Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) Link to this

I move, That the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Kei te rere iho a roimata ki te awa o W’anganui, kei te rere iho a wai kamo ki te awa o Waikato. E iri te rau kawakawa, e riri ki w’are aituā. Moe mai rā e kui e, moe mai rā.

[Tears flow down upon the Whanganui River, as they do from the eyes upon the river of Waikato. Hang up the leaves of the kawakawa, hang them upon the house of calamity. Slumber there, ancient one, rest there.]

It is appropriate to acknowledge the passing of Lady Raihā Māhuta, a woman who was such a significant force in the passage of the Waikato River claims. Lady Raihā, the co-negotiator of the claims with Tukoroirangi Morgan, can rest in peace, knowing the significance of the model that they have created will be an enduring legacy. The imprint of this legacy is woven throughout the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, promoting and emphasising the fundamental goal of restoring the health of the Waikato River. As someone from one river tribe to those of another, I want to acknowledge the unique and distinctive role that our awa play in every aspect of our lives. As river people we share a special bond with our awa tupuna, recognising that it is our collective responsibility to protect the mana of the river. The legislation that we debate today reminds us that the health and well-being of the Waikato River is vital for the economic, environmental, tourist, and recreational goals of the Waikato region and, indeed, of Aotearoa.

But other profound associations for Waikato-Tainui with their awa are protected within this bill. The reflections of the kuia Iti Rangihinemutu Rāwiri explain some of these precious connections between the people and their river: “The Waikato River is our tupuna and looks over us throughout our lives. The river feeds us, nurtures us, and takes care of us, healing our hurts and protecting us from harm. The river is our lifeline from which we take our name, our identity and our mana.” In this sense, the Waikato River was always more than simply a water highway, a place to swim, fish, or play in, a site for waka ama, a food basket, a source of kai. The people go to the awa to pray, to be healed, and to be cleansed. The relationship between the people of Waikato-Tainui and the river is one in which the mana, the prestige, and the mauri, the life force, of the two are indivisible. Waikato-Tainui described this relationship in the two key principles of their claim: te mana o te awa, and mana whakahaere.

I set out this broader world view of the Waikato River as a direct challenge to other views that may place our waterways in a singular context of economic utility. Such a focus has seen the health of the river progressively decline, to the distress of the people of Waikato-Tainui. Tangata whenua take up a collective responsibility for the preservation and protection of the taonga and the resources within their tribal boundaries. This is a responsibility they hold seriously: to be tangata tiaki, fully involved in the care and protection of the awa, the river environment, and the people. This bill emphasises the importance of the role of tangata tiaki. The people of Waikato-Tainui promote the concept of a korowai, a protective cloak, laid over te awa tupuna to respect and care for its ongoing health and well-being.

In itself, the legislation formalises the recognition of te mana o te awa, introducing a new regime for the co-governance and co-management of the Waikato and Waipā Rivers that fully involves the iwi. This, in turn, enacts the tribal commitment to mana whakahaere, the exercise of control, access to, and management of, the river and the resources needed to maintain the life force of the river. For Waikato-Tainui, mana whakahaere has long been exercised under the mana of the Kīngitanga, so today we acknowledge Kīngi Tuheitia and Te Whare Kāhui Ariki.

I particularly commend Waikato-Tainui for their forbearance and initiative in being willing to reopen negotiations. Uppermost in the mind of the co-negotiators was how best to restore the health and well-being of the river. For that reason, when the new Government initiated an independent review of the co-management arrangements in the original deed of settlement signed in August 2008, they did so willingly, as part of their commitment to improving the outcomes. The 2008 legislation was deemed to be too cumbersome to become operational, so again I commend all the parties for taking the initiative to go back to the drawing board to find a solution that will work.

Based on that review, Waikato-Tainui renegotiated the co-governance aspects of the settlement, which led to the signing of a new deed of settlement in December 2009. The features of the new arrangements that have been incorporated into the bill are as follows. Governance functions relating to the river are to be consolidated in a single co-governance entity to be known as the Waikato River Authority. This is a considerable improvement on the previous arrangements, which would have led to the establishment of five new entities. The vision and strategy will be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River and will be administered by the Waikato River Authority. The vision and strategy will be described as “Te Ture Whaimana” and will be incorporated directly into the Waikato Regional Policy Statement.

The bill establishes the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust. This is a major investment and a significant environmental initiative. The trust’s contestable fund will be administered by the Waikato River Authority rather than having a separate trustee.

Iwi-appointed commissioners will participate on hearing committees and boards of inquiry in respect of applications for resource consent to take, use, dam, or divert water into the Waikato River, for point-source discharge to the Waikato River, and for activities listed in section 13 of the Resource Management Act if they relate to the Waikato River. Instead of establishing a separate statutory board, the bill now provides for joint management agreements to be established between Waikato-Tainui and the Waikato Regional Council, and between relevant territorial authorities for functions under the Resource Management Act that relate to the Waikato River.

Certain customary activities of Waikato-Tainui are also recognised. These include the use of waka taua, waka kōpapa, and waka tete at tribal events such as the annual Ngāruawāhia Regatta. This is an important new feature and removes an anomaly that meant that members of Waikato-Tainui needed to seek permission to practice fundamental features of their culture and long-held traditions.

Finally, provision is made to vest certain river-related sites of significance in Waikato-Tainui, for Waikato-Tainui to gift lands to the Waikato Regional Council for flood protection purposes, and for Waikato-Tainui to participate in the co-management of Crown-owned river-related lands.

