Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

Basically, the whole purpose of Part 1 is—if I might read out clause 3—“(a) to record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to the Affiliate in the deed of settlement …”. The interesting thing is that the purpose of this bill is to settle a grievance, but what it does not do, as we said in the second reading debate, is take cognisance of the Ngāti Whāoa, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao issues. The major issue that came up in the select committee process was the coupling of iwi and hapū under their own steam. The purpose clause should read that this bill is about Te Arawa and its affiliates, and it should include those issues that were brought up at the select committee. I think that is where we—

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

Let me start again. My humble thanks to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations; the whip put me wrong, but I will not say which one.

It is quite important that this issue is sorted out. I would like to hear the Minister give his dissertation on why we cannot do it. I have heard other speeches made by other members in the House as to why the uncoupling cannot happen. I think Part 1 would be the most appropriate part in which to insert some acknowledgment that there is an issue in terms of why Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao should not be uncoupled. Part 1 is headed “Purpose of Act, acknowledgements and apology, interpretation provisions, settlement of claims, and miscellaneous matters”. There should be some recognition, at least, in Part 1 of the issue, because if there is not, then the issue will keep on going and going, and, whoever is in Government in, say, even 10 years’ time, people from Ngāti Wāhiao, from Ngāti Whāoa, and from Tūhourangi will be back here to try to sort out that issue. I can put a ring round it.

I think it is important to acknowledge that there is an issue. I think it is important to see whether there is a way that we could get through the issue. I would have thought that a Supplementary Order Paper along the lines of the uncoupling of Tūhourangi—[Interruption] I know that the Minister says no, and I know the reasons why. The Minister does not want to create another affiliate and therefore upset the quantum. But if we uncoupled the groups and said that it did not mean that there would be an extra affiliate, and that it would have no effect on the quantum, then we might be able to get round it.

I am interested in what the Minister has to say, and whether we could do it through Part 1, considering that it includes the purpose of the Act.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I am advised that there is actually no practical way of achieving what Mr Henare wants. I think it is very dangerous to legislate on the floor of the House to change negotiated agreements, because it reopens the whole process of negotiation of Treaty settlements. It would be an endless process and quite a dangerous process. I was quite concerned about what happened in the case of Te Rōroa. Although there were some issues there, it seemed to mean that we were getting ourselves into potentially dangerous territory in revisiting details of a grievance by means of the parliamentary process.

This settlement is the clear expression of the process that occurred. Obviously, if at some future point there is a determination by those involved that they wish to separate, that could be relatively easily done within the confines of this legislation. They could separate into two groups within the affiliate structure. The structure is essentially the total settlement; the component parts can be revisited in that regard.

While I am on my feet I will mention again my amendment to clause 12 in relation to Rotorua airport. The amendment is specifically drafted in terms of “To avoid doubt,”. All the legal advice I have is that any claims in relation to the airport are not affected by the bill as originally drafted, anyway, and, indeed, the people from Raumatā Marae themselves are quite satisfied about that. But I am aware that at least two parties in this House do not entirely share that view. Again, I have some reluctance to intervene by way of an amendment on the floor of the House that runs against where the negotiators themselves have got to. The amendment expresses avoidance of doubt, to make it clear, in case anybody has any concerns about this matter, that claims in relation to the approach to, and airspace over, the airport are not included in this settlement. But I would emphasise again that the bill in its current form, before that amendment is passed, does not affect that claim, because the Wai 918 claim does not cover the issue of airspace over, and a flight path to, Rotorua airport.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I guess we can be grateful to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for that explanation. I just hope his not having done something about that issue during the negotiations will not result in problems further down the line. But I certainly appreciate the situation that, a deed having been negotiated, legislators can get themselves into a bit of a pickle trying to do something about it on the floor of the House. I guess that is why the purpose of this bill is so important and is clearly set out. Clause 3 states that the bill gives effect to a deed of settlement that has been negotiated by the Crown and certain representatives of the Te Arawa affiliates. Clause 4 states that the Act binds the Crown. That is a small provision but very important.

