Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this
I am pleased to stand and take a brief call on the preamble to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, which provides for the transfer of the fee simple estate of Mauao historic reserve, better known as Mount Maunganui, from the Crown to Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga, representing the Tauranga Moana iwi. The fee simple estate is to be held on trust by the trustees of the Mauao Trust on behalf of those iwi. The bill gives effect to an agreement to introduce vesting legislation in relation to Mauao signed by the Crown and iwi in August 2007. The bill is reasonably straightforward, as would be expected.
Mount Maunganui, or Mauao, is of significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance to Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga. As I say, that is not surprising. The maunga is right there, placed in the middle of their tribal territory—their rohe—and clearly all of their historical and spiritual associations are tied up with that maunga, as no doubt Mita Ririnui would be able to confirm for us if he were to take a call.
I want to comment on just a couple of matters. It is very clear in the preamble that the bill does not form part of any Treaty settlement, and that is interesting in itself. I have seen a note, I think from the Minister’s briefing notes, stating that Mauao was acquired by the Crown in the 1880s and has been administered as a historic reserve since 1981. Of course, we have not been taken into the usual historical elements associated with a Treaty claim, and the information relating to the Crown acquiring Mauao in the 1880s has not been a part of the scrutiny of this bill. But I had a sense from some of the submitters when we were in Tauranga to hear submissions that that particular element, that this maunga had not been made part of their Treaty claims, was the cause of some slight concern—or maybe it was not slight, even. So obviously there is a story behind the acquisition of this maunga back in the 1880s, but that does not form part of the narrative of this bill because there has been an agreement that it is not to form any part of a Treaty settlement. As I say, I think that is a matter of some interest. It may be that when the Tauranga Moana iwi come to finally settle their Treaty claims, we will hear more of the details of the way in which the Crown came into possession of this reserve.
Instead, implicit in the preamble is the notion that the transfer is to enable the building of healthy relationships between the Tauranga Moana iwi and the Crown. That is an interesting concept, as well. We would hope that there is already a relationship between the iwi of that area and the Crown. As all iwi are, these iwi are important in their rohe. One would have hoped there was already a strong enough relationship with the Crown, but this vesting obviously has as its root the notion that the Crown wants to build healthy relationships with the iwi. That is a very fine notion—absolutely—and I hope that it will also be the basis for more energetic activity around the settlement of the iwi’s Treaty claims. To date, even with all the activity that Dr Cullen seems to be energised with, there does not seem to be much progress yet on the Tauranga Moana iwi’s Treaty claim.
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) Link to this
I thank the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for a very positive contribution to the Committee stage debate on the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I think the point that she made is one that needs to be acknowledged much more strongly throughout this entire legislative process, and that is that the Crown set out to establish positive relationships with the iwi of Tauranga. Although the relationship at the time could be considered to have been reasonably positive, this initiative builds on a lot of the initiatives undertaken by the Crown in decades gone by.
As the member said, Mauao te maunga has a very, very strong history in terms of its association with the iwi of Tauranga Moana, they being Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāi Te Rangi, and Ngāti Pūkenga. There also is the historic relationship, which is acknowledged in this legislation, with Waitaha, who are of Te Arawa descent. It is also important for this Parliament to know that Mauao te maunga, or Mauao the mountain, has seen many, many iwi from all of the tribal confederations land on his shores, including Tākitimu, Tainui, Te Arawa, and many others who passed through the region at the time of the great migration.
Mātaatua is, of course, one of those peoples. For the satisfaction of the member who wants Ngāpuhi to be mentioned, I can say that Ngāpuhi did visit Tauranga but not for very long. They were moved on and they headed north. They came from Whakatāne. The first recorded hijacking in the history of Aotearoa was when they hijacked the Mātaatua canoe and took it up to the Hokianga. They did not know how to sail into the harbour, and the canoe sunk. It has been there ever since. One member in this Chamber can confirm that that waka is there, and that member is sitting behind me. The Hon Dover Samuels went down and had a look, and it certainly is there.