The concepts behind the arrangements that are given effect to in this bill are not new. But for the first time in a Treaty settlement, this bill focuses on giving tangible effect to these concepts. I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its work on the bill to ensure that it gives effect to the new deed of settlement, and for providing submitters with an opportunity to comment on the new provisions. There is no doubt that what has been achieved with this legislation will establish a precedent for other iwi. The co-management arrangements in this bill signify an important development in resource management and decision making. The tribal agreements with a range of ministries and the shared representation at the governance levels usher in a new era in Treaty relationships. Iwi and local authorities will now sit side by side at the top table, working together to care for and protect te mana o te awa. It is with much pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this

He tika hoki i runga i te tū nei, e mihi kau ana ki te Kingi Tūheitia, me tōna ahurea. Ki a rātou e rere atu, e rere atu. Ki a koutou e Tuku, me tō hoa pukumahi a Te Rai, e mihi kau ana. Tēnā koutou. E tika atu te tū nei ki te mihi ake ki te wahine toa a Raihā, e rere atu. Ko tōna kaha rawa ki te tautokotia atu te āhua nei o tōna awa. E mōhio atu tātou mai i te tīmata ko tōna tāne a Kotahi i konei e wero atu ki te Kāwana mō te tino take nei o te awa, mai i te roaroa atu kia tae ki te wiki nei. Nō reira, tēnā anō te mihi ki ngā tokorua nei a Tuku rāua ko Raihā mō tō rātou kaha, me wētahi o rātou ngā kaimahi ā muri a ngā tari e tautokotia atu.

He whakaaro i roto i āku mō te take nei mai rā anō. I tīmata te pakopako o te pū o ngā hōia o te Kāwana i tae atu i Ngāruawāhia, e tuku atu ki a rātou o Tainui tō rātou mahi kino. Mai i tērā wā, e tae atu ki tēnei wā, e kore atu tātou e whakatikatika. Nā te pai o te rangi nei kei te tae tata atu tātou ki te otinga. Nō reira, he tino take tēnei mō ngā kerēme. Ahakoa te nui o ngā kerēme mō ngā wehewehe mahi atu a te Kāwana ki te iwi, tēnei anō wētahi o ngā tino kerēme e mahi atu rātou o Tainui. He tangi mokemoke e kore i konei te wahine rā a Raihā me wētahi o ō tātou wāhine kaiwhakahaere o te motu. Wētahi o ngā wāhine rangatira, kei te mōhiotia e wētahi ō tātou pēnei i a wau, e manaaki atu, e mau atu te āhua o tō hoa. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[It is appropriate that I stand to greet King Tūheitia and his movement, and those who have passed on. I wish to acknowledge Tuku and his hard-working colleague Lady Raihā. It is only right that I acknowledge Lady Raihā, who has passed away, for her efforts in supporting aspects relating to her river. We know that right from the start her husband, Sir Robert Te Kotahi Māhuta, would come here to challenge the Government over the Waikato River. That continued over a very long period of time, to this week. Therefore, I acknowledge Tuku and Lady Raihā for their efforts, as well as departmental officials and staff for their support behind the scenes.

I have a historical perception on this matter. When the land wars broke out, soldiers of the Crown at the outset went to Ngāruawāhia and committed wrongdoings against Tainui. We have refused settlement from that time to the present. The good thing about today is that we are close to it. This settlement is a critical one in the claims process. Even though a large number of claims are about the divisive actions by the Government towards tribes, this claim that Tainui has worked through is one that really stands out. I grieve with sadness that Lady Raihā is not here today, as well as some of our other leading women administrators and leaders of the nation that we and I knew personally. Raihā, we will continue to embrace and uphold all that your late husband strove for. So, greetings to us all .]

I rise today with a lot of pride and humility to support the move towards the passage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations of the day, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and the officials, especially those who have been there for a long, long time. It is certainly right that King Tuheitia and his people have something to celebrate that is real. Just in case I forget, I do want to mention the two recent co-negotiators, Tuku Morgan and Lady Raihā Māhuta, and also the former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Michael Cullen, Mita Ririnui, Shane Jones, and especially myself!

I say, seriously, that it is something to celebrate. It is something that Raihā was dogmatic about—and she was that. The call from her people resounded, as both she and Tuku put it forward, that the river was patu. They had two simple points to make. One was to clean it up so the tamariki and rangatahi of Tainui could swim in it like the old people used to. The other was to ensure that the fish survived, and they could feast on them, like their ancestors used to. The buggery that happened and was enacted on Tainui by the forces of the Government is well-known. That it took place in Ngāruawāhia and stripped them and put them into the ground is something that this bill will certainly put right. The issue in relation to te mana o te awa has always been in both the mind and the heart of the Tainui people, as well as the awa in the sense of the korowai, which they wished to have purveyed. All of those issues relevant to the river need to be recognised and are important.

Manawhakahaere embodies the authority that Waikato-Tainui and other rural tribes have established in respect of the access to, and management of, the Waikato River and its resources in accordance with tikanga, values, and ethics. As my colleagues chortle over here, I want to ensure that it is understood that most of the movement in relation to this settlement was done by the Tainui people.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) Link to this

I too want to begin my contribution on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill by paying my respects to Lady Raihā Māhuta. She was a dedicated and dignified negotiator for Waikato-Tainui. She earned the respect of all those who negotiated with her. Throughout, as Mr Horomia said, she was ably assisted by Tuku Morgan, and I acknowledge his great work. My last meeting with Lady Māhuta occurred a few days before her death. She was desperately ill but made every endeavour to get to that meeting. The Prime Minister was also there. She wanted to attend that meeting because she wanted to discuss the time frame for progressing this bill through its final stages, because of its importance to her and to her iwi.