Part 1 also sets out the acknowledgments and the apology. Those, too, are extremely important. I have always thought it is important that a claimant iwi that is settling can see in legislation the things that are part of the settlement—the things that the Crown acknowledges date back to when breaches first occurred. Someone mentioned in an earlier speech that these breaches had occurred a long time ago. Yes, they did, but let us not forget that some breaches occurred recently as well—in the 1960s and the 1970s. In this case, some quite significant breaches occurred in respect of Māori Land Court title rearrangement and so on.

Then we come to the apology, which is hugely important. I am sure all members of the House understand by now, after the many apologies given by the Crown in this place, how important an apology is to the claimant group—the iwi or hapū in question. One can never underestimate the power of the Crown apologising to iwi. It is the Crown’s chance on behalf of New Zealanders to say sorry and also to restore to itself some of the honour that it lost when it breached the Treaty—in this case, in relation to the affiliates of Te Arawa.

Then we come to clause 11, which is what my colleague was talking about earlier—the designation of the affiliates and the affiliate ancestors. Given that we had submissions from Ngāti Wāhiao in respect of their designation alongside Tūhourangi as Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and also from Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa about their designation, I wonder whether the Minister might explain why clause 11(1)(a)(vii) reads quite simply and directly “Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao”, and clause 11(1)(a)(viii) states “Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa”. I wonder why that difference is there. Does it mean something? Perhaps Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa—[Interruption] I see that Te Ururoa Flavell is giving me some advice on it, but I think I will get the Minister to enlighten me. The difference seems odd, given that those two designations sit one above the other in the text of the bill. The issue for the iwi involved seems to be the same, yet in the bill they are not described in quite the same way. It is amazing how that little hyphen has really excited my brain as to why that might be.

Lastly, I go to clause 12, which excludes all claims connected with the claims that are being settled here. I guess that, in a sense, although the iwi concerned often find that to be a very hard provision to accept, on the other hand I guess the Crown has to give some certainty to the public at large about what is being settled here.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I will briefly respond to the last part of Georgina te Heuheu’s speech. Of course, full and final settlements can scarcely be full or final if the claims remain active subsequent to the legislation. It is important that the extinguishment occurs at that point. Of course, it is part of the actual deed of settlement that it is accepted that that is going to take place.

On the other matter, I might say as someone who has been around here for a while that I am so pleased when, in the Committee stage, we get back to being able to discuss a hyphen, instead of our simply having a great long second reading speech all over again, which has become the practice. I am advised that, in that particular case, that is how the groups choose to describe themselves. The bill is simply following their self-description in that regard.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Ki te Minita, tēnā koe. I will just say a couple of things, by way of introduction. I have put a paper on the Table with some amendments that basically deal with some of the issues that have been spoken about today.

I will just concentrate in the first part on the issue around Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Mr Pita Paraone explained that at the Māori Affairs Committee hearing we heard that, yes, there is an association, obviously, between Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, and during the select committee process we heard that Ngāti Wāhiao has mana whenua over the particular area of land around the tupuna whare that the Minister has been to. I tell the Minister that I think the issue here is that shortly, in the next day or two, we will be discussing the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, and that the definition that is being sought here—and I have a letter on behalf of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao—may well, I suppose, diminish, or, in fact, take away, what Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao believes are mana whenua rights in the Whakarewarewa Village. It was keen at the select committee to try to clarify the issue of the coupling, or at least the uncoupling, so that when we get to the Whakarewarewa legislation its mana whenua rights within the Whakarewarewa legislation will be protected, and that is why the issue has come almost backwards, if one likes, to this particular bill.