So I say that there is a connection between all these tribes and this maunga called Mauao, which has this great history. At one time it sat at the back of the Taumata hills, which is a place where a lot of great mountains stand today. There is a history around that, but I will get on to it tomorrow at the third reading. It is actually quite a good story and it is a positive story.
It is important to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the relationship of the Tauranga Moana iwi to this icon on the landscape of the Tauranga Harbour. After a very long journey and many attempts by the iwi to have the maunga reinstated with them, it finally looks like that will happen—unless someone in this House has the courage to try to stop it, and I would advise against that.
I also acknowledge the contribution made by the local authorities. They are concerned about the ongoing maintenance of the Mauao reserve, and they have very strong management plans in place, in collaboration with local iwi, through the advisory committees, to ensure that the work on Mauao is ongoing, and that whatever cost implications come to hand are dealt with through the council’s annual appropriations. I understand that those figures are quite high. They are beyond the means of the local iwi, but that is something that the iwi and the Tauranga local authorities have come to a decision on.
As I say, the history is very well documented and very strong. It is interesting that annually, on Waitangi Day, 6 February, Tauranga people—not just iwi—climb to the top of this mountain at dawn to celebrate Waitangi Day. In the last 2 years I have seen Bob Clarkson there. I have to give him lessons on how to make an appropriate speech on Waitangi Day, because twice he has got it wrong. Never mind, I am told that he is leaving Parliament—but I do not think it is because of that. However, like everybody else who comes up the maunga, of whatever ethnicity, we are always glad to see him, always glad to have him there. Next time he should come and have breakfast with us, and we will rejoice in the founding of our country. Thank you.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
I want to focus on clause 7, which has been taken out of the bill by the Māori Affairs Committee, and also on substituted clause 8(3). Clause 7, as it was when the bill was introduced, caused quite a deal of excitement in the committee, mainly because the language was inappropriate and badly written. Clause 7 provided that the general law was to continue to apply as if the reserve itself continued to be vested in the Crown. That really was inappropriate, and I considered it almost insulting to the tangata whenua of the district. I am very pleased that clause 8(3) represents a substantial improvement, and I thank my colleagues on the committee for the work they did, because the end product is much better.
Clause 8(3) simply provides that until the reservation of the reserve is revoked—I think under the Reserves Act 1977—the Crown continues to have certain rights and obligations, and that those rights and obligations are akin to those of the holder of a fee simple estate. The very reason why the clause is expressed in that way is that the Crown continues to have obligations in relation to occupational health and safety, building, and rating liability legislation. So the select committee has done an admirable job in focusing on the words and expressing them in a more felicitous manner. As a result, the legislation is much improved.
That kind of diligence and effort, undertaken by the Māori Affairs Committee, can, of course, be contrasted with what happens with regard to much of the other legislation that goes through the system in this place—for example, the Electoral Finance Bill. That bill went through the Justice and Electoral Committee, and the Labour members paid absolutely no attention to the words. As one can see, the net result is legislation where the Labour Party has shot itself in the foot with a howitzer, and that will become very apparent over the next few weeks. It is a recipe for litigation. That is what Labour wanted, and that is what it has got. [Interruption] I hear my friend Mr Woolerton from New Zealand First. Well, he is no babe in the woods, no innocent, either. He is one of the guilty people, because he could have focused on the words, as his friend on the Māori Affairs Committee did. Those members may look, from this angle, to be like peas in a pod, but I can tell the committee they are not. Mr Paraone is a very diligent and hard-working person, who focuses on the words. Although I like Mr Woolerton immensely and think he is a fine chap and a good bloke, the reality of the matter is that last year he did not focus on the words in the Electoral Finance Bill, and he is going to pay the penalty for that.