The river and its catchment play a significant strategic role for New Zealand as a source of energy. It is the location of a very significant primary industry and, of course, of recreational activities. There are very important values and relationships between the river, the people, and its communities, including public and private interests, and these need to be recognised.

It has always been important that the proposed arrangements be effective in achieving positive outcomes and in meeting the purpose of the deed. For that reason, the incoming Government initiated an independent review of the deed of the arrangements in the deed of settlement signed in August 2008 and, based on that review, renegotiated certain aspects of the settlement. This led to the signing of a new deed of settlement in December 2009. In saying that, I too acknowledge the work of the previous administration in negotiating the original deed. I particularly acknowledge the work of my predecessor, Dr Cullen, and the work of Messrs Horomia and Ririnui.

I acknowledge also the willingness of Waikato-Tainui to reopen negotiations. It was a significant step to take, in terms of reopening a deed of settlement, but I believe it has resulted in improvements that will bring about more streamlined arrangements and better outcomes for everyone. It is appropriate to acknowledge the work of the independent review panel, chaired by Mr Evan Williams of Auckland, and the willingness of the iwi along the Waikato River and the Waipā River to support the process. The Waikato Regional Council and other regional authorities have made a significant contribution to ensure we can achieve a sound, economically efficient model for the river. In that regard, the support and close interest shown by the Minister for the Environment has been very helpful indeed. This occasion cannot pass without also acknowledging the work of the Crown’s chief negotiator, Brian Roche, and his team.

Mrs Turia has outlined the features of the new arrangements, which have been incorporated in the bill. There are important policy objectives associated with the framework, and I do not need to dwell on them because she has already spoken to those.

This bill provides effective legal mechanisms for Waikato-Tainui to participate in the governance of the river, reflecting the significance of the river to Waikato-Tainui. The bill streamlines, improves, and coordinates governance and management arrangements for the river to support its strategic importance to New Zealand, and also for the restoration and protection of the health and well-being of the river. Most important, the bill provides clear direction and certainty about co-governance of the river.

Cornerstones for the new arrangements are that governance functions relating to the river will now be consolidated in a single entity to be known as the Waikato River Authority, and the vision and strategy will be the primary direction-setting document for the river. The contestable clean-up trust is a major investment by the Government and a significant environmental initiative. The far-sightedness of Waikato-Tainui in negotiating such a fund, which has long-term benefits for the river, is to be applauded.

This bill will settle a longstanding Treaty grievance and, at the same time, ensure that the ongoing Treaty relationship with Waikato-Tainui is based on sound arrangements with real outcomes. The vision of Sir Robert Māhuta, the determination of Lady Māhuta, and the patience and dedication of so many of the people of Waikato-Tainui have borne fruit, and the outcome is one from which the entire community will benefit.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this

Tēnei e tika ana me whakahoki ngā mihi kua whārikihia nei e koutou kei waenganui i a tātou i tēnei Whare e pā ana ki taku whaea, ā, ki a rātou katoa e huri ki tua o te ārai. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnei anō e mihi atu ki ngā tini mate i whakapau kaha ki ngā mahi hei whakahoki i ō mātou nei whenua i raupatutia, anā, ki te kite i tēnei wāhanga kei waenganui i a tātou i tēnei rangi, te whakahoki o tō tātou nei awa tūpuna a Waikato.

[It is apt that I respond to the tributes that you expressed amongst us in this House, specifically to my mother, and indeed to all those who have passed beyond the veil. A personal greeting to you all. I too acknowledge the many who have died and were involved in this settlement to have our confiscated lands and our ancestral Waikato River returned to us. They worked hard, exhausted themselves, and regretfully did not see the part of the settlement before us today.]

I stand and acknowledge the many tributes that have been put forward in this House, specifically to my mother, and, indeed, to the many people who have passed and have been involved with both the Waikato River settlement and the Waikato raupatu settlement. Many people have exhausted their effort, determination, talent, expertise, and wisdom to see the return of Waikato lands and our awa to our people so that we can look forward and so that there is a future for the next generation.

I acknowledge that this is the second reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, and I want to add a contribution that may be helpful in terms of the debate that is about to take place in the Committee stage that will lead on to the passing of this legislation. I want to acknowledge the key tenets of this settlement. They are mainly to see the health and well-being of the Waikato River restored. Unlike the lands settlement, the major benefactor of this one will be the Waikato River itself. It is a very different kind of mind-set or space to put oneself into when we are talking about the health and well-being of the river, and the challenge over a generation to see it restored to what many of our old people remembered, a clear and pristine state.

Many people in the House may say “Look, this is an unachievable task.”, but back in 1987 when a statement of claim was put forward to the Waitangi Tribunal to say that the Waikato River and those lands that were confiscated from us belong to us and we belong to them, and they will be returned, a lot of people did not believe that. The passage of time has now seen the realisation of that very, very ambitious aspiration and we should really acknowledge that that in itself is a huge, huge milestone.

I acknowledge that the two key elements underpinning this settlement are quite simple: the mana of the awa, and manawhakahaere for the awa. If I can, I will add some clarification for the House, because many interpretations have been put forward. It is my belief that if one were to condense a sense of what mana of the awa is to our people, there would be no straight interpretation, but history will show that Waikato at no point ceded authority over our river to anybody. We still maintain and affirm the strong sense that the mana of the awa is intact and we are merely its caretakers, custodians, or caregivers if one likes, and that that mana has basically transcended everything else over a long period of time.