So at the hearing, as Pita Paraone and Tau Henare mentioned, the question was asked of one Rangipuawhe Maika as to whether, as a senior koeke of Tūhourangi, he would be amicable to the notion of the word “and” being inserted between the two tūpuna, Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. At that hearing, as Mr Henare said, there was agreement to that, and he was quite happy with that. Then Rangipuawhe Maika went off, and after a week or so he came back and said that Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa was not agreeable to that. At the heart of the issue is how it is possible for everybody else to make a decision in respect of the mana whenua that Ngāti Wāhiao believes that it may have. How is it possible that Ngāti Wāhiao has mana whenua for the particular lands that it has, yet a bigger group that does not have interests in those lands—except for Tūhourangi, which may well cross over those boundaries—makes a decision on the outcome?

The real fear from the submitters during the select committee process was basically about the loss of Ngāti Wāhiao as a tupuna, and, of course, Wāhiao is a tupuna. So I have put an amendment on the Table in respect of the addition of the word “and” between the two. Obviously we would have to vote on it, but it sets the scene for the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, which is coming up, because mana whenua is a clear issue in that particular bill. There was a real desire on the part of Ngāti Wāhiao to protect its interest. We heard the story, and clearly, yes, Ngāti Wāhiao and Tūhourangi have for all intents and purposes come together over time, but there was no debate, certainly from those who presented to the select committee, over the fact that Ngāti Wāhiao is, in fact, an iwi in its own right, and it wanted to maintain that view.

The second point that I raise is in respect of the issue around Ngāti Whāoa. I do not think it is too much news that Ngāti Whāoa has attempted, over a number of years, to try to find its distinct place, separate from Ngāti Tahu. Now I speak specifically around Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, which is an entity in its own right and has attempted to find its space. It has been through two or three Waitangi Tribunal hearings and ended up in front of Judge Carrie Wainwright to try to facilitate the process. I say to the Minister that we heard at the select committee that from the perspective of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, it did not quite complete the facilitation process needed to allow it to move off in its own way. The fact of the matter is that one of the members of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa advised that he or she would wait until after the bill passed and then decide to separate out.

In representing the interests of the constituents—at least the group called Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa—I was asked to place in front of the Committee an amendment to take out from the bill any reference to Ngāti Whāoa. In doing so, I am representing at least that rūnanga, and, of course, the Committee will make a decision on that amendment. I say to the Minister that I accept there are some complications regarding this matter, but I can say that the issue of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi was definitely placed on the agenda at the select committee process, and we hoped that it would be dealt with. Unfortunately, of course, it came back from Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa and it did not quite pan out, so I am obviously following a duty to place this issue in front of the Committee.

The other issue I raise is in respect of Ngāti Tūkiterangi. Again, I thought this issue had been dealt with relatively easily, because there was a select committee process and an agreement by those concerned and those at the hui that Ngāti Tūkiterangi is a part of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi—it is a hapū. There was an agreement to that effect, and we thought Ngāti Tūkiterangi would take that away. I thought there was a clear agreement—and the Hon Tau Henare is nodding, too—that that could be added to the bill with not too much hassle.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

I will take just a brief call on Part 1. It contains the usual clauses one expects to find in Part 1 of a settlement bill. It sets out the purpose, makes certain acknowledgments, contains the apology, and then has various interpretation and jurisdictional provisions. It may be thought that these are really boilerplate provisions, but those who think that would be wrong, because clauses 7 and 8 are at the heart of the bill. As Mrs te Heuheu mentioned, those clauses are very, very significant. Clause 7 sets out the text of the acknowledgments. I am intrigued that the New Zealand First Party, which earlier this year introduced legislation complaining about principles of the Treaty—