The only other thing I want to say is that clause 13, “Rule against perpetuities does not apply”, is one that members will be very interested in. The rule against perpetuities often appears in legislation. I had a brief discussion with my friend Mrs te Heuheu, and I think we both agreed that the relevant provision is section 6 of the Perpetuities Act 1964. As I understand it, if a disposition is made, the perpetuity period applicable to the disposition under the rule against perpetuities is to be a period not exceeding 80 years. Of course, what we want here is a disposition that is not affected by the rule against perpetuities, and we therefore have a particular provision that the rule against perpetuities will not apply. That is very interesting, and I am sure Mr Chauvel could lecture the Committee for hours on that particular provision. It is necessary just to tidy up one minor matter.
The rest of Part 2 is consequential on the vesting of the reserve. Some provisions deal with what is to happen if reserve status is revoked, and another provision states that the vesting itself is to have no effect on certain pre-existing rights. Other than that, it is all pretty standard stuff.
I am pleased the select committee did what the Justice and Electoral Committee failed to do with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill—that is, to focus on the words in the bill and tidy them up.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this
I too will take just a brief call on Part 2, and absolutely support everything that my colleague Chris Finlayson has talked about. He is right in saying the main discussions in the Māori Affairs Committee focused on clause 7, which, in the original bill, was the source of great pain to the Tauranga Moana iwi. It is amazing how what appears to be a very simple provision, just a few words, can cause great angst and pain. When the select committee went to Tauranga to hear submissions from the Tauranga Moana iwi that fact was very, very obvious to us. I repeat the words in clause 7, which my colleague stated, and which were taken out of the bill: “For the purposes of any enactment … Mauao historic reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve were still vested in the Crown.” Although clause 5 had stated, quite clearly, that the estate was to be vested in the Mauao Trust, the iwi took great umbrage at this vesting and called it a Clayton’s vesting, because on the one hand the bill stated that the reserve was being vested in the trust, but, on the other hand, it had this phrase—“as if … the reserve were still vested in the Crown.” My colleague Chris Finlayson made reference to the fact that the Māori Affairs Committee worked very diligently to find a set of words that took that pain away. I suppose that in Parliament now and again, fortunately, we get legislation to work on for which politics really do not apply. This bill is an example of such legislation.
Over 30 years of Treaty history and Treaty settlements in this country, a sea change has occurred in the understanding of many New Zealanders about the association of iwi to their maunga, or mountain; their awa, or river; and their sea or lake. Clearly the maunga, in respect of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga Moana, has huge meaning. I am grateful to the member on the other side of the Chamber Mita Ririnui for giving us some of the historical association, which I certainly was not aware of but which I had alluded to in my speech on the preamble. This bill was one of those occasions where all of the members of the select committee, both Government and Opposition, could see that it was possible to have some different wording, while still making sure that the reserve is vested in the iwi but that the obligations that should remain with the Crown and with the Tauranga District Council would be accommodated. So, hopefully, the work that has been done by the committee has resulted in something that those iwi can now accept. Hopefully, they will be present here as the week goes on, when we do the third reading, to support the work that has been done.
As I say, politics in this place are sometimes completely out of place, and to play politics in relation to this bill would have been totally out of place. The members on the Māori Affairs Committee sometimes come to that conclusion a lot faster than those on other select committees. I am very pleased that we were able to make some accommodation to better—[Interruption] Of course, our own member Bob Clarkson was on the committee, and so was Chris Finlayson. As I say, there is a tendency, when it matters—and it matters for Tauranga Moana iwi—that there is a clear responsibility to keep the politics out of the situation. At times like this it is a great pleasure to be on a committee that works in that way.
I just make reference to one of the other things that I think made it sensible to make the changes. When we look at what happened with Bastion Point and Ōkahu Bay for Ngāti Whātua, we see that a form of words and a vesting was found back in the 1990s, whereby the reserve was vested in Ngāti Whātua, and all other things were taken care of in much the same way.
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this
Once again I find myself standing after that member has said everything I wanted to say about the positive aspects of this bill. That is very good, and the unsuccessful interjection by the member for Te Tai Tokerau does not perturb me at all over what I have to say about Part 2 of the bill. But the Hon Georgina te Heuheu did make one very strong and salient point, which was that this transfer of the Mauao historic reserve had been described at one point as a Clayton’s return because of the manner in which the bill was worded at that time.