That is why manawhakahaere becomes so important, because the future will show that our relationship to the river and our ongoing connection to the best interests of, and outcomes for, the river will sustain our people and lead to the well-being not only of the Waikato but also of all those who live in our region. It is about the ongoing care, protection, and management of the river. That is my interpretation of it.

The challenge to negotiate a precedent-setting agreement such as this has not been without sacrifice and struggle. I did say in 1987 when the statement of claim was lodged that nobody believed that it would happen, but it has happened and we recognise that. I acknowledge both the National and Labour Governments, which have played their respective roles in the challenge to see history rectified, to see past wrongs rectified, and to see that justice is served. It is pertinent to note that the signing of the Waikato River settlement on 22 August was a ground-breaking opportunity for the nation. Never before had co-governance or co-management been a concept so willingly accepted by the Crown. In that respect, I pay tribute to Michael Cullen for his leadership, because it took leadership to make something like that happen.

Under the current Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, Waikato-Tainui were asked to participate in an independent review to look at some of the co-management provisions and to see whether they could be streamlined. If there are gains to be made from this example for other river iwi, such as those who have spoken, Waikato would be the first to offer its model as a potential way forward. However, let it not be said that Waikato is imposing this model on any other river iwi. If any gains can be taken from it, so be it, but that is for river iwi themselves when they enter into their negotiations not only to be able to draw the gains, potentially, from this model but also to build on their own aspirations for how they want to see the future well-being and management of their own awa. We are not in a position of telling other iwi what to do, because it is important that each iwi must find a solution that works for them.

Some of the panel’s recommendations led to the establishment of a number of changes that a select committee considered, which is where I want to focus my contribution: on the creation of the Waikato River Authority. There was a lot of debate at a political level about the five statutory boards and whether this was an onerous provision that would lead to a disconnection in relation to an integrated approach to decision making along the river. Time will tell whether the right decision was made, but let us give it a shot. That is the message I want to give in the House today, because it clearly was the message coming back from the tribe and from the many consultations it had. If this is going to be seen as an opportunity to move forward and make better decisions on the river, let us give it a shot, but when it comes time for the review let us look at it in a very serious manner.

I say again that Waikato did not want to be in the position whereby we were saying to every other iwi along the river, when they were making their decisions about the best interests of their parts of the river, what they should be doing. I want that recorded in the House because when the review comes up we may need to relook at this decision at some point in the future.

The other point to be made is the composition of the Waikato River Authority—five Crown members and five members from all the iwi along the river. Again there was a strong go-forward feel from the tribe on this issue, but it should be recorded in the House that the concern was that Waikato did not want to see its interests diluted against the backdrop of the many other iwi, certainly in the upper catchment. I raise that as a potential area that might be considered in a future review.

The other change that resulted from the independent review panel was putting the vision and strategy directly into the regional policy statement rather than setting it at the national policy level. It has been proposed that there are a number of advantages for this being the case and that it is a more direct way of having an influence on the decisions as to what happens in regard to the setting of policy for the Waikato River. However, I raise this point again because if at any time there is a concern from the territorial authorities about the implementation of the regional policy statement or any change in their commitment to reflect at a practical level what is happening within the development of policy, or at an implementation level, then the course of redress for Waikato must be directly with the Crown, not with the territorial authorities. That is a very genuine concern that I raise and I want to ensure that it receives a full and robust debate during the Committee stage.

Mention has been made of the clean-up fund, which is a great opportunity for many people who are committed to participating in the cleaning up of the river, and of the provision of the endowment fund to the Waikato-Tainui Endowed College. We want to see the intellectual wealth of our people focused and harnessed in this area of environmental management, of stewardship, and of having some practical cases being looked at as the best practice in the area of resource management.

Then there are the joint-management agreements. I was absolutely delighted that, albeit on a sad occasion, the first joint-management agreement was signed on 23 March, the day on which my mother passed. She would have liked nothing more than to be there. One thing she did say was “After me, the work continues.” For the Waikato District Council to be able to sign the first joint-management agreement as a clear reflection of its intention to work with us in going forward on the Waikato River I think has been something that we back home have well recognised.

I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee because of the efforts of the select committee. It goes without saying that the committee has to sit through a number of submissions, some of which are very positive and some of which are very negative. Sadly, some of those submissions have come to the fore now and I will spend time in the Committee stage debating that. The select committee should be commended for the work that it did in this area, because it heard a number of submissions and went through all of the issues and presented its findings in what I think is a very good report for the House to consider.

Last of all, I acknowledge the negotiating team—both the Crown negotiators and Tainui negotiators. I think that every tribe that has participated in a negotiation process has realised that nothing worth having comes easy. It is as simple as that. Can I say with the leave of the House that the efforts of the co-negotiators for Tainui, Tuku Morgan and my late mother, have come with huge personal sacrifice, struggle, and a lot of personal criticism directed at them for having the courage to show leadership and say that this can be a better way forward for the future of our kids, our grandkids, and the generations after them. Nō reira, ki a rātou katoa, tātou katoa, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

It is an honour to speak in the second reading debate on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill after Nanaia Mahuta. I acknowledge her contribution.

I begin my contribution to this debate in the way that others have done by acknowledging the special role played by Lady Raihā Māhuta in bringing this matter to this point in the House. It is a proud moment. I also honour the contributions of others who have been involved in that process over many years: Sir Robert Māhuta; Tukoroirangi Morgan, who is a former member of this House; and, indeed, the negotiators on the Government side, from both Labour and National Governments.

