāhauwera warriors were away with the Crown’s forces.
The redress provided to Ngāti Pāhauwera can never compensate them for what has been lost. It is vital that the agreement reached with them, which is embodied in this bill, enhances the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Pāhauwera into the future. The bill includes provisions that enable cultural redress to be provided for, including the vesting of Te Heru o Tūreia and 14 other cultural redress properties; the transfer of five former Wairoa District Council properties to Ngāti Pāhauwera; and redress in relation to licensed land within the Mohaka Forest. These are but a portion of the significant advances made today in their settlements.
These bills signify the closing of one door and the opening of another, leaving the door slightly ajar so that we may always remember the history that has brought us to this point. I celebrate the iwi who have done so much to create a new partnership arrangement and have invested in the potential and the challenge of leading themselves forward into the future, which is well within their reach. I consider that the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend these bills to the House.
E tika atu ki te mihi atu i a koutou e tae kaha ki te Whare Mīere nei ki te tautokotia atu i te tīmata o te otinga o ngā kerēme. E mihi kau ana. Ki a koutou o te hau kāinga, te whānau whānui, mihi kau ana ki te maunga o Hikurangi, te awa o Waiapū me ngā hapū katoa o te rohe ō tātou, mai i Tikirau e tae kaha atu ki Te Toka-ā-Taiau. Nō reira, tēnā tātou. Nā te mea i roto i a āku e mai whatu ki te kore tae ake ngā mea pakeke pērā i a Tāme Te Maro, Tākutu Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes, a rātou mā. E whakaaro atu i roto i a āku mō tō rātou kaha te tae ake o te ture nei i te wā nei. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.
[It is appropriate that I acknowledge you collectively who worked tirelessly to get here to the Beehive to support the start of a claims settlement process. I congratulate you. To those of you from home, the extended family, greetings are accorded to Hikurangi mountain, Waiapū River and all the subtribes of our region from Tikirau stretching staunch-like to Te Toka-ā-Taiau. So greetings to us. I am saddened by the absence of some of the elders of the ilk of Tāme Te Maro, Tākuta Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes, and others who did not make it here. I spare a thought for their efforts that made it possible for this legislation to get here today. So acknowledgments to us.]
The Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill records the Crown’s acknowledgments of Treaty breaches and the apology offered by the Crown to Ngāti Porou, and it provides that the settlement of the Ngāti Porou historical claims is final. It removes the jurisdiction of judicial bodies in respect of the historical claims of Ngāti Porou or the redress provided under the deed of settlement or the Act, but not their interpretation. It deals with related issues, including consequential amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the removal of certain resumptive memorials, and the modification of the rule against perpetuities.
It is important to understand that the Ngāti Porou settlement has been undertaken through a whole lot of effort. As with other settlements there are tensions at times, but Ngāti Porou have certainly done well to arrive here today. I will recognise my whanaunga Hekia Parata, who is sitting over there next to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I recognise the Minister for the effort that he has put in. I want to thank myself and Michael Cullen for starting the process, and I thank the Minister for finishing it. Thank you very much; I recognise the Minister for that.
The bill sets out the cultural redress provided to Ngāti Porou, including the Crown’s acknowledgment of the cultural significance of certain conservation lands for Ngāti Porou, and provision for a relationship between Ngāti Porou and the Department of Conservation. I will wax lyrical a bit on that, because it needs to be recognised that this is not a new thing for Ngāti Porou. In the sense of the return of the maunga Hikurangi, they have done a great job of managing it. I think that sets a significant example for a whole lot of Treaty settlements, and for people who tend to have doubts about the ability of iwi to make sure that the right thing is done. How they define “right” is in the sense of what has been proven and what they will do into the future.
The commercial redress is certainly something that has to be considered, and considered seriously, because there have been a whole lot of machinations in relation to those boards and organisations—generally Pākehā; generally the Crown—that have really controlled or debased Ngāti Porou in relation to those issues that could have created an economic baseline. Certainly, through all of that, they have still continued to do that. It is with relish that one can look back and reconsider things started a long time before Fonterra opened the dairy factories that were in Ngāti Porou: things like those in the barge freight and transportation area.
It is good that the Government is considering this and that we are running this bill, the Nga Wai o Maniopoto (Waipa River) Bill, and the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill together. The Labour Party will support these bills—the whole three of them—and certainly we have put a whole lot of effort into getting these three settlements finished.
An important point is that the dissolution of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou dissolves a Māori trust board established by Te Runanga o Ngati Porou Act in 1987. That seems to have been a long time ago, though maybe in this time it is just like yesterday. But Ngāti Porou need to be commended. Certainly I look forward to the deliverables that are in here possibly being expanded, even at this late time, I say to the Minister. But I recognise the iwi’s strength and efforts in getting here through a whole lot of different pathways. That is certainly what today is about.
E mihi kau ana i a koutou o Maniapoto e noho tata ki te awa o Waipā. E mihi kau ana ki te Kīngi Tūheitia, ki a koutou i mau kaha atu ki te tae i konei mō tō koutou kerēme.
[I acknowledge you of Ngāti Maniapoto who live in close proximity to the Waipā River, King Tūheitia, you as a collective who were tireless in your efforts to get here over your Treaty claim.]
The Waipā River bill, again, is an embellishment that certainly comes off the effort made by Tainui in relation to ensuring or developing co-management and co-governance, which is something that this speaker himself knows was frowned upon at the beginning. I commend Mita Ririnui and all those people who organised it—and Michael Cullen, again—and who tried to forge it within the mindsets of the people who generally have power that is distanced from Māori, like the local authorities and the waterway authorities. I commend Waipā for that. The Tainui river settlement has been quite fundamental. Tainui’s wish is that the waters are cleaned up, so that the elderly can bathe in them and the kids can eat the fish. At the end of the day there is already an example, and the Maniapoto people need to be commended and recognised for the effort that they are putting in. It is not an easy thing to go into, especially when one is trying to determine and ensure that one’s rangatiratanga is there and it is not an isolated issue.
I think the great thing done by all of these iwi here today is that they have certainly shown a way forward for this country. We preach and teach about nationhood, but if we intend to be serious about it then we certainly have to learn about how Māori can take things forward in a very positive manner. Those of Maniapoto, again, need to be commended.
E mihi kau ana i a koutou, mō Hera i a rātou e kore e tae ake engari, tautokotia atu tō koutou kaha mō tō awa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.
[I congratulate you collectively, and those like Hera who are no longer here and did not arrive. In respect of your river, I endorse your endurance. Well done.]
The co-management arrangement includes the establishment of joint management agreements with relevant local authorities, the development of an upper Waipā River integrated management plan, and recognition of the Maniapoto iwi environmental management plans. All of those things have been tested in other areas. Maniapoto have certainly spent a lot of time ensuring that it would be as such, and that they would take it forward.
I a koutou o Ngāti Pāhauwera, e mihi kau ana, tēnā koutou. E whakaaro mō te āhua o te whāea a Sophie, mō tana pekepeke i a tau, i a tau mō te kerēme nei. E whakaaro atu mō Sophie me tō koutou tangata a Tame, e kāre e hoki mai, e hinga atu rā. Engari, ahakoa kua rere atu rātou, i konei kē koutou. Nō reira, tēnā koutou i te awa o Mōhaka, ngā whānau o Tūreia, te wāhi o Raupunga me Mōhaka, e mihi kau ana.
[To you of Ngāti Pāhauwera, I commend and salute you collectively. The state that Auntie Sophie used to get into a flap about, year in and year out, over this claim comes to mind. I think of her and your man Tame, now both gone for ever. Their likes will never be seen here. Nevertheless, while they are no longer here, you as a collective are here indeed. Therefore I congratulate you, the families of Tūreia of Raupunga and Mōhaka who live by the Mōhaka River.]
The Pāhauwera is an interesting settlement. Ngāti Pāhauwera is a confederation of hapū with historical interests along the Mōhaka River. They have stood the test of time. In the wars they were really banished from their lands. They were stripped of their economic base, and they were stripped of their own authority. That was certainly, in my mind, one of the most forlorn parts of the old wars. That Ngāti Pāhauwera have responded and been able to defend their right in relation to the Mōhaka River is something that has been worthwhile to watch over a period of time. The cultural redress is an important thing for Ngāti Pāhauwera. Te Heru o Tūreia is a gift area. The cultural redress properties were important areas to Ngāti Pāhauwera, which were put aside and taken away from them. The right of first refusal will be important for Ngāti Pāhauwera, and certainly for the people from Raupunga and Mōhaka. I hope that it is finalised and they finish building their marae, because it has been a long time in coming.