Of course, we can pin labels on just about everything, but what is important in this case is that Tauranga iwi in 2001 approached the Crown through the Attorney-General, who was then the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and the local list MP, the Hon Margaret Wilson—now the Speaker—requested a serious hearing for the return of the estate to the iwi of Tauranga Moana. Their request did not fall on deaf ears; in fact the Minister at that time summoned officials and instructed them to make this return of the estate happen.
A lot of events followed that instruction until we got to the stage where we were looking at the deed of transfer, and the wording at that time, as described by the previous speaker, offended some of the representatives of Tauranga Moana, and was given the label “Clayton’s return”. We can call it anything we like: we can call it a “Mita Ririnui return”, a “Georgina te Heuheu return”, or a “Bob Clarkson return”. The fact is that the key word is “return”—and that is what the people wanted. But words are important; as Barack Obama would say, words do matter. So there was debate around whether the words were offensive, and by and large a number of people thought they were.
But the changes in the wording basically say the same things as the words that were considered to be offensive were attempting to say. They were attempting to protect the trustees of the Mauao Trust to whom the estate would be invested, and that is important. Maybe some people overlooked that very important fact but it is important to protect trustees, and the Crown was prepared to do that and recommended specific wording to ensure that it was clear that the Crown at the end of the day had the obligation and responsibility as if it were the owner—it did not say it was, it said “as if” it were. So the protections, as far as we were concerned, initially did extend to the point where the Mauao Trust was protected on those particular matters.
But I have to say that to some degree, the select committee in Tauranga was misled. There were statements made that the Crown refused to listen to the concerns and was not prepared to make changes. Crown Law came back with a recommended change, which was put before the iwi in Tauranga and—I need to say this—was unanimously rejected by those who wanted the words changed. The funny thing is that the changes that have now been accepted are not dissimilar to those that were recommended by Crown Law. But that is by the by; that is unimportant. The important thing is that people now feel quite comfortable with the changes and are prepared to support the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill wholeheartedly.
I want to move on to the next point around the acknowledgment of the ancestral associations of Waitaha. From the outset it was assumed—in fact, it was believed—that Waitaha would be included in the certificate of title for Mauao. But considerable debate and considerable resistance developed as a result of that, and Waitaha, being the people they are, looked at the big picture and said it was not about them, it was about the estate, it was about everybody reconnecting with this historical icon, and that the management of the estate going forward was given high priority. So they were prepared to step back from that acknowledgment in terms of being recognised on the certificate of title, as long as their historical association with the estate was acknowledged in the bill—and that has been done.
I am sure that when Waitaha are sitting at the table with the Crown to negotiate the settlement of the historic claims, this particular matter will come up, as it will with all other iwi of Tauranga, because, as the Hon Georgina te Heuheu pointed out earlier on, this is not a Treaty settlement, nor has it an any time been considered to be a Treaty settlement. As she described, this is the Crown building positive relationships with the iwi of Tauranga and transferring the estate back to their ownership in fee simple title, acknowledging that at some time in the future when Tauranga Moana iwi are sufficiently prepared, they will actually deal with the matters around their historical claim, and so will Waitaha. Kia ora.
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) Link to this
When this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill concerning the Mount came up for debate I took a lot of interest in it. I joined the select committee that was dealing with the issue and I took an active interest in making sure we had a lasting agreement. It concerned me—and I spoke out about it—that the original layout of the bill was a bit of a Clayton’s deal. I was most concerned that this bill would be signed into law and then the debate about ownership would start all over again—we discussed that at the select committee—and go on for the next 20 years. I say that if we are going to do these settlements, let us do them in such a way that they last in perpetuity—that is a big word for me. I believe that with small alterations such as the ones the select committee has recommended, we will have a great end result. As I have said, I am happy to have been a part of the select committee and part of getting a good result whereby both the Māori groups and the Government are happy.