I am pleased to take the opportunity to make some comments on the bill and to signal that the Green Party will support its passage into law. We do this not only because supporting settlements is our default position but also because there are some particularly positive and sensible elements in the form of settlement proposed in the bill. The key word in the title of the bill, and the word that provides a context for its provisions, is “Raupatu”—confiscation. The Waikato settlement of 1995 and the Crown apology that formed part of it made clear beyond dispute that the military and legislative actions of the Crown in 1863 that cost Waikato their lives, their land, and their cultural and economic base were illegal and in gross breach of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. A royal commission of inquiry as long ago as 1926 found that the raupatu, the confiscation of Waikato land by the Crown, had been wholly excessive, and that a grave injustice had been done to tangata whenua. Iwi and Māori have been extraordinarily patient for generations in their wait for a fair deal, and equally modest in their demands and expectations in regard to compensation. It is to be hoped that those who accuse Māori of venality, as some farmers have done in the news media today, of having a victim mentality or of demanding special privileges, as we have heard in the House today, will one day read and understand the real history of this and other settlements, and realise how generous Māori have been and continue to be in these processes.

With a few notable exceptions, the co-management model that is found in this bill has not been readily accepted or adopted in many places around New Zealand. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this is a symptom of the Crown and Crown agencies being unwilling to relinquish control over land, water, and other resources. This bill represents a genuine attempt to share power over the river and its present and future management. That is commendable, and we hope it will be followed by a more open and accepting approach to co-management more generally.

Concern has been expressed, notably by Ngāti Korokī Kahukura that their exclusion from the settlement and from representation on the Waikato River Authority will compromise their interest in the river. The reason given for this exclusion from the authority—that a number larger than 10 would be unworkable—is far from persuasive, although I welcomed Nanaia Mahuta’s comments about this matter. The reassurances from the Māori Affairs Committee in respect of this iwi and in respect of similar concerns voiced by others, including Ngāti Te Ata o Waiohua, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Raukawa, and Te Arawa, must be honoured, as any failure to recognise the interests and mana of these tribes would threaten the integrity and success of the whole settlement. Throughout the commentary from the Māori Affairs Committee, there are reassurances that nothing in this bill can or will in any way disadvantage other river iwi who assert rights to some part of the river or of the resources within or around it. It would be appropriate for the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to restate these assurances in the House.

It was with some alarm that we noted that the select committee preferred that the direction-setting document for the authority and its work, which is designated “Te Ture Whaimana”, should not have the status of a national policy statement. But that concern was alleviated when we saw that, rather than being downgraded, the intention was for the document to take precedence over any national policy statement or other Resource Management Act planning document.

We support the establishment of a single governing body with equal representation from iwi and Crown agencies as being in the spirit of the Treaty relationship, and in the sense that a single entity ought to be better able to take an integrated and comprehensive strategic view of management needs and practices.

The proposed clean-up trust, with assured funding to support projects, is a long-overdue initiative. The condition of the Waikato River, as with so many of our rivers and waterways, is nothing short of a national disgrace. The sacrifice of the river water to the combined demands of farming, urban development, excessive extraction, and discharge of waste is a trend that must be stopped and, indeed, reversed, if we are to protect our own future wellbeing, socially, culturally, and economically, and to assure future generations of a useful and usable freshwater resource. Our only concern would be that the funding put aside may not be sufficient for the task. We would also expect that the trustees take a broad view of what constitutes a project to restore the health and the mauri of the water, including, for example, the provision of funds to take legal action against polluters, and to disperse sums to research, develop, and implement and enable changes to land-use practices that over time have contributed to, and will otherwise continue to contribute to, the water’s degradation.

The Green Party welcomes the bill back from the select committee and gives its undertaking to support it.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I rise to oppose the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I oppose it as the Minister of Local Government, I oppose it as the leader of the ACT Party, and I oppose it as a New Zealander. This bill represents a radical departure in terms of the management of natural resources and in terms of local government in New Zealand. I do not think that members appreciate how big the departure is. Indeed, the Government is on record as saying that this is a one-off and that it is unique, but today we heard Minister Turia say, when she began the second reading debate, that it will be the model, the benchmark. We heard the Labour Party say that that was the case, too.

The way we manage natural resources in New Zealand is through private property owners and the Department of Conservation managing the resources that they hold in freehold or as part of the Crown estate. Overlaying that we have regional councils—in this case, the Waikato Regional Council—which are required under the Resource Management Act to take care and to provide the framework within which water, air, land, and other resources are managed to protect the common interests that we have in these resources.

The regional councils have enormous power. In the case of a farmer, for example, a regional council can allow or deny the ability to use a water right. It can set rules for how one can farm one’s land, how much fertilizer one can have on one’s land, and how many stock units one can have. So the power of the regional council over people’s way of life is enormous. That is why we have a process of electing locally, in our regions, representatives to represent us—because if they make decisions we disagree with, we can vote them out.

Someone might be a farmer who is being regulated in a way that that person considers to be unjust, and his or her response to that is the democratic one of agitating politically to get that representative or that council dumped and to have one’s say. That means that regional councils have to have regard for the interests of the people in their community and in their catchment. That is why the Government had to think long and hard when it was confronted with the issue of Environment Canterbury—it had to think long and hard about its responsibilities to the people of Canterbury and about denying them the opportunity to have an election this time around while we sought to sort out the problems caused by the dysfunction of Environment Canterbury.