I say to all of the three claimants here today that Labour will support these bills. We look forward to a better, expedient, and quick journey towards the end. Kia ora.
I rise to speak to three bills that are being addressed in a novel manner this afternoon so that they can be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee as quickly as possible. That great chair of the committee, the Hon Tau Henare, is a tiger for punishment. He is keen to get on with the job as quickly as he can.
The first bill is the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, which gives effect to a deed by the Crown and Maniapoto signed at Te Kūiti on 27 September 2010. I acknowledge their representatives who are here this afternoon and thank them for their commitment, for their patience, and for their hard work. The bill provides for Maniapoto to participate in the co-governance and co-management of the Waipā River and adds the Upper Waipā River to the arrangements put in place last year.
This river is of deep cultural significance to Maniapoto. For the people of Maniapoto their relationship with the Waipā River gives rise to responsibilities to protect te mana o te wai and to exercise their kaitiakitanga in accordance with their long-established tikanga. The involvement of Maniapoto will be key in addressing environmental concerns and in achieving the long-term health of the river. In the area of the Upper Waipā River, in particular, the people of Maniapoto have a significant stake in the social, economic, and environmental well-being of the community by virtue of their numbers and the extent of Māori land - based economic development.
This bill needs to proceed without delay to ensure that critical steps such as the initial review of the vision and strategy are comprehensive, and so that there is a proper legal basis for factoring the Upper Waipā River into these very, very important developments. There is a strong sense of shared aspiration among not only iwi but also the community at large to improve the health of the Waipā River and the Waikato River. This bill is the final ingredient to put in place the framework. It is an initiative whose time has come so that generations in the future can enjoy a healthy river that sustains abundant life and prosperous communities.
I now turn to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. I too welcome the Ngāti Porou representatives who have joined us today for this historic occasion. Treaty settlements involve commitment and courage. They often involve difficult trade-offs, both personally and professionally, by those who work on them. I pay tribute to the leadership, pragmatism, and hard work of the negotiating teams of the iwi who are with us today. It is through the diligent labour of these people that we have reached this point. I acknowledge those who are no longer with us, particularly Koro Dewes, who in a long and distinguished career helped to lay the foundation for this settlement through his work in establishing Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou. I am so sorry that he did not live to see the introduction of this bill, but I am heartened that he lived long enough to see this settlement through to its near completion.
Ngāti Porou has travelled a long road to have its claims addressed by the Crown. After many years of preparation, formal negotiations began in 2008. The Crown recognised the mandate of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou in April that year. Negotiations with Te Haeata, the negotiation subcommittee, commenced in July 2008. A non-binding high-level agreement outlining key elements of financial and commercial redress was signed by the Crown and Ngāti Porou on 23 October 2008. After a period of robust negotiations a deed of settlement was initialled in October 2010. I pause to acknowledge the work of my chief Crown negotiator, Paul Swain, an excellent fellow. I am so bipartisan that I can work with anyone.
During November and December last year, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou undertook a ratification process for the deed of settlement and the proposed post-governance entity. Of the registered adult members of Ngāti Porou who voted, 91 percent voted in favour of accepting the deed of settlement and 92.5 percent voted in favour of accepting the proposed governance arrangements. This is a great day for Ngāti Porou, and I acknowledge Mr Horomia and his help at the very initial stages of the negotiation. The real grunt work, of course, was done by me.
Finally, I turn to the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. I too welcome Ngāti Pāhauwera representatives who have joined us today. Many other members of Ngāti Pāhauwera in the Hawke’s Bay and around New Zealand will be watching this debate today, and I acknowledge them.
Ngāti Pāhauwera have also travelled a long road to have their claims addressed by the Crown. In 1994 the Maori Land Court made an order appointing eight people to represent this confederation in the prosecution and settlement of Treaty claims against the Crown. The tribunal reported on the historical claims in 1992—the very, very important Mōhaka River report—and 2004. In May 2008 terms of negotiation were signed for a combined negotiation of Ngāti Pāhauwera’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims and of their foreshore and seabed interests. An agreement in principle setting out the broad components of the Crown’s settlement offer was signed on 30 September 2008. Since then the trustees and the Crown have negotiated intensively. I pause here to acknowledge the contribution of my chief Crown negotiator, former Labour MP Fran Wilde, an excellent person—again, proving my bipartisanship.
A draft deed of settlement to settle the Treaty claims was ready for ratification on 4 November 2010, and on a wonderful day, 17 December 2010, in the company of Mr Horomia we signed the deed of settlement at Mōhaka. It was a wonderful occasion for all who attended. The deed of settlement signed then is conditional on the passage of this bill.
I acknowledge all Ngāti Pāhauwera tūpuna, and I acknowledge all those who from the beginning have worked for the good of Ngāti Pāhauwera. The trustees of the development trust and their counsel have negotiated with great resolve and determination, and the settlement package they have achieved is a very good one. Throughout this process they have been unfailingly polite and dignified; I have certainly enjoyed working with them. I acknowledge their patience when they were prepared to defer discussion of their foreshore and seabed interests while the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act was being reviewed.
Settling this claim is an important further step in this country’s progress towards settling all historical Treaty claims. Settling the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty claims will be a first in the Hawke’s Bay region. The passage of this bill begins the last stage in a settlement that seeks to recognise what is important to the people of Ngāti Pāhauwera and to provide redress for breaches of the Treaty.
These three settlements are among the many settlements this Government has been progressing towards its aspirational goal of settling all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014. I thank all parties for their cooperation in enabling these bills to proceed in this manner. I acknowledge—because authorship is important—that the original idea for this process came from the senior Opposition whip, Mr Barker, and I thank him for his suggestion. That is not to say that these bills will be rushed through the Māori Affairs Committee, as some rather unkind people are saying. They will be dealt with individually and they will be dealt with carefully. This is a sensible way of progressing Treaty bills so that people can enjoy the fruits of their labour as soon as possible.
Ā, te Kaihautū o te Whare, tēnā koe. Kāti, hei tīmatanga kōrero, mihi atu ki ngā huānga o roto i ngā whare tātai i te tuauru Maniapoto, ā, whakawhiti atu ki Te Tai Rāwhiti, Ngāti Porou me āna toronga katoa, ā, heke iho ki roto i te awa o Mōhaka, a Ngāti Pāhauwera, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Nā runga i te hiahia i pupū ake i waenga tonu i a mātou, ngā kanohi Māori ki tēnei taha, pēnā e taea te rauhī i ēnei pire kia wawe ai te taenga atu ki te komiti uiui. Kia kawa rawa atu ēnei pire e waiho ki konei kia tārewa i roto i tēnei wāhanga o te rerenga o ngā pire, me te mātau, arā noa atu te pōti whakataetae e tū mai nei kei te paunga o tēnei tau. Nā, koia tā mātou e mihi ki a koutou, i āmene ai ki tēnā whakaaro, nā, ko tōna tikanga, ka whakawāteangia te huarahi kia whiriwhiria tonutia ai e te komiti uiui raro i te whakahaere a te Hōnore Tau Hēnare ngā take, ā, me ngā wāhanga iti e tika ana kia whakahāngaitia pea. Nā, koia tā mātou e tautoko i te Minita i tēnei ahiahi. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House. To begin with, I acknowledge the relatives from within the ancestral houses of Maniapoto to the west, across to the ones of Ngāti Porou on the East Coast and all its branches, and down to the ones of Ngāti Pāhauwera by the Mōhaka River. Hello there, and greetings to you all. Because of a desire that welled up within us Māori members on this side, we sought to have these bills made cognate so they would get to the select committee faster. These bills must be allowed traction and not be held up on this side of the process, as we know full well that there is the matter of competing for votes at the end of the year to contend with, as well. That is why we compliment you on allowing this to happen. Accordingly, it clears the way for the select committee, under the astute leadership of the Hon Tau Hēnare, to consider matters about these bills, including any clauses that might be deemed appropriate. That is why we were most supportive of the Minister this afternoon. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]
We join with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson. This exercise, I understand, is to be regarded as a “cognate” exercise, as I am told is the expression. That is somewhat unusual, but, as I have said in Māori, this is a busy year, and the people who bring claims forward and wait for many years, despite the best efforts of the current leader of the ACT Party to deprecate them, are actually positive and busy people. If the business of the House can be ordered in such a way that we can facilitate the expeditious consideration of these bills, then there is not a sliver of doubt in our minds that we should support the current Minister to effect that outcome. I only hope that his enthusiasm for bilateral ventures stretches beyond 26 November, when we will treat him in a similarly charitable fashion.