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that it would be very remiss of New Zealand First not to once again make a comment, in respect of treaty settlements, about the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which are articulated in Part 1, and, in particular, in clause 7, “Text of acknowledgements”, and in clause 8(2). I can understand why those references are put there; without reference to the Treaty the whole settlement process could not proceed. But that does not diminish the concern of New Zealand First that those same principles, which are often referred to in legislation, do not have a clear definition set by this House. I know that other members of my caucus have often asked for those principles to be articulated by this House, and we have never received any response.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I want to make it clear to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, that National members will not be supporting any amendments or Supplementary Order Papers to uncouple Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. I understand perfectly well the constraints on the Minister. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill involves a negotiated settlement between the Crown, the Government, and those people, so any change would have to have the acquiescence of both parties. I thought I would make that quite plain. I wanted to raise the specific issue of the coupling of Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. As for the coupling of Ngāti Tāhu and Ngāti Whāoa, I absolutely agree that if that is their decision, it is their ball game. However, I believe there is enough talk around the traps to show that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao will become a problem later on—but that is for the future to decide. I just wanted to make it clear to the Minister that we will not be supporting any amendments about uncoupling.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

Every time the honourable member Pita Paraone feels he has to raise the issue of the principles of the Treaty, I feel bound to take a call to say my piece about them. Although I have said it before, I think it is worth repeating that reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi first appeared in our legislation in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1974, I think—

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to take up too much time, Mr Chairperson, but could you give me some clarification in respect of my amendments to clause 11 being out of order. Is there some rule or explanation in respect of the amendments I placed before the Committee being automatically ruled out of order? Was it solely because they relate to a settlement that has been negotiated? I am seeking some clarification.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I will take a brief call, and it is about clause 21, “Authority to issue, amend, or cancel protocols”. Clause 21(1) states: “Each responsible Minister may—(a) issue a protocol to the trustees in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the deed of settlement;”. My issue is that if we want to find out a wee bit more about the form of a protocol, we have to try to find a copy of the deed of settlement. There is no explanation in the bill of the form of a protocol. I wonder whether Part 2 should have a form—it could even be a schedule to the bill—that sets outs the hows, the whys, and the why-nots of a protocol. My main concern about the protocols is that if somebody picks up the bill, looks at it, and says “OK, what is this protocol business?”, that person then has to try to get a copy of the deed of settlement. I wonder why we cannot have a form as a schedule to the bill.

That is all—a very quick speech.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

Part 3 deals with “Cultural redress properties and other properties”, and that is of course a very important part of a settlement. As all members of the House will understand, as we have been on this Treaty settlement process for a number of years now, iwi like many others have close associations with various landscapes in the area, and Te Arawa no less. I see some very important sites in the bill, and I guess those have all been worked out—obviously they have to be. The Minister might like to take a call and let the listeners know how they were worked out.

For instance, Te Koutu Pa is very ancient in Te Arawa history. Clause 90 states: “(1) The reservation of Te Koutu Pa under the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked. (2) The fee simple estate in Te Koutu Pa vests in the trustees.”, who become the trustees of the settlement itself. Others are listed as I look down clause 88: “(h) site adjacent to Orakei Korako:”, “(j) Te Wairoa:”. They are all important sites and it is clearly important to have them returned as part of this settlement. Clause 96 states: “The site on Horohoro Bluff ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.”, and “(2) The fee simple estate in the site on Horohoro Bluff”—once the law goes through—“vests in the trustees.”, as well.

As I say, it is a very important part of the settlement, and it is very important that Te Arawa is recognised for its ancient history and for its history in the areas that are deemed to be theirs, and that in the modern day there are sites that can be returned to them—properly returned. My colleague, in referring to Part 2 of the bill, also previewed some of the deeds of recognition that give voice to Te Arawa’s association with their land, their landscapes, and their important places. It is quite in order that this settlement follows the way of other settlements and recognises their history, their traditions, and their associations.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

The debate on Part 4 includes schedule 7.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

I will take a brief call on Part 4. I do not intend to say much about Subpart 1, which deals with the “Transfer of commercial redress properties”. These properties are defined by clause 10 as meaning “the licensed land” and “a deferred selection property”. That is all in order and can be supported.