I remember hearing at length form Labour members opposite about the loss of democracy. Well, here is a question: what about the loss of democracy inherent in this bill? The loss of that democracy is huge. Let me explain. This bill introduces co-governance to New Zealand at the local government level, across an entire catchment, across everyone in it, for the first time ever. We have not had that model before.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I will not go into the platitudes of doing any mihis to anybody, because they have been said by better people than me, so far.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

Ki a koe, Lady Raihā, kia pai te haere. I add to those of speakers before me my tribute to Lady Raihā Māhuta and the inestimable contribution she has made to our arriving at the point we have reached today. With that recognition go my condolences, not only to my loved colleague Nanaia Mahuta but to all her whānau, to those related to Lady Raihā and those who love her. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe, Nanaia.

The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill is very significant legislation, and I am pleased that we have got to its second reading. I will talk briefly about some of its history, but I will also talk, in response to some of the things that the previous two speakers have said, to the consequences of this legislation and its implications for the future. The initial settlement with Waikato-Tainui was signed by Michael Cullen on behalf of the Crown in August 2008. The clean-up of the Waikato River instigated by the deed of settlement is one of the most important environmental undertakings in New Zealand history. The Waikato River is of immense importance to Waikato-Tainui, and as our longest river, running through a region of enormous economic significance, the health and well-being of the Waikato River are an issue of national priority.

I recognise the wairua, the sense of connection, that Tainui have with the river. I recognise the ontology and the world view that give rise to the connection that Waikato-Tainui have with the river. Saying that I recognise that ontology and that world view does not mean that I share that ontology or that world view. I am a Pākehā. I do not—as of right, as of birth, as of upbringing—share that ontology; I have my own. But I will not be offensive as Rodney Hide was and call those spiritual connections hocus-pocus. The fact that I do not share that religious tradition does not mean that I despise it, that I will make fun of it, that I will belittle it, or that I will try to ignore it in legislation. If we are to live together in this country in a peaceful and productive way into the future, then my responsibility as a citizen, let alone as a member of Parliament, is to recognise the values of others, to recognise other world views, to recognise other ontologies, and to respect them. I cannot expect the same to be given to me if I do not give it out.

Therefore I label that comment from Rodney Hide despicable. It is not the kind of comment that will advance progressive and peaceful aspirations of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, whatever ethnicity we derive from. It was an unworthy comment to be heard in this House, and not fitting of somebody who not only sets himself up as a leader of a political party but also holds a ministerial warrant. I lay on the table and place on the record that the view that Rodney Hide articulated is not shared by other Pākehā in this House. It is not worthy of somebody holding his position to be so derogatory about others’ religious traditions and world views.

Moving on from there, I will make a comment that relates not only to what Rodney Hide said but also to what Tau Henare said, and that is that I welcome this new co-management model. The deed of settlement allows for an unprecedented model, for something that has never been tried before. Whether, as Tau Henare said, it becomes a benchmark or model for the future remains to be seen. Quite frankly, it does not matter whether it becomes a model way of doing things for the future; it is unique and it is new. If it paves the way for repetition, then that is fine; I am happy with that. But even if it does not, it has allowed for innovative ways of settling Treaty claims.

At this point I depart from what Tau Henare said. He said he did not see this matter as a Treaty settlement per se. Well, I do. I see this as a settlement of an issue of extreme importance for the country—that is, the cleaning up of the Waikato River—and I see this as an issue that comes out of Treaty partnerships and comes out of resolution of historical grievances that are contained in, and can be resolved through, Treaty matters. This is part of the Treaty partnership, so it must be seen as being part of Treaty settlements per se. The fact that the settlement is innovative and has not been done before must be welcomed by this House, because our approach to Treaty settlements and negotiations must constantly evolve. It must be an evolutionary process and a progressive process. We cannot pretend that the way we did things yesterday will be the way we do things tomorrow. We cannot pretend that the decision we made 140 or 160 years ago cannot be revisited, cannot be expressed in a different way, in the future.

So I want to say that this piece of legislation is how we do things in New Zealand. This legislation, I say to the Government, is not aspirational or non-binding. It is not aspirational or non-binding; it is the way we do things. We do not sign up to declarations because we think they do not mean anything, as this Government has just done on this very day. It has signed up to a declaration only because it is non-binding and aspirational. That is how this Government will try to wriggle off the hook when people from the Māori Party, who are expecting more from that declaration, come to the Government’s door and say that this Government signed up to that declaration.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

I firstly join with other speakers who have extended their good wishes and recognitions to those who have been responsible for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill from the Waikato—particularly Lady Māhuta and Tuku Morgan, but also the others who have been responsible for getting this major milestone before us. It is in fact a new and exciting way forward, both for Waikato iwi and, in my view, for New Zealand. I will also add my support for most of the speeches that have been delivered today, including that of the previous speaker, up until the last 2 minutes of her speech, when she seemed to be joining Rodney Hide’s level of debate—unfortunately.

I will comment on a couple of minor aspects about this bill, and the first is about the vision and the strategy. A number of comments and concerns have been expressed by some parties in relation to the vision and strategy, and the implications of those for the planning process, particularly in the Waikato; I believe that those fears are misplaced. In schedule 2 the bill sets out the vision and strategy, to the extent that the vision statement sets out a goal for the restoration and protection of the health and well-being of the Waikato River. I think that that is laudable, and I do not think that anyone should oppose it, at all. To have a long-term goal of that sort of magnitude, and to have the other sorts of things set out in the vision, creates a sense of combined purpose for all involved to strive for.