I must correct one element. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations described the current chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, my kinsman Tau Henare, with the adjective “great”. I want that word struck from the Hansard record because it reflects an inaccuracy.
I turn first to Ngāti Maniapoto. Obviously, our colleague Nanaia Mahuta will expand on what her Māori colleagues here are saying, but it follows on from the tauira—the model, really—that was laid down during the time of Dr Cullen and revived by the current Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson. It really broke the back of longstanding traditions in resource management. It has caused some consternation to certain elements of the House, but we have seen no degradation in the quality of water, we have seen no diminution in the property rights of farmers, etc., and we have not seen a dilution of people’s rights to participate in statutory resource management. The fact that it should extend to, as we say in Māori, the whare tātai of Maniapoto just shows that this area of governance is improving, and it is providing an opportunity for greater Māori input.
Our wealth comes from our primary sector, including our mineral sector—although I will get to that small point in a moment. Improvement in how we, as Pākehā and Māori, are able to participate in statutory resource management ensures that when those decisions are made there is a balance between ecology, environment, cultural heritage, and rangatiratanga, but also there is not ignorance about the importance of the economic utility of our resources. If we overlook that importance, we are actually deprecating the opportunities that are available in a post-settlement phase for iwi, hapū, and whānau. There is no reason why this particular bill does not lay down the platform for the continuation of the Maniapoto claim.
Ngāti Pāhauwera are not too far away from a part of Māoridom where one of our tūpuna, Te Wera Hauraki, made certain forays into the broader country of Kahungunu, a little further along from where Ngāti Pāhauwera are. I remember for many years going down there and visiting the marae with Rev. Māori Marsden while we discussed resource management issues. That is where we were first introduced to the drama that was confronting them about the Mōhaka River. As is the case with other claims, this is an example of where a proud group of people—a tribe, a number of hapū—were left landless. Unfortunately, not all land can be restored back to the descendants of the original owners, but the fact that the current custodians of that legacy, on the tangata whenua side, are willing and courageous enough to step up to the plate and give their approval to this type of settlement bodes well for the future.
It is a part of Aotearoa that is not spoken about in a particularly wide fashion, but we salute the people of Ngāti Pāhauwera, their river, their remaining lands, and the Maungaharuru ridge, etc. We know how difficult it is for any small iwi to capture the attention of the bureaucracy and of politicians, and also to find the energy to sustain the journey to effect a suitable settlement to the claim. So there is no doubt in our minds where we should stand and support, whether it is through Dr Cullen, the Hon Parekura Horomia, or Christopher Finlayson.
The most important thing is that from here it is the responsibility of the tangata whenua. They have to stand up and bear that legacy, and ensure that it is actually improved generation after generation. That will not be an easy task, and whatever we do to the bill in the settlement today, we hope it simplifies that process.
Ko Hikurangi te maunga, ko Waiapū te awa, ko Parekura te tangata. Ngāti Porou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Nā wai rānei i teka me tū a Ngāpuhi ki te kōrero mō ngā whenua, tō koutou maunga, ā koutou tāngata, me ngā awa katoa kei roto i Te Tai Rāwhiti engari, tēnei anō te mihi atu ki a koutou. Nō roto i ngā rangi pahure tata ake nei, nui tonu ngā kōrero i roto i te hui i tū mō tō mātou matua a Tā Rātima mō tēnei kerēme, mō tēnei nawe whenua. Nāna anō i kī, i te haerenga ake o Tā Āpirana Ngata ki roto i Te Hiku o te Ika, i te ururoa me te kanukanu o te āhua o te whenua, nāna anō i kī, pēnā he toki anō tāku, tapahia me ahau te hiku o tēnei ika kia tere atu ki te moana. Kātahi a Tā ka mea mai ki ahau, e hoa, e koro, e Shane, ki te tū koe ki te mihi mō te kerēme o Ngāti Porou, meinga atu ki a rātou, nui tonu te mana o te Rōpū Reipa i roto o Ngāti Porou. Kāti, tēnā koutou. He rawe tēnei rā.
[Hikurangi is the mountain, Waiapū is the river, and Parekura is the man. Greetings to you, Ngāti Porou, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. Who falsely assumed that someone of Ngāpuhi descent should stand up and talk about lands, your mountains, your people, and all the rivers of the East Coast? Nevertheless, salutations once again. There was much talk at a symposium held recently for our uncle Sir Graham Latimer about this claim and objections about this land. He actually talked about the time when Sir Āpirana Ngata came up to the Tail of the Fish and mentioned how the land looked shabby and was shark-like in appearance. It prompted me to exclaim that if I had an axe I would lop off the tail of this fish and set it adrift in the ocean. Then Sir Graham said to me, “Hey, mate, hey, old fella Shane, should you get up to acknowledge Ngāti Porou’s claim, say to them that the Labour Party’s influence in Ngāti Porou is right up there.” Enough said and congratulations. This is a wonderful day.]
The Ngāti Porou tribe are not strangers to the administration, the bureaucracy, or the antics of politicians or Governments. This is a very successful conclusion to a claim that has been afflicted by internal politics, and I can say that because I am a member of the Ngāpuhi nui tonu. No one is more afflicted than my own tribe. It is a part of Māoridom where we want to see the provincial economy recover. We want to see investments that recover the halcyon days when there were very prosperous, strong, and hardy landowning groups up the coast. If this small contribution, through the historical Treaty settlement, enables that to come to pass, then every single Māori in the House should salute Ngāti Porou on this significant day.
We must acknowledge Hekia, who currently has a difficult role dealing with her own relations in terms of why the exploration for oil and minerals is not such a bad idea. Although that is a difficult part, I note that a protocol in this bill enables Ngāti Porou to participate.
Kia kaha, kia manawa nui. Mai i Te Tai Hauāuru ki Te Tai Rāwhiti, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.
[Be strong and stout of heart. Well done to you from the western shores to the eastern one and to us all.]
Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in favour of these three bills and this process with some humility as a Pākehā. I acknowledge that neither of our two Māori members of caucus whakapapa to these rohe, but I acknowledge the importance of us as Pākehā standing up for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and taking our place in recognising the important processes in which we engage in this House and in this country. If Pākehā are silent and we do not acknowledge the Treaty process, we are pretending that that process belongs to Māori. But we are the main beneficiaries of the Treaty, so I want to speak to that issue as well.
The Green Party is supporting the first readings of these three bills, and we recognise and respect the blood, sweat, and tears associated with getting to this point of the three iwi involved. The Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill will hopefully allow Ngāti Maniapoto to uphold their sacred relationship to the Waipā awa. Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au. We recognise their generosity. We recognise that co-governance or co-management is actually a generous compromise by mana whenua. It is a gift back to the nation, saying that what was theirs in entirety and will always be theirs, they will work through and share with us in terms of governance. I think the bills we have seen in this House previously around Waikato are very important in this regard, and we will all be watching to see that they work in terms of the spirit of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So we must pay respects to those people, to Ngāti Maniapoto.
I pay respects also to Ngāti Porou. I lived in the Tai Rāwhiti for 8 years, and one cannot live in that area without recognising the energy and power of Ngāti Porou, but also the particular history, the history of economic deprivation through Māori Land Court and land tenure machinations in the past. But in the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill there are some good opportunities and relationships that Ngāti Porou will be able to take full advantage of.
When I worked in the rohe for 8 years, I was deeply affected by whānau living landless, in broken houses. There was a lack of opportunity for rangatahi and whānau katoa. Members may have seen the movie Ngati. It tells a story about the previous vibrant economic sovereignty that has been undermined. We need to see the rebuilding of that sovereignty through bills like this, particularly for the most poverty-stricken people in the most remote rural communities I saw. As an advocate for the poorest of the poor, I am hopeful that this is a start towards those most vulnerable people being the beneficiaries of this mahi.
Thirdly, I turn to Ngāti Pāhauwera, the Mōhaka people. It is a terrible history of loss and of the way the Crown acted towards them. Lack of good faith in terms of the Mōhaka River people is a story that all New Zealanders need to read. They need to understand what happened to them and what the journey has been to get to this point. Although I lived in Tūranga, I travelled through their rohe. I will never forget being on the hīkoi—the takutai moana hīkoi. As we went through Raupunga, on the side of the road the kōhanga reo stood with a sign towards us—all those little tamariki mokopuna standing there—saying “kia kaha, kia kaha”. That was one of the most moving moments for us as part of the takutai moana hīkoi: to see the people of Raupunga, who actually stand up for what they believe in, from the smallest to the kaumātua. So I acknowledge them.