Subpart 2 deals with “Licensed land and MAF forest land”, and a couple of amendments are proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 250. I referred to these in my second reading speech. The first of these, which the National Party supports, is the proposal to include a new clause 130A, so that where land has been transferred, public access will continue. This issue arose a couple of times, both in relation to this bill and the bill we will shortly debate. It simply states that “Clause 6.2 of the Crown forestry licence (which relates to public entry for recreational purposes) continues to apply even though the Crown is no longer the licensor under the licence …”. Clause 130B will be inserted by the same Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that public right of way easements may be granted. There is a reference to various provisions of the Crown Forest Assets Act and there is nothing in there that I need detain the Committee on. We are happy with Subpart 2.

Subpart 3 deals with the “Right of access to protected sites”, which are also defined, and that is all as it should be. The National Party supports those provisions, as well.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

“The Parliament of New Zealand therefore enacts as follows: … This Act is the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2008.” I again impress on people that I have huge difficulty with the coupling of what I think are two different entities—Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhaio. Either one is Te Arawa iwi, or both are Te Arawa iwi, or both are hapū. As far as I am concerned, they are separate entities. Their whakapapa is separate, they live in separate areas, and just because an act of God led to one group moving to live somewhere else does not mean they are one and the same. Although National members did not support the amendments, and I understand clearly the reasons that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations moved them, I think that what we are doing here is an injustice to Ngāti Wāhiao—and I say that with all due respect to Te Arawa.

I must declare a bit of a conflict of interest in terms of my children. Their mother is of Te Arawa descent. I had better declare that conflict quick smart.

This is the first time that I have seen two different entities specifically put together in settlement legislation. We have done the Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau settlement; that group is specific to one area, and does not include the whole of Tūwharetoa. I have never seen a coupling of what I consider to be two different pods of—

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

This is just a short call to follow on from Mr Tau Henare and to say that I agree, in this instance, with his kōrero, which is the reason why we put up the amendment in the first place. I reflect back, firstly, on the note that I have received from Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao. Here we have a legal entity that has been established. It has a track record, and there is a desire on its part to ensure that the issue of mana whenua for Ngāti Wāhiao, not only around this issue but, as I said earlier, around the Whakarewarewa Village issue, is maintained.

No one denies that at home, at home base, there is reference to Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Other members talked about that before—the kapahaka and so on. I have no issue with that. But the real fear that was presented on the part of the submitters to the Māori Affairs Committee was that by coupling them up, the distinct entity called Ngāti Wāhiao would be basically wiped off the earth. That is how Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao viewed the situation. Whether that is true is not for me to say, but in representing the interests of the constituents that I represent, I say it was very clear that Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao felt that this legislation set up the fact that in time the iwi would basically be subsumed by Tūhourangi. The question would be whether it could live with that. I think the best perspective I got on that was that a number of the people who came to the select committee hearing said that their whakapapa is Ngāti Wāhiao tūturu. They said their mother was Ngāti Wāhiao and to all intents and purposes the other side of the bridge, the southern side of the bridge, was Ngāti Wāhiao land.

Mr Henare talked about the eruption of Tarawera and said Ngāti Wāhiao, out of aroha, gave some land interests to Tūhourangi to come and live on. Naturally, in living close to one another, they formed relationships and intermarried, and over time—and I have asked questions about intermarriage of a number of people—yes, there has been intermarriage almost to the point that some say it is the natural kōrero that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are as one. But clearly, when a legal entity tells us straight up and down that it wants to ensure that its interests are protected in light of mana whenua issues, then we have to sit up and take some notice of that. More to the point, that was endorsed by a kaumātua, a senior kaumātua, of Tūhourangi, who said he had no problem with the notion of separating them out, yet lo and behold, as Tau Henare reflected, the pressure has come on regarding the issue of uncoupling.