This bill protects people’s rights to use the walkways, etc. without cost. I believe I have been part of building a healthy relationship between the Crown, Māori groups, and the public in sorting out this bill. If this was a deal in the public sector I would say we had a willing seller and a willing buyer. Everybody walks away happy. I congratulate the people involved on the select committee, from both sides of the Chamber, and all outside parties. Thank you.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman, tēnā tātou. Āe, engari he hōnore nui tēnei ki te aru i a “Bob the Builder”!
[Greetings, Mr Chairman, and greetings to us all. Yes, it is a great honour indeed to follow “Bob the Builder”!]
I am just acknowledging the privilege I have of following the previous speaker. Given his notice to the general public that he will be turning his back on this place, I want it to be recorded that during his 3 years as the member for Tauranga we can honestly say that he has done something for the people of Tauranga by giving his support to this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I do not want to hear anyone deride the honourable member from Tauranga as not having done anything during his time here. I acknowledge the support that he gave to this bill.
In terms of the previous speaker’s allusion to the omission of clause 7, quite clearly when this matter came to the Māori Affairs Committee the parties involved—particularly the Māori parties—were concerned about the interest that the Crown would still maintain in this reserve should the original wording remain. To the credit of all the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, they heard the submissions made by the submitters and took on board the concerns they had.
I want to signal to any claimant group or any Māori group negotiating with the Crown that if it does not agree with what is being proposed, then I suggest that it does not sign anything until it does agree. In this case the agreement had been signed up to. However, in spite of that, the parties came to the select committee and expressed their disquiet about the agreement. Fortunately, as a result of the collegiality amongst the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, we were able to revisit the very concerns the parties had, and the bill we are discussing at this moment is the result of that agreement.
I also make reference to clause 14, which gives due recognition to Waitaha. We heard during the hearing of submissions a very impassioned plea from representatives of the Waitaha iwi group. In spite of their being the only people in the room who would have liked to see Waitaha get a bigger representation in this bill than they have now, I think it is to their credit that they stood their ground and that they did so without any malice. At the end of the day history will show their descendants that they represented their iwi very well and that they did so without any malice. However, we have to take on board the history of that relationship. We have to take on board the standing of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga in relation to this very sacred reserve. As a consequence of that we have clause 14, which gives due recognition to Waitaha.
I think that this bill is an example of how the members of a select committee, although belonging to different political parties and bringing together different political views, can actually work together and produce a bill that has the support of all of our different political philosophies. I commend my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee who did so. Kia ora.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
Tēnā koe. The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill is significant legislation that transfers ownership of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga. It also recognises the historical connections and ancestral associations of Waitaha. The bill recognises the enormous significance of Mauao to the tangata whenua. It recognises the mana of Mauao, and it raises the profile of Tauranga Moana Māori.
This bill will vest the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust to hold on behalf of Tauranga Moana iwi. The trustees will be the registered proprietors of Mauao, and the Tauranga City Council will continue to administer and manage the Mauao historic reserve in consultation with the iwi, who are represented on its Mauao steering group. The trustees will own Mauao, but the Crown will continue to bear the burden of any legal or financial responsibility. This is currently divulged to the Tauranga City Council under the Reserves Act. Tauranga Moana iwi and Waitaha are represented on the Tauranga City Council’s steering group. Together these measures will ensure that Mauao is returned to the tangata whenua. Mauao will continue to be accessible to all New Zealanders, and it will be protected from commercialisation or alienation.
I commend the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, especially the chairman, Dave Hereora, in relation to the consistency and the dedication that they have shown in bringing cognisance and true recognition to nationhood. At times platitudes were thrown around, but the practices were forthright. The thought that Bob Clarkson will roam up at every Treaty day is certainly something, and it will be a sight to watch alongside Mita Ririnui. The fact that Ngāpuhi came down and went back with the waka is an issue. It is a beacon of history, and it is certainly a point of contact for our people as a nation. I again commend the select committee, the submitters, and all those people who have been involved, especially the iwi. Kia ora tātou.