The Green Party recognises with a heavy heart the histories behind these settlement processes, and we reject the concept of full and final, even though we are supporting progress for these iwi. How can it be full and final settlement when every claim, added together, is less than the money used to bail out South Canterbury Finance? The degree of recompense the Crown actually gives compared with the losses needs to be analysed in the context of the instant bail-out provisions for failed financiers who took advantage of the Government guarantee. Is the poverty and loss of all these whānau over more than 150 years worth so little in comparison with the money the Crown is prepared to spend on businesses that have been greedy and at times misleading in their behaviour? And they had to ask only once! Although we celebrate the progress for these iwi, we have concerns about the scale of redress. It is not full and it is not final, no matter what political spin we place on it.
I have to be brave and say that we place on record some concerns about other iwi who are impacted by the Crown picking winners during settlement processes. This is causing some pain and distress in Te Tai Rāwhiti, because the Crown has decided to work with large natural groupings, and smaller iwi like Ruawaipū and Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti have been more than vocal in their claim of being marginalised. But the history of the Tūranganui iwi and their relationships and boundaries is complex, and it is not the Green Party’s business to address the issue of boundaries between tangata whenua. That is not our role in terms of the Treaty relationship in Aotearoa. But we can say that the Crown process can create new grievance as well as make agreement. We can say that dialogue for justice must continue, and justice must also be seen to be done.
We wish the Crown to recognise that history is not fixed. Dialogue and negotiation are a permanent feature of te Tiriti, and settlements need to be negotiated with no absolute requirement that the iwi involved be silent in the future. Stories are still emerging about how land and resources were alienated, and issues such as the takutai moana, sadly, have the potential to create new claims. The Government needs to accept that, as in all significant relationships, everything has to be open for discussion in an honest and realistic manner. The next generation of Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Pāhauwera will have something to say to the Crown, and they should be listened to. That something may be about fairness and justice, because they will do the maths and see that South Canterbury Finance gets instant redress, while their whānau do not.
One of the things I would like to see alongside this bill—and I applaud the work of all the people involved—is a budget for Pākehā education. Having lived in the Tai Rāwhiti, I say that as long as Pākehā think the settlement process is for Māori, in many cases they ignore it. We need them on board. We need my culture on board so that we do not undermine the very good work that people are doing to build a successful cultural and economic base for tangata whenua. We really need to get Pākehā educated, because they do not attend claims processes and they do not read settlements. I can speak for my culture and say that very few of us embrace the work that people in this House are doing, or understand what the Attorney-General is trying to lead.
Unless we go out there and proactively explain to Pākehā, they will be a barrier, and racism will be an issue. I can speak on that issue because I lived in Gisborne, and I did not hear very many Pākehā embracing the settlement process. We need to be brave enough as Pākehā to talk about that issue, alongside the work of tangata whenua. It is our responsibility, not that of Māori, to educate our own and bring them on board. The Crown has a big role to play in that education, because the Crown, since 1840, has had a big role in creating the essential necessity for this process.
Without having much more to say, I acknowledge my ignorance about the detail, and I acknowledge that I am speaking as a Pākehā, but I say that it is vital that we front up to these settlement processes, and that we are brave enough to name our concerns. I acknowledge all the people who travelled here today to participate in the process. It is just the first reading, and I look forward to hearing more through the select committee process and in the second and third readings, which it is likely we will be supporting. But I can never feel a great sense of celebration until everyone in Aotearoa stands up behind this process and acknowledges that it is important and is about all of us.
We must celebrate the progress made with a level head and a willingness to acknowledge that the marginalised must be heard. It is not as tidy as saying a settlement is full and final. To say that the process is over and done with may be tidy, but it is not honest. It is important that we are more truthful and say we are on a journey together in this nation. It is not a tidy journey, but without that honesty about our history and about the grievances that we have the potential to create in this very Whare, we will not make peace and justice in our time or for tamariki mokopuna. As a grandmother, I am responsible for looking ahead, as are so many of you, to what our mokopuna will have to deal with. It is not full or final, but let us absolutely acknowledge the progress made. Kia ora tātou katoa.
E ngā uri o rātou mā kua riro ki tua o te pae, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngāti Maniapoto, haere mai, nau mai ki te Whare Pāremata. He Whare tēnei kua rongo i ngā nawe, i ngā hiahia o ngā iwi o ngā tau kua hipa. Nō koutou tēnei rā. Koia nei te tīmatanga mai o te kōrero i ngā pakitara o te Whare Pāremata. I mua o te mutunga o tēnei tau, ka eke ki te puāwaitanga. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[To the descendants of those who have crossed beyond the horizon of Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Pāhauwera, and Ngāti Maniapoto, welcome, welcome, and welcome to Parliament House. This House is one that has heard about the complaints and aspirations of tribes in years past. This is your day. It is the beginning of the talk that will emanate from the walls of Parliament House. By the end of this year the talk will come to fruition. So greetings to you and to us all.]
I am very pleased and proud to stand and talk to the first readings of three separate bills: firstly, the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, which is a companion to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill; secondly, the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, of which the deed of settlement was signed on 17 December 2010; and thirdly, the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, of which the deed of settlement was signed in December last year. This bill represents the settlement of all Ngāti Porou historical Treaty of Waitangi claims, and therefore is hugely significant—as they all are. I will make a few comments on each of the bills, and hopefully I will have time to make a few comments on the importance of Treaty settlements.
On the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, the Waipā River is a significant contributor to the waters of the lower Waikato River and to the social, cultural, environmental, and economic well-being within its region. We recognise that the Waipā River is taonga to Maniapoto. Their relationship with the river lies at the heart of their spiritual and physical well-being, and has been the prime influencer in the way we have interacted with them. The restoration and maintenance of the river as part of a larger catchment needs to be coordinated with the management, restoration, and protection of the Waikato River, and Maniapoto involvement in co-governance and co-management of their river is key for the longer-term sustainability not only of their river but also of the larger Waikato as well.
The bill gives effect to a deed entered into between the Crown and Maniapoto, by which they agree to extend a co-governance framework over the whole of the Waipā River and provide for Maniapoto to participate in the framework that governs the river. It establishes co-management and related arrangements with Maniapoto in relation to their river.
Although it is a great advantage to deal with the three bills within the one debate, not one of the iwi sitting in the gallery this afternoon should take the briefness of the comments relating to each of their settlement bills as a sign in any way that we are skimming over the importance of their settlements. We are not.
In respect of the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill I acknowledge my whanaunga and note that this is the first deed of settlement to be signed, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said, on the eastern seaboard of the North Island. I say congratulations to the iwi. The first of a series of settlements is always the biggest, and I hope that the whanaunga alongside you take this as a sign that they ought to move as well. As with other historical settlement bills, the package includes a Crown apology as well as financial redress of $20 million and cultural redress involving 16 sites, totalling around 1,087 hectares. These claims relate mainly to the Crown’s failure to ensure the iwi retained sufficient lands for its future needs, the Crown’s failure to provide adequate support during the New Zealand Wars, the Crown’s failure to monitor the impact of further land purchases, and the fact that by the middle of the 20th century Ngāti Pāhauwera was virtually landless, which contributed to the decline of its economic, social, and spiritual well-being. This settlement will hopefully enable Ngāti Pāhauwera to build the partnership with the Crown that it has for so long sought, and to flourish as a people.
The Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill puts longstanding historic grievances to rest, and will bring significant benefits not only to Ngāti Porou and the East Coast region but also, like all settlements, to New Zealand. Ngāti Porou is New Zealand’s second-largest iwi, with 72,000 members, 58 hapū, and 48 marae on the East Coast of the North Island. The takiwā covered by the bill is the area from Pōtikirua Point on the East Cape in the north, to Te Toka-ā-Taiau in the south, at the mouth of the Tūranga River, which runs through the centre of Gisborne. The takiwā relates, as I said earlier, to a great number of hapū and marae. Ngāti Porou has a proud history of working with the Crown to preserve the New Zealand way of life and I am very proud to be part of the National Party, and to recall that I follow in the footsteps of a number of eminent Māori MPs, not least of which, of course, was Ta Apirana Ngata, who has left a huge legacy in this place.