I also respect the issues the Minister has to face around this issue, but I think it is important to note in Hansard, for the record, that at the heart of this is a serious issue for those associated with Ngāti Wāhiao, and it is not to diminish the relationship with Tūhourangi—not at all. There is, however, a concern to protect Ngāti Wāhiao’s mana whenua interests, particularly—this is what I got—in respect of the Whakerewarewa Village. Why? Because Ngāti Wāhiao has huge mana whenua interests there; it is mana whenua. It is set out in the Māori Land Court records that Ngāti Wāhiao holds mana whenua interests, and, because it has been coupled with Tūhourangi in this bill, it fears that when we get to the next bill—and we have had the signing and a number of statements in respect of that one, and no doubt we will debate this issue again when that bill comes to its first reading in the House—it wants to make its issues really well known and clear.

I just ask the Minister where he goes and what we do as members of Parliament when a legal entity that represents those people, in this case Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao, makes a statement and basically because of the time limits—Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa has been carrying this particular settlement for some 5 or 7 years or so now—it has been caught up in the cogs and left to the side. I hope that we can look at some mechanism that will be able to address this particular issue. I recognise that that will probably not happen, but it is still important to at least look at doing that when the Whakarewarewa Village bill comes up. In fact, there is a desire on the part of those of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao to meet with politicians and put their issues to them—at least to have the opportunity to do that. We cannot do much more than that. I stand to support—in some ways very much—the sentiments expressed by the Hon Tau Henare. I hope that in the future some way may be found of looking at this issue, in particular if there is a legal entity that is willing to put the issues on the floor.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I want to make a very brief call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. Because there is a lot of interest in seeing this bill pass into law before Parliament rises, perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, might indicate when the bill would be endorsed by the Governor-General.

The discussion still centres on the inclusion in the affiliate of tribes that are coupled. Some representatives of those tribes or hapū do not want to be coupled in the way that they are. We have to remember, of course, that although some stand in this Chamber and say that Ngāti Wāhiao do not want to be coupled with Tūhourangi, in reality some of Wāhiao—presumably, a greater number—are already part of the affiliate. Yes, the Māori Affairs Committee heard some very passionate pleas for that uncoupling to take place. Again, those pleas were from only some of the Wāhiao tribe. That does not make the issue any less important, but as my colleague has said and as has been obvious, we have not supported that uncoupling in this place.

It is interesting that, with the long gestation of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, it is a big, big achievement that this settlement has been reached. Hopefully, those in the ascendancy have heard sincerely and genuinely the plea of those who worry that they might be subsumed. I hope they at least try to have some appreciation and understanding of the anxiety, of the fears, that some have that their mana, their standing, might become subsumed. That should not happen. Yes, in the end it is an internal issue for those groups.

Hopefully, this affiliate of Te Arawa iwi and hapū, once the bill passes its third reading and goes into law, will use the settlement in the way that one would expect such an affiliate to use it: as a springboard for moving forward, a springboard for embracing all of those who become part of the settlement—every single person, every hapū, every tribe. The settlement should become a springboard for moving forward, for development, for their tamariki, for their mokopuna. I suppose that if we all keep that in mind, then the promise of the settlement, as signified in the title, will become a reality and something that not only those groups are proud of but, indeed, all New Zealanders embrace because it is a good thing for our country.

I want to go through the groups listed in the meaning of “Affiliate”, in clause 11; it is the embodiment of the bill. They include Ngāti Ngāraranui, including Ngāti Tamahika and Ngāti Tūteaiti; Ngāti Kearoa Ngāti Tuarā; Ngāti Tura - Ngāti Te Ngākau; Ngāti Te Roro o Te Rangi; Ngāti Tūteniu; Ngāti Uenukukōpako; Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao; Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa; Ngāti Pikiao, excluding Ngāti Mākino; Ngāti Rongomai; and Ngāti Tarāwhai. This settlement is a big achievement for those affiliate groups. It is a pleasure for me to stand here tonight at the end of the Committee stage, which is the stage before the third reading. I understand that the third reading will proceed on Thursday.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I will respond briefly to the point raised by the member. It is expected that the bulk of this bill—that is, the parts relating to the great part of the settlement—comes into force on 2 July 2009. It may seem a long way away. The reason is that the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act has to comes into force first, on 1 July. The reason for that time-gap is to allow time for the necessary survey work to be done in relation to the Crown forest lands.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