The strategy is the process by which one might go about implementing a vision. Again, it does not actually lock in things for ever and a day, which I think is very important to understand and comprehend, because there seems to be a view that the strategy will be locked in, once and for all, and will drive absolutely everything. But that is not the case. It just sets out some guidelines for achieving the vision. Then, over and above that, in schedule 3 there is a process for review and revision. The process has to be agreed on before the strategy and vision can be moved forward, should there be some concern about that review. So that is the first point about the strategy and the vision.

The second aspect is about the change in this particular deed and the bill, as opposed to the 2008 deed and bill, in respect of representation. Under the previous arrangement, or the previous deed, five different statutory bodies were proposed to be set up. So if ever there was going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, in my view it was that. Instead, as part of the process of review that has occurred in terms of the new deed, one of the big changes is that we will go from five different statutory bodies to the one statutory authority that will be responsible, and the Waikato River Authority will be the body servicing the administration and delivering on the strategy. That is a significant and major step forward.

The only other comment I will make is in respect of Mr Hide’s speech. I make no personal comment about my views in respect of democracy. I do not claim to be an expert, but for someone to give me a lecture about local authority democracy and then behave in completely the opposite direction I think is galling—to be kind about it. With those few words, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātou. Ko te kupu tuatahi, me tuku ki te whāea o tēnei hoa o tātou katoa e noho nei i roto i tō tātou Whare, arā a Kahurangi Raihā Māhuta, ko tana kōhine tēnei a Nanaia. He tika tonu me mihi tātou ki ngā wāhine pērā rawa te ikeike i roto i te ao Māori tā te mea, ka paupau haere tēnā rēanga ki te matemate, kātahi tātou ka whakaaro mō ngā tāngata kua riro, nā rātou ngā kaupapa pēnei i poipoi i tō rātou wā, nā rātou i whakapau i tō rātou kaha kia whakapūmautia tētahi kaupapa e pai ai te āta noho o te Pākehā me te Māori i roto i te taiao, i runga i te papa o te whenua. Nā reira kia tau ngā manaakitanga ki roto i tana whānau. Nā reira, e te tuahine tēnā koe. Tātou katoa i roto i tēnei rangi, i te wā i haere atu tō tātou Minita mō ngā Take Māori ki tāwāhi, tāmoko ai, whakatairanga ai i tērā o ngā kirimana e ’hakapāohongia ana e ia, mā te wā e titiro ā tōna wā, ngā kēhua o tēnā kaupapa ka puta. Nā reira, ka nui tēnei kōrero mō tēnei wā ki tō tātou reo Māori. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings once again, to all of us. Firstly, I acknowledge the mother of this colleague of all of us seated about our House: namely, Lady Raihā Māhuta. This is her girl, Nanaia. It is appropriate that we acknowledge women of that stature in Māoridom, because it is not until that generation begin to die and diminish that we ponder the ones we have lost; the ones who nurtured matters like this one, who expended their efforts and time on an enduring policy that will ensure that Pākehā and Māori co-exist harmoniously in the environment and on the land. Blessings upon her family, and to you, sister colleague. So to us all, on the day when our Minister of Māori Affairs departed overseas to sign, promote, and proclaim the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the media, time alone will tell what ghosts will emerge from that document. Enough, for now, in our Māori language, and greetings to us all.]

It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I have attended, in our Māori language, to some ceremonial words that carry the weight of affection that so many of us in this House have, not only for Lady Raihā but for Sir Bob Māhuta who, along with the Hon Matiu Rata, Sir Graham Latimer, and Sir Tīpene O’Regan, in the late 1980s, took up the challenge and in very many important ways changed the course of our socio-political history. When someone of their ilk passes, it brings lustre to us as parliamentarians to note their passing. It is not until decades have passed that we begin to study critically the contribution that different personalities make. Indeed, on that side of the House was Mr Bolger, and on this side of the House were Mr Lange and Mr Palmer, so I think it is a fitting part of a parliamentary speech that we should acknowledge the contribution of those who are no longer with us.

I cannot say the same about the leader of the ACT Party. The ACT Party today has disgraced itself in the very venal and ugly way that its leader, in a fit of desperation, sought to explain the reasons why his party do not like this bill. In a democratic House such as ours we are entitled to bring our differences forward, but for him to demean the plume of Māoridom, the Tainui people, and describe their heritage, their aspirations, as hocus-pocus will come back to haunt that man when he stands for election in 2011.

The fact that he has swept away the elected regional councillors in Canterbury is now a matter of history, but he stands and continually lambastes this bill because it undermines accountability, it undermines transparency, whilst at the same time he has handed over 80 percent of $30 billion of assets to the shadowy stewardship of a group of people who will not be accountable to the public. They will be accountable to these largely unknown, predominantly vague but vigorously profit-driven entities called council-controlled organisations. The gulf of credibility between what he says about this bill and what he is actually doing lays bare his approach to the most sensitive issues confronting us as society.

This bill has legitimacy, and the institution it is creating will be a creature of statute. The statute will enjoy legitimacy because it will command a majority of the support of this House, the highest court in the land and the largest form of public domain institutional expression. To then go on and attack the structure as lacking legitimacy is not only shallow but a very destructive approach to take to these issues. But, as I said, Mr Hide has sown those seeds, venal though they may be, and they will come back to haunt him, without a doubt.