The bill records the acknowledgments and apology offered by the Crown to Ngāti Porou and provides that the settlement of the Ngāti Porou historical claims is final. It includes financial redress of $110 million, it includes the return of sites of high cultural significance to Ngāti Porou totalling approximately 5,898 hectares, and it provides for Ngāti Porou input into the strategic governance of specific conservation sites in relationship agreements designed to facilitate good working relationships between specific Crown agencies and Ngāti Porou.
I will make some general remarks. The importance of what we do this afternoon will be illustrated by the fact that there is near universal agreement in this House for these three settlements. I am not sure whether ACT will vote for these settlements, because its history to date has been not to vote for any of them. But we can put that to one side and rejoice in the fact that in the balance of the House, which is the larger part of the House, all members support these settlement bills—and why would they not?
As parliamentarians we have done some of our best work in bringing settlements to this House. I have had the privilege of being here since 1996, working with Sir Doug Graham under the leadership of Jim Bolger, and being part of a Government that set itself at the time a pretty cracking pace to try to settle historic grievances. What that Government did, which was important in respect of all the settlements that have followed, was set a framework within which these settlements—which are hugely complex and take much time and energy of both the Crown and iwi—can be brought to a conclusion. So when a bill arrives at its first reading like this one has today, it in no way gives any indication of the huge commitment, the longstanding dedication, and the kaha, really, that is required, particularly on the part of the iwi and of the Crown to bring the settlement to this point.
I say to the three separate iwi sitting in the gallery that they give us, the Crown, a chance to make amends for the wrongs that have been done in the past. They give us the chance to set a pathway with themselves for the future that will be far, far better. We are hopeful that the grievances that iwi have carried through the generations can be—not forgotten, because they are never forgotten—put in their place, allowing people to move on.
I add my congratulations and my support to the speakers who have gone before and say how very pleased we are that we can do this this afternoon. I look forward to the ongoing debates on the three bills, and, more than anything, I look forward to finally concluding these settlements. I think that Māori are on the verge of another huge development phase and the settlement of these claims will provide a very strong platform for that development to go forward. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
Ā, tēnā tātou katoa. Tēnei e tāpiri atu āku nei mihi ki ngā iwi e toru i tae ā-tinana mai, hei ārahi i ā rātou kēreme ki tēnei wāhanga kia whakaturengia ā rātou wawata, i roto i ēnei kerēme. Nō reira, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Maniapoto hoki mai ki te kāinga, tēnā koutou.
[Greetings to us all. I add my acknowledgments to those expressed before me to the three tribes who have arrived here in person to guide their claims through this part of the process that will enshrine their aspirations in these claims into law. So welcome home Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Maniapoto, and congratulations.]
I too want to confirm my and Labour’s support for each of the individual settlement bills—the Nga Wai o Manaipoto (Waipa River) Bill, the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, which have been brought to the House today. Some comment has been raised with regard to the recent innovation of clustering bills together and bringing them to the House. Although in some respects I acknowledge that this process enables a speedy progress and passage through the House, I am unsure whether the innovation in the long term is a positive mechanism in the Treaty settlement process, because as the Waitangi Tribunal is an important forum to have histories heard, so too is this House of Parliament in terms of putting on the record the context within which Treaty settlements have occurred. It is only through the Hansard debate and the debate of parliamentarians in this House that people will understand in retrospect what the particular policy of the day was and why things were done in a certain way.
Those of us from iwi all know that many Treaty settlements have fallen far short of expectations out there amongst our iwi. I put that on the record for the single purpose of noting that although in a process-orientated manner we want to ensure that those Treaty settlements that are currently sitting before the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations receive full support to go through this House, I certainly do not want to lose sight of some of the tensions out there amongst iwi when they observe this process. So, with the forbearance of Ngāti Pāhauwera and Ngāti Porou, rather than skim over their two claims once lightly I will restrict my comments particularly to the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, with the view in mind of putting on the record some peculiarities that have emerged as a result of the political landscape, and I think that the bill and the way in which the settlement has been approached will gain some clarity from my contribution.
Some comment was made previously by members about the Waikato-Tainui settlement and the agreements reached there. People need to remember that the settlement initialled in August 2008 was somewhat different from the settlement re-initialled later with the National Government. I draw the attention of the House to that point only in so far as the statutory management framework over the Waikato River changed. Initially it was envisaged that there would be a number of statutory boards to manage the Waikato River, but with the onset of the National Government’s wanting to streamline processes it basically truncated the statutory management regime. Waikato-Tainui certainly agreed to it but it will, I think, in the review process present some issues that may need to be considered some time down the track, because this is how it affects Ngāti Maniapoto.
The bill that has been presented to the House proposes to put the same statutory regime that covers Waikato and the lower Waipā over the upper Waipā catchment. There is some fertile ground for members, through the select committee process, to question how that, in effect, will impact on decision making between the upper catchment and peculiarities around that with regard to the lower catchment. I certainly will focus my efforts on practical questions about the statutory management of the whole of the Waipā and the interests there.
In setting up the Waikato River Authority, Maniapoto is represented there and it is important to ensure that those iwi who are along the whole of the Waikato River have a say. Certainly there is agreement too that Maniapoto’s interests, as reflected in the Waipā, are very important, because one cannot have a clean Waikato River with a dirty Waipā. So it is absolutely fundamental in terms of the contribution to the larger efforts within the Waikato River that Waipā is a significant, significant factor that can aid or impede this process if all the issues are not dealt with methodically and systematically. I say “impede” because I draw the attention of the House to the issue of the upper catchment and the need to address, quite seriously, a clean-up fund in that area. That is a matter that I am sure the Minister and Maniapoto’s negotiators will continue to bring up, but if we do not address the upper catchment and the issues around how we maintain a clean Waipā throughout the whole of the river system then we are not actually giving this our full attention and the attention it deserves. So that is probably the first issue.
The second issue I want to raise is in regard to some of the practical aspects of co-management agreements. Parekura Horomia pointed to joint management agreements with relevant local authorities. We know that territorial authorities and regional councils are resourced to be able to put together joint management agreements, to be able to draw on technical advice, and to be able to give effect to their part of the picture. But when we are looking at a co-management, co-governance opportunity, not all iwi who want to go down this path are resourced to the same effect, even in terms of human resource, to be able to meet the same time frames as local authorities and things like that. In a very practical sense, again this is an area where it may be worth the select committee asking further questions to ensure that what we think is being achieved, certainly from the Government’s position and the Crown’s position, is being effected. I think that is one area where we can see some of the difficulties.
Also, in terms of giving effect to the Waiwaiā accord, we know that the Government is proposing to merge some of the ministries. The assurance I will be seeking through the select committee process relates to whether it will affect some of those protocols between the Minister, his ministry, and the practical implementation. What we need to ensure, if we are to give full effect to the Waiwaiā accord, is that those high-level agreements are reflected at the regional level with the regional managers of each of those ministries. Those are some of the questions that I will be looking to ask at the select committee to again affirm the commitment of the Crown with regard to this bill.
There are a number of other aspects of the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill that I believe it is important to express in the House. Although we, from a resource management point of view, are quite happy to talk about integrated catchment management and ensuring that that can be given effect to, actually for people who live along the Waipā River this waterway, this river, means so much more. It is really important, in terms of capturing the essence of what this river means, that we are able to achieve that in some small way in contributions of debate in the House. I hope that in the third reading my contribution might do better on that front. I want to acknowledge the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board, the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill team and the negotiators, the staff, their advisers, and kaumātua, who have all been a part of this lengthy process. As observers looking in, we tend to hear the frustrations with Government processes and certainly with ministries, but what I can clearly say and commit to is that this bill sits alongside the greater aim, and that, I say to the Minister, is to ensure that the broader range of Maniapoto claims hopefully can at least be commenced before the election. What we know is that if the true potential of Māori and Maniapoto are to be reached, as was referred to by the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu, then it is absolutely important that the comprehensive claims in Maniapoto are looked at, are sat down with, and negotiated with, to ensure that Maniapoto too can make its contribution to this nation, to the economy, and to the well-being of the people—certainly within the region, and for this country. Nō reira, kia koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.