I am taking just a brief call in regard to the title and the commencement. I believe that the title is an apt one, because it gives due regard to all those hapū and iwi who affiliate to this settlement, irrespective of some of the concerns that some of us have expressed in regard to the names of the respective iwi and hapū who are part of this affiliate, and some concerns expressed by submitters that the names should be separated to give separate identities to those respective iwi. As I have mentioned before in this debate, I do not think it is the responsibility of this House to address an issue that clearly should rightly remain with the people who are affiliates of Te Arawa, whether they be hapū or iwi. I feel very strongly about that, notwithstanding that I do appreciate the concerns that submitters raised.

But I think as we have addressed all the settlements, and in particular this one, we have given due recognition to and acknowledged the leadership that has been exercised by those who have led this process with the Crown. I believe that the issues we have been talking about in regard to separate identities of the separation, or uncoupling—which is the word that is commonly used—of particular iwi, are for the leadership of those respective iwi and hapū to deal with.

To that end, I would like to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we certainly support the title. It is an apt title. It recognises all those iwi and hapū who wish to affiliate to this settlement. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

The Hon Georgina te Heuheu has reminded me of one other thing, and I place it before the Minister. As I understand it, Ngāti Wāhiao is not registered with Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa; Tūhourangi has been registered with Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa; thus the importance, I suppose, of raising this issue. I just raise this, because I understood that Ngāti Wāhiao has been separated out; it has not become an affiliate in its own right because of its desire to stand aside. That was a part of the court cases a couple of years ago. The information that I have received is that up until recently, for all intents and purposes, there was a desire to make sure that Ngāti Wāhiao’s interests were set aside, and they have not been brought into the collective.

That position was emphasised in terms of the vote around the participation in the Whakarewarewa thermal village vesting bill where there were two votes: the first was for Tūhourangi, which was affiliated and had a register, and the second was for Ngāti Wāhiao, which did it by attendance at the marae. That is my understanding of the issue, but I seek clarification from the Minister. It certainly places this issue before the Committee, together with the significance of the Supplementary Order Papers that I have tabled. It is easy enough to say that Ngāti Wāhiao can deal with it at some point in time but if, on the face of it, they are not a part of Te Pūmautanga collective, if you like, except by coupling up in this particular way, then for all intents and purposes I understood they had, shall we say, fought it all the way. I am hoping that the advice given by the officials might give me some clarity around that issue.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I am advised that Te Rūnunga o Ngāti Whāoa has affiliated as a single trust to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. In fact, there may be another body. That is not unusual in these matters, as I am sure the member recognises.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have a question about the ruling out of the amendments, and I thought I would bring it up now. I have looked through the Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders, and if you can point me in the direction of either a Speaker’s ruling or Standing Order that deals with that, then that would help me a lot. I know there is ruling about a financial veto, and that is fine—I know where to find that. But I cannot seem to find the Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that rules out an amendment in a Treaty bill. If the Chairperson could help us out, I would be much obliged.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I think if one looks at clause 3(b) of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, one to some extent finds the answer in there, in that it states the purpose of the legislation is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement. Of course, the Crown and the Te Arawa affiliate are the parties to that deed. The Crown certainly does not support the amendments. If the amendments are moved, that would then render the bill inconsistent with the purpose clause, which in fact has already been passed at this point, since it was included in Part 1. So it seems to me that at this point, apart from anything else, the amendments would be ruled out as being inconsistent with the provisions the Committee has already agreed to.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

So by virtue of that, does that mean we have a new ruling, which will end up in Speakers’ Rulings somewhere so that in future people can refer to that ruling? That is just a question; I am not trying to hold things up.