The farming community has raised an area of concern, but the farming community is on shaky ground in relation to water quality. It has asked us, as a society, to buy into its approach that without regulation it is willing to mitigate or diminish the negative effects of farming on the water-based environment, and by and large we have gone along with that. But the most recent report, which caused embarrassment to Fonterra, our largest single commercial entity in the country, shows that any farmer attacking this model because of its focus and accent on cleaning up the Waikato River needs to go back and stick to the udder. The farmers have an enormously long way to go before they can regain credibility, in my view, as stewards of the water-based environment.

It might be said that this bill could be an impost on the farming community. The farming community derived economic benefit from the use of the water—either the ability of the river and the water to absorb the waste that comes off farmland, or the application of water on to their farmland. It is not really a free good, because expenses and costs are associated with the interaction of the commercial activity called farming, and the use of that water resource. I encourage those who have influence over the farming community to advise them that they should get in and support something like this, because it is not designed to strip anyone’s rights. It is actually designed to future-proof the ability of the local community, local firms, and the broader Auckland and Waikato public to enjoy the benefits reflected in the Waikato River.

The law, as a consequence of this bill being passed, will give status to concepts that we are familiar with on the marae, and concepts that may very well test the analytical powers of the Environment Court or other consent agencies. But they are no different from concepts such as intrinsic value. They are no different from expressions such as inherent value. Environmentalism, as reflected in the statute law of New Zealand today, already gives standing to notions of aesthetic value, intrinsic value, and existence value. These are matters that already enjoy standing in the country’s jurisprudence.

The fact that that jurisprudence might one day be augmented as a consequence of introducing notions of kaitiakitanga, mauri, mana awa, and manu whenua ought to scare no one. All it shows is that the cultural mix that the law has to account for is alive and well. That cultural mix is not going to cause, from our perspective of the House, any detrimental impact on the daily lives of the people, other than remind them that as we use resources, future generations are calling on us not to destroy the carrying capacity of the resource to also meet their needs, their interests, and to enable them to live full and meaningful lives by having a rich interaction with the environment.

That is what this bill does, and it does it in such a way that it uplifts a group of New Zealanders, the tangata whenua of Waikato-Tainui, who have been marginalised for so long, as a consequence of colonialism in the 1800s and 1900s, and it gives them a place of status and standing. For it to be described as hocus-pocus or unbearable, or as a burdensome attack on the economy, is short-sighted, and we look forward to supporting this bill. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

I rise in this House to congratulate most of the speakers who have spoken earlier on the words they have said about this legislation, its impact, and what they see as the future of the Waikato region. I pay tribute to Lady Māhuta, and especially to Nanaia, for the very strong advocacy that Lady Māhuta made towards getting a solution; to Tuku Morgan, who was here earlier; to members of the negotiating team, whom we have seen in the building today; and to Brian Roche, who did a great job in negotiating this settlement.

First of all, I acknowledge the previous Labour Government for presenting the first stage of this settlement. We were fortunate to be on the Waikato River at the time when Dr Cullen did that settlement. Basically, that settlement was the impetus for what we see in this legislation now. The goodwill of Tainui shone through in the way that they and other iwi were willing to renegotiate the settlement in order to find a more practical and enduring solution that would actually achieve the goals the settlement sought to achieve. The goodwill that Tainui showed through the last year or so in that negotiation is something that New Zealanders, and Waikato people, should take a lot of inspiration from, because it shows the intent of the parties to work together for the best interests of the river and the region.

We also need to take into account the fact that it is not just Tainui involved in this settlement. Other iwi—Maniapoto, Tūwharetoa, Te Arawa, and Raukawa—will also have a very big interest in the solution proposed in this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, as will the Waikato Regional Council—Environment Waikato—and all the other councils in the area that were also part of this process.

This has the credibility of the Waikato people. It is a democratic process. Those councils have supported these negotiations and they support this result. I like to see this not as a settlement but as an agreement for how we go forward. This shows a new way in which we can deliver a solution for the issues that our region faces. I say that as a Waikato dairy farmer who understands that we need a new approach and that we can work in one body to achieve one result for one river. That is the future of our region.

Going by the comments of some members in this House, those members may not understand the development of the cultural aspect of the Waikato region, the importance that Tainui plays as an economic power base for our region, and the importance of people in that region being able to work together for common solutions. There has been a maturity in that region, which this legislation sets some benchmarks for, and the region, through that maturity, will be able to deliver the results. I think we need to give credit to the people of Tainui and the people of the Waikato region for coming together and being part of this enduring settlement.

We look forward to the results this legislation will have for river quality. It will have some effects. Some step-up in attitudes and approaches will be needed to achieve those effects, but that is life. That will happen anyway, and this is the way to do it. I have full faith in this legislation and in the people involved.

I would also like to congratulate the flexibility of the negotiators in coming to this arrangement. We have some challenges going forward in making that vision a reality, and I think that setting up the first governance board so that we have the right people on it will be a crucial aspect of that. We then have to make sure that there is public awareness and acceptance of this settlement and agreement. It is up to all parties to be part of that process and to encourage people to take on board the opportunity that this legislation gives us to provide that enduring solution.

In the end, I believe that we have here a result where it is possible for all the people of the Waikato to achieve the very serious and strategic goal for our region of increasing the water quality and also the environmental aspects of our region. I thank all those political parties that have supported this legislation—especially Labour, which started the negotiations—Minister Chris Finlayson and the Māori Affairs Committee, who have taken it to the next level in order to provide that solution; and I would like to thank Tainui and all the other iwi for the way in which they have approached the negotiations, in an inspirational way that, I believe, shows that we have a strong future and that we can work together as a region to achieve our goals. Thank you.