Tihei mauri ora! Whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura. He tio, he huka, he hauhunga. Ā, tēnā koutou. Ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Ki Papatūānuku kei waho, tēnā koe. Ki ngā mate o tēnei Whare, haere, haere, haere. Ki ngā mate o Ngāti Pāhauwera, ko Tom Gemmell rātou ko Charlie Hirini, ko George Hawkins, haere, haere, haere. Ki ngā rangatira o Ngāti Pāhauwera, tēnā koutou. Ki a Toro Waaka, tēnā koe, Gerald Aranui rātou ko Charles Lambert, Tānia Hodges, Tūreiti Moxon, Sissiel Henderson, Kuki Green, and others who are not here today, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā tāngata o Ngāti Pāhauwera, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Behold the breath of life! Cease the winds from the west; cease the winds from the south. Let the breezes blow over the land; let the breezes blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air, a touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day. Greetings to you collectively. To the House I stand before, greetings to you. To Papatūānuku out there, greetings to you. To the dead from this House, depart, farewell, go. To the dead of Ngāti Pāhauwera, namely Tom Gemmell, Charlie Hirini, George Hawkins, and others, depart, farewell, go. Greetings to the chiefs of Ngāti Pāhauwera. Toro Waaka, greetings to you, and to Gerald Aranui, Charles Lambert, Tānia Hodges, Tūreiti Moxon, Sissiel Henderson, Kuki Green, and others who are not here today, greetings to you collectively. To the people of Ngāti Pāhauwera, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. ]
Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. It is a real privilege to be here today and to speak in the first reading of the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, which is one of Hawke’s Bay’s first major Treaty of Waitangi settlements. It is a real honour to have been able to be present at and to witness the 17 December signing of the agreement up at Mōhaka. It is a real privilege because this is the start of Kahungunu, of Ngāti Pāhauwera, and of the wider iwi taking big steps forward in Hawke’s Bay, becoming part of the powerhouse of the Hawke’s Bay economy, and stepping up and becoming real contributors to the economy. I think it is a fantastic way forward.
As the local MP it is a privilege to be part of these settlements. In the case of Pāhauwera, this is one of the most beautiful places in Aotearoa. The Mōhaka River starts almost up in Georgina te Heuheu’s electorate, at the juncture of the Taharua River, and then flows its way down through the Hawke’s Bay and out to the coastline, past Raupunga, Willow Flat, and a whole lot of settlements down there. One cannot miss it. The big boulders of the Mōhaka River, the beautiful river, the way it flows down to the coast—it really is a rugged, amazing part of New Zealand and one that I am particularly proud to represent and to speak on here today in this settlement.
Ngāti Pāhauwera are a confederation of hapū with historical interests in northern Hawke’s Bay. Their core interests, just so people are aware, stretch from the Ōhinepaka Stream to the Waikato River, down to the Maungaharuru Range, and north towards the Waiau River. It is a big part of Hawke’s Bay.
When we look at the Treaty claim, we see that the history behind Ngāti Pāhauwera in the northern Hawke’s Bay is really interesting. I refer to the issues they have had with land, and the way that they have, over time, been dispossessed of big parts of their whenua. I do not want to get into that today. I am one who, like many Māori in this country, certainly wants to look forward to the settlement of these claims, and put behind us those things that historically have led us to the situation that we face today. For me it is a settlement of past wrongs, allowing us to move forward. I think that that is fantastic.
The redress is significant. There is obviously a Crown apology for Ngāti Pāhauwera. There is cultural redress with the transfer of a range of titles back to Ngāti Pāhauwera, some significant financial redress—a $20 million settlement—significant settlement of land in the Mōhaka area, particularly 13 Crown properties to be vested in Ngāti Pāhauwera, and a range of other opportunities going forward.
It is a great day to be here, and a real privilege. As I said earlier in my speech, it is a real privilege to have witnessed the settlement. In closing this speech I hark back to my whakataukī, where I cited “Whakataka te Hau”. It is something to think back on. That whakataukī talks about a new beginning, a new future, ceasing the winds from the west and the south, and the promise of a glorious new day. I think that is what we are seeing for Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Pāhauwera today. It is a real privilege to be here. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Kia ora.
I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. ACT opposes these bills as they are a radical departure from the principle of one law for all. ACT believes in fair and final settlements for Treaty grievances, which is why in the past we have sent Treaty settlement bills to select committees. However, on this occasion ACT cannot, in good conscience, do the same with these bills.
Let me first outline why ACT will oppose the Waipā River bill. Part 2 of the bill will extend a co-governance framework to parts of the Waikato River, including the Waipā River. Co-governance is an affront to the principle of equality before the law, something that ACT has championed for over a decade. The co-governance framework will provide legal mechanisms in order for Maniapoto to participate in the governance and management of the Waipā River. It will force local authorities to put in place joint management agreements that cover functions of the Resource Management Act. The activities of people who use the Waipā River are currently regulated by elected officials; if people object to the management of the river, they have the simple option of voting the officials out of office. If this bill is passed, users of the river will also be regulated by officials within Maniapoto, officials who are not elected and not accountable to the users of the river. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
The bad news does not end with the Waipā River bill. The Government seems intent—
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I never heard so much trite and boring old sameness—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order. The member will sit down. It is a debatable point.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: The Government seems intent on replicating the undemocratic model of co-governance in its other Treaty settlements. In Minister Finlayson’s own press release that announced the Ngāti Porou deed of settlement last December, he boasted that the settlement would provide “Ngāti Porou with input into the strategic governance of specific conservation sites …”. Clause 46 of the bill forces resource consent authorities to provide Ngāti Porou with a summary of applications for resource consent, in the same way they would have to do for an affected person, as defined under the Resource Management Act.
Instead of consulting only iwi who are actually affected by the Resource Management Act activity, authorities must now give certain iwi special consultation rights over and above the rights afforded to other New Zealanders. There is no way for the Government to deny that this bill forms a co-governance framework. Clauses 23 to 31 provide for—in the Government’s own words—“nga Whakahaere Takirua”, which translates directly as dual authority. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
Of similar concern is the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. The agreement in principle states that cultural redress should include co-management regimes over parts of the Mōhaka, Waikari, and Waihua Rivers. As with the Ngāti Porou agreement, clause 64 of this bill requires local authorities to forward applications for resource consents in each of the three rivers to iwi. Again, instead of having a duty simply to consult all New Zealanders according to the same process, authorities will be forced to consult iwi separately.
The Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust must also be appointed as an advisory committee in relation to the fisheries activities of the Mōhaka River. Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials, they will now be regulated by unelected, unaccountable officials who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. ACT first rose to speak against co-governance—
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The speaker has waxed lyrical about who has been elected and who is unelected, but he has just come through the dire experience of his leader being elected when he was not even in the organisation.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I am on my feet. What is your point of order? That is a debating matter. It is not a point of order.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials, they will now be regulated by unelected, unaccountable officials who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
ACT first rose to speak against co-governance in Treaty legislation when the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill was before the House last year. ACT said then that governance should be the preserve of elected representatives. Iwi representatives are not elected by the general public, nor are they accountable to the public. ACT strongly opposes the recent trends towards co-governance arrangements in Treaty settlements. ACT has always called for fair and final Treaty settlements. If the bills before the House address simply the historical grievances, as past settlements have done, ACT would certainly support them going to a select committee. But we do not, and will not, support Parliament legislating for two standards of citizenship. Treaty settlement legislation should be about righting past wrongs. It should not become a rubber stamp to the carving-up of our nation’s rivers and conservation sites. ACT believes strongly in having one law for all, and we will be voting against these bills.
Let me also go on to record that when I rose to speak on these three bills, I was greeted by a constant barrage of heckling and criticism. But I say to members in this House, and to members in the gallery, that no political party is more dedicated to righting wrongs and solving our social crises than the ACT Party. We have championed the rights of 16 and 17-year-old young Māori people to go out and get an apprenticeship, and to earn $8 or $10 an hour. But when we asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment last week in question time, she could not bring herself to acknowledge that it was better to have a young Māori—
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will hear the member, but if he is trifling with my previous rulings by raising a debating point, I might require the member to leave the Chamber. I do not want these interruptions unless they are bona fide points.
Hon Parekura Horomia: I think there was total irrelevance when he started talking about $8 to $10 per hour. What relevance is that to this bill?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is a debating point.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: I will conclude by saying to members and, particularly, to those in the gallery, that no party in Parliament believes that it would do more with its policies to help young unemployed Māori than the ACT Party.
Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that I have been around just a wee bit longer than that member, but I am pretty sure we are not allowed to bring the gallery into the debate.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): In actual fact members cannot address the gallery. I guess that members can refer, in the context of the bill, to who might be present, but they are not allowed specifically to address people in the gallery. The point is well made, because I think the member was getting pretty close to doing that.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: Let me conclude by saying that the ACT Party, more than any other political party in this Parliament, wants to make a difference, and wants to solve the country’s growing social problems. We had a situation last Thursday when the Minister for Social Development and Employment struggled, absolutely struggled, to stop herself from acknowledging that it is far better to have a young Māori apprentice earning $10 an hour than sitting at home on the unemployment benefit.
Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to see where the relevance of those statements are to the kaupapa before the House right at the moment.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think that various members have talked about the bill as making a way for prosperity for Māoridom, and I think that in the context of that, the member is making some points. I guess that it is up to members to make that judgment, but I think he is in the same sort of territory, albeit a bit looser, that some previous members have been in.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: I speak not just to the members in this House but also to the members of the New Zealand public. My message to the people of New Zealand is that we need to solve our social problems. We do not solve social problems by setting up an arrangement of co-governance; we should look at the issue and address the underlying cause. It is a pity that the Minister for Social Development and Employment could not bring herself to acknowledge that. It took three points of order to get her to acknowledge she would much rather have someone in an apprenticeship than on the unemployment benefit.
I am very proud to be the parliamentary leader of the ACT Party. We oppose these bills but we certainly do not oppose policies that will actually address the underlying causes of problems in New Zealand. Thank you.
Kāti rā, tēnā tātou katoa, kei ngā maunga rangatira, koutou rā kua takahia mai rā te huarahi kia tae mai rā koutou ki roto i te Whare nei; kia tutuki pai ai ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki ō koutou kerēme, ā, me ngā moemoeā ō rātou kua ngaro ā-kanohi atu. Ahakoa tērā, kua tae ā-wairua mai rātou ki waenganui i a koutou, hei āta whakarongo ki ngā tautohetohe kai roto i te Whare i te rangi nei. Nō reirā, hore taea e tēnei ki te whakahua ko wai, ko wai, ko wai kua tae mai, kei mahue ake wētahi ki waho. Nō reira, kei ngā maunga rangatira, ngā wai kua rere mai, kua waipukehia te Whare nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, hara mai, hara mai, hara mai.
[Well then, greetings to us and to all lofty chiefs who walked the path that enabled you to arrive here in this House to ensure that aspects relating to your claims are settled well and that the aspirations of those who are no longer before us are fulfilled. Even though they are no longer here physically, they have arrived spiritually to be amongst you and to listen carefully to the debates in the House today. It is impossible for this one to acknowledge each of you who have arrived here, in case someone is left out. So I say to you, lofty chiefs, the waters that flow towards us have flooded this House. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and welcome, welcome, welcome.]
I acknowledge the presence in the House today of the representatives of Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Pāhaurewa, who have come a great distance not just today but over a number of years to see this important occasion happen in the House today. I certainly acknowledge their presence. I also congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on grouping these bills and bringing them to the House all at one time. It is the first time this initiative has been tried in this House, although many—none on this side of the House—were sceptical about that approach. I think their concerns can be allayed here today. I certainly congratulate the Minister on that initiative. If I have any criticism, it is not of what he has achieved today but of the slow progress he has made in other claims currently before the Crown.
Paul Quinn: What?
Hon MITA RIRINUI: I think the gentleman across the House knows exactly which claim I am talking about. I certainly congratulate the Minister on the initiative.
I think I am one of those in the House who can say I got up close and friendly with the claimants’ negotiators over a period of about 6 years in my time as Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I have heard all the issues.
In particular, I will touch on Ngāti Maniapoto. You see, the previous speakers have touched on a range of issues in all three bills, but for me a particular part of the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill touches a soft spot. It is to do with the main provisions, or the co-governance framework. I know that the previous speaker—the ACT member John Boscawen, who claims to be a champion on Māori issues—has an issue with Māori being involved in co-governance arrangements. Well, the world has changed, I tell Mr Boscawen. He had better get used to it, because from here on Māori will be wanting co-governance arrangements over all of their lands, over all of their estates, over all of their reserves, and particularly over their waterways—their rivers, their tributaries, or the takutai moana around the coastline. This is the way the Government is going. It is following the progress that the previous Government made. I congratulate that side of the House on that.
Co-governance arrangements reflect Māori ownership interests in particular areas. In this case, for Ngāti Maniapoto, it reflects not only their ownership interest but their kaitiakitanga responsibilities over the Waipā River. As one of the earlier speakers, my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, mentioned, this is a continuation of the Waikato-Tainui settlement of the Waikato River. During our negotiation, during our discussions with Maniapoto and with Waikato-Tainui, there was an issue about water quality or the health of the Waikato River. It was the view of many at that time that the Waipā River was a major contributor to the pollution of the Waikato River. I did not get involved in that debate, but certainly science indicated that that was the case. Some of the practices by users along the river contributed to that pollution. I am happy, looking through these co-governance arrangements and what they actually mean, that these problems over time may be alleviated, if not completely eradicated.
I am involved in a particular area where co-governance is a big issue over certain waterways, in particular the Tauranga moana. The reason I was so interested in these arrangements is that they are probably the same sort of arrangement that other iwi are looking towards securing through the settlements process. The framework, in particular, for the Waipā River provides recognition of the specific and enduring relationship of Maniapoto with the Waipā River. That is an important issue: the development of objectives by Maniapoto for the Waipā River. I realise that the ACT member is totally opposed to that, as only elected members should be involved in these types of arrangements. Well, the Maniapoto representatives will be elected members, elected by Maniapoto. I am sure he should have concerns about that, but obviously he does.
It also provides “legislative recognition of the vision and strategy extending over the whole of the Waipa River, including the ability to amend the vision and strategy to achieve the overarching purpose of the deed insofar as the vision and strategy relates to the Upper Waipa River;”. That is an all-encompassing objective, with which I am sure Ngāti Maniapoto, along with other river users, will be able to find solutions as a result of their discussions. It also grants “functions and powers to the Waikato River Authority through legislation in respect of the Upper Waipa River; and clean-up arrangements for the Upper Waipa River … (from its source at Pekepeke Spring to its junction with the Puniu River)”.
Ngāti Maniapoto have a wide-ranging arrangement with the Crown. Those co-management arrangements at the next level down certainly will give all the hapū who have kaitiaki responsibilities over certain parts of the Waikato River the opportunity to ensure that the life-force, or the mauri, of the river is not only restored but maintained for eternity, for future generations to enjoy the benefits of it, as my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia mentioned. The kai in the river, or the aquatic life, is not of the best quality, as we have known in previous years in the Waikato River and its tributaries. But certainly the clean-up programme for the Waipā River that has been agreed to in this case will improve the quality and standard of aquatic life, and also encourage more use of the resource by future generations.
I congratulate the representatives of Ngāti Maniapoto who have come here today basically to observe the first reading of their settlement legislation. I also note that this in no way affects the historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Maniapoto. I am sure the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has already made inroads into ensuring that those discussions follow close behind this settlement legislation. Once again, I remind him that he needs to look seriously at other waterways in close vicinity of the Waikato River and the Waipā in terms of the co-governance arrangements.
Moving on to Ngāti Porou, my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia touched on every possible aspect of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill that he possibly could have. I just make an observation and a comment, having been involved in these negotiations, that this is the most brilliant piece of negotiating I have ever seen. One had to be in the room to actually appreciate it. Something that started from nothing and ended up being greater than everything, all in a few hours by one particular person, needs to be mentioned. All the cynicism relating to Ngāti Porou and the actual extent of their losses faded into insignificance as the negotiations proceeded. I say, although he has already complimented himself, that the former Minister of Māori Affairs played a magnificent role in achieving that outcome.
By the time this legislation passes through the House, the actual quantum figure—the interest on the quantum agreed to by the Crown and Ngāti Porou—will have increased by $12 million. How is that for negotiating? That is brilliant. I congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on the part he played in the negotiations and in bringing the legislation to the House today. I do not see the particular person I was referring to in the House today, but that is OK; we will get around to congratulating him at some stage.
I read in the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill—I know I have very little time left—the historical account of Ngāti Pāhauwera. I have read many historical accounts and it is probably one of the most devastating I have read. The detail is unbelievable. When we see people rising out of the ashes to achieve this, we have to congratulate them all. Tēnā koutou. Ka nui ngā mihi. Kia ora tātou.
[Well done. There is much appreciation, and thank you.]
Te mea tuatahi, ki aku rangatira, ā, tēnā koutou i ō koutou haere mai i tēnei rā, ā, ki te whakarongo i ngā rūpahu, ki ngā āwangawanga, ki ngā kōrero noa iho, nō reirā, anō te mihi, anō te aroha ki a koutou katoa. Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngāti Maniapoto, tēna koutou. Tēnā koutou i ō koutou haere mai.
[Firstly, greetings to you, my chiefs, for coming here today to listen to mistruths, concerns, and idle talk. So acknowledgments and kind regards to you all once again. Greetings to you, Ngāti Pāhauwera and Ngāti Maniapoto. Thank you for coming.]
I will not take long with your issues, because they are straightforward and it behoves the Māori Affairs Committee to get on with the job and make sure that you are all happy with the work we have done. It is with some trepidation—
John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard fewer than 15 minutes ago from the Hon Tau Henare that it is against the rules of the House to address members of the gallery.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I have already ruled on that matter. The member will resume his seat.
Hon TAU HENARE: It just goes to show that the difference between me and that member is that I have respect for this House and I have respect for tikanga and kawa. What that member has is not anywhere near the respect that these people who have come here deserve.
Before I was rudely interrupted, I was going to say that it is with some trepidation that I stand to talk about the Ngāti Porou settlement. Being a son of Ngāpuhi, married to a daughter of Porourangi, and having children and mokopuna who tātai to both, I do not want to offend any of the aforementioned. One thing I will say, and this is for every submitter who will submit to our select committee, is to make it clear that our select committee is not here to work out boundaries or work out whakapapa. That is the job of the experts. That is the job of other people in their daily work. If I have anything meaningful to say to Ngāti Porou, it is this: do not forget those people who have actually put their hands up and said “We don’t agree.” Do not forget them. Do not forget those who fought against the Crown, and people know who I am talking about. Do not forget those who stood up and fought against the Crown but, by virtue of a belief, they were on the losing side. Do not forget them.
Whenever I get to have a wee bit of a holiday in Ngāti Porou territory—
Hon Parekura Horomia: Can’t fish!
Hon TAU HENARE: —I am still looking for that elusive 29-pound snapper—I am reminded of the fact that Ngāti Porou has a huge history and has what I consider to be a place in New Zealand society that warrants people like myself to doff their caps to certain outstanding events in this country’s history. It is with those words that I congratulate the team of Ngāti Porou for not only signing on the dotted line with the last Government but also signing on the dotted line with this Government. I do not think I have ever heard of a Treaty settlement signed by two Governments and having the iwi pretty much happy with their work.
Like I have said in this House time and time again, it is an opportunity for the country to move to a better place when we sign and deal with these issues. I am very proud to be a New Zealander, to be a Māori, and to be of some help in where we are going as a nation. So I do not care whether ACT votes for or against these bills. I do not care whether ACT is here or not. Ngāti Porou does not care whether ACT votes for or against their bill; Ngāti Pāhauwera does not care whether ACT votes for or against their bill; and I am pretty sure Ngāti Maniapoto does not care whether ACT votes for or against their bill. What we do now stands us all in good stead for the future. My hope is that my boy who is at Toihoukura at the moment is looked after by Ngāti Porou—I am sure he is. I have not heard that he is not.
It is interesting to hear some people in the House talk about citizenship and the price of citizenship, which the people of Ngāti Porou know so well. It is funny that in the last couple of days, and in this House not so long ago, Māori have been accused of having a privileged life. Well, if the life that some Māori are living is privileged, then somebody has to go and look in the dictionary again to see what “privilege” really means. There are so many of our people who are still wasting away in prisons, on the dole queues, and here, there, and everywhere, except the real good places.
I can say without trepidation and without too much of a song and dance that if I was to be born again, I would want to be born exactly where I am today. I would want to be who I am—a Māori, and damned proud of it. I am proud that we are doing things like Treaty settlements, acknowledging our past, and trying in some way. It can be through the joint management of a river, instead of throwing up our hands and thinking “Oh my God, the world will end because there is a joint management arrangement between Tainui and the Government, because Ngāti Porou will have a say over the Waiapū, and because Pāhauwera will have a say over the Mōhaka.”, because the ceiling will not fall in. We should not listen to the diatribe that comes out of that member’s mouth and the diatribe that could lead to a worse place for this nation. I wish that ACT would stick with the economy and what it thinks it knows about the economy, rather than the stuff that is citizenship. The people in the gallery and the people here are about citizenship. This is our country—not his, not theirs, but ours. Kia ora.
I join the other speakers in welcoming representatives of the three tribes to this House. Tēnā koutou rau rangatira mā, ngā manuhiri tūārangi, nau mai, haere mai.
[Greetings to you, chiefs of a hundredfold and visitors from afar. Welcome, welcome.]
I think it falls to me, as the final speaker in this debate, to bring together the threads of the presentations we have heard today. I start by joining all the other speakers, including the speaker from ACT, John Boscawen—although I respect his passion, perhaps one day I will be able to help him out on his misguided thoughts; none the less, I respect his passion—in congratulating the three iwi on reaching this stage. This legislation represents the 14th deed of settlement this Government has completed in 2 years. Sadly, I have to point out to my friends on the other side of the House that that is the number of settlements they achieved in 9 years. National has achieved 14 settlements in 2 years. That is a great record, which I am proud of. To a very large degree it is the reason, as I have said on previous occasions, that I stand here. I am here to help move along the Treaty settlement process and to join this Government in endeavouring to finalise and bring to an end the Treaty settlement process by the goal year of 2014. Under the outstanding leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, we are well on the way, without doubt, to achieving that goal.
Comment has also been made about the fact we are dealing with three bills as one in this first reading debate, in terms of the fact they are cognate bills. I assure everyone that that does not mean that one or other of the bills will be treated with any less respect or consideration. Once this first reading is completed, each will take its own wairua into the select committee process. They will each be given full and respectful consideration separately by the Māori Affairs Committee, and when they are reported back to the House, each bill will be dealt with under its own Committee stage and second and third readings. The key issue is to get the process going, to get the process on the way, because for too long—for far too long—the iwi have had to wait to get these processes pushed through. I join with my relation Mita Ririnui in congratulating the Government on this process, because it will enable the recipients of these settlements to get on with life and take hold of it.
In that regard, I reflect on the contribution of Shane Jones, who said it was up to the iwi to take responsibility once the claims have been settled. Comment has been made in respect of the Waikato River and on how that settlement was renegotiated. What my colleague says is true, but only to the extent that it is a workable settlement. In the case of the Waikato River, I think Nanaia Mahuta said that there is no point in fixing the Waikato if we have not fixed the Waipā. That is the very reason that National, on coming into Government, had to go back to the drawing board with that settlement, and with the good grace of Waikato we were able to renegotiate it.
In that respect, I will have a little dig at my friend and colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia. It is with some disappointment that I heard over the weekend that a settlement close to my heart—namely, the Central North Island Iwi Collective adjudication process—has broken down, which is sad, because really there is nowhere to go with it now. If Mr Horomia had accepted the scheme of arrangement I put to him about 5 years ago, he would be the chief by now. But he would not listen to me. I was trying to help him; I was trying to work with him. Anyway, it is with some regret that I hear that the Central North Island Iwi Collective adjudication process is bogged down, with nowhere to go. I am sure that under the guidance of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations we will find a way through. The real point is that in putting these settlements together, we have to find workable solutions.
By way of a couple of closing comments, I have to say that I was surprised at the ACT member’s contribution to the debate. As he noted towards the end, he acknowledged that his leader, Don Brash—who was on TV last week, I think—accepts that Treaty settlements have to be dealt with and that people have to get on with their lives. But I am not quite sure what he will settle with or what he will acknowledge. If, as he says, harm has been done and injustices have been done, then what will he will settle with? I think that ACT members really need to go back.
As I said, I do not want to hold up the process any longer, because it is important that these bills get to the select committee as expeditiously as possible. Again, I thank the Hon Chris Finlayson’s office and his staff for their work in bringing these settlements to the House so that we can get on and settle another three. Thank you.
I move, That the Māori Affairs Committee consider the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 June 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Motion agreed to.
I move, That the Māori Affairs Committee consider the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 August 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Motion agreed to.
I move, That the Māori Affairs Committee consider the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 August 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Motion agreed to.
Waiata
Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3)
Second Reading
🗣️ Spoke in this debate (22)
- Shane Ardern
- John Boscawen
- Steve Chadwick
- Ashraf Choudhary
- Catherine Delahunty
- Hon Christopher Finlayson
- Craig Foss
- Jo Goodhew
- Phil Heatley
- Tau Henare
- Parekura Horomia
- Shane Jones
- Rahui Katene
- Colin King
- Moana Lynore Mackey
- Hon Nanaia Mahuta
- Hon Damien O'Connor
- Paul Quinn
- Mita Ririnui
- Georgina Te Heuheu
- Chris Tremain
- Hon Dame Tariana Turia