Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill

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

I seek leave for all the provisions of the bill to be taken as one question.

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

I am pleased to be here today in this historic debate on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, and I commend and support the Minister regarding the way that he wants to get through this bill. I thought it was nigh on time, in the Committee stage, to mention that I lay claim to supporting and ensuring that this bill got here today in this form. I recognise Michael Cullen and a whole lot of other people who aided in the bill getting here, and I commend the Minister.

Quite clearly, in Part 1 the bill gives effect to the settlement of the raupatu claims under the 2009 deed. I think that the Hon Tau Henare spoke as well as I have ever heard him speak the other day, in the sense of describing where things have got to. Just in case I forget to do so later, I will now mention the Māori Affairs Committee, given that we put it all together. The initial settlement was signed between Waikato-Tainui and Michael Cullen in August 2008. The preliminary provisions are quite clear as to the overarching purpose of the settlement. It is a new way, and certainly all those parts, particularly in relation to establishing the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust, hang on the efforts that were put in by Raihā Māhuta to ensure that people got what was theirs by right: to clean the river, and to recognise that it could supply them in a swimming capacity and with tuna, eels, that grow more healthily. It is to be cleaned up. Recognition of the redress to Waikato-Tainui and of the Kīngitanga accord is something that I think people will look forward to as they go along.

I do not think I would be exaggerating if I said this settlement is an international test, and that is why I have always believed that Māoridom generally, in the sense of sorting things out, are way ahead of people in a whole lot of other countries. Certainly, this is brought to the test in the sense of the guiding principles of interpretation. There has been a fair bit of tension around the vision and the strategy, and those issues were brought forward by people with different world views. We had the sticky Pākehā view and the sticky local view—people who are used to holding power and designating the direction in relation to a settlement like this. The guiding principles are quite clear. It is an agreement that was expressed in the 2009 deed, and it has taken a lot of work and goodwill. I want to mention Tainui, not only as an iwi but also for being responsible for carrying on Kīngitanga for the nation, and for the effort that they have put in on all of the issues that they have been tested by. The interpretation of the authorities and of the Waikato River Authority will take into account all the wishes that the Tainui people have been keen on.

I think that this debate is a great sign from Parliament that all parties—all but one party, that dastardly deed maker over there—are drawing together to get through the Committee stage of this bill and come to a more than amicable agreement. The ACT Party is outrageous. It talks about hocus-pocus, and that is shameful—it really is. That sort of comment is unfit to be put out on something that is dear to people’s hearts. Everybody, including the Minister, has put effort into trying to bring us together. I have heard the leader of the ACT Party preach about nationhood, but what a lot of garbage that is when he starts to mention hocus-pocus. This is a dream. There are issues that are relevant to Tainui’s inherited rights that were tuku-ed by the tūpuna—by their ancestors. Tainui have a right, and it should be affirmed by this Parliament. They do not bother to go overseas and do hocus-pocus, like that leader, in order to get things done there. ACT does that. We have been involved with this development all the way through. The council and local authorities have had challenges, but I am very proud to have been part of this discussion.

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

In speaking to the Committee stage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, I want to reaffirm the positive sign that Labour will continue to support it, and to highlight a number of issues I think should be raised for consideration in the House and be put on the record. In the first instance, it was the Minister’s suggestion to have another look at this legislation. Let it be a salient lesson to everyone in the House how difficult it is for iwi to move forward on Treaty claims. When this settlement was reached with Labour on 22 August 2008, there were clear undertakings agreed to by Waikato-Tainui. Then we had the subsequent election and the consideration of the current Minister of whether this current Government could work through the provisions of that agreement.

When the independent review panel was instituted, with the Minister’s view in mind to look at co-management provisions and the streamlining of those, it took over 12 months to then revisit this settlement. That period of gestation was felt not only with a certain amount of goodwill on the part of Waikato-Tainui but also with a high level of difficulty in terms of trying to get traction and movement in finalising the terms of an agreement that Waikato-Tainui thought had been agreed to.

I raise that with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, because in his attempt to look at a better way of addressing this it left a gestational period that in many respects was a difficult period for Waikato-Tainui. In recognising that, I make the point I raised earlier in the second reading that although the Minister’s attempt to look at streamlining the co-management provisions may have been achieved, I reinforce that it would not be Waikato-Tainui’s view that this settlement is a one-size-fits-all approach. Every iwi that has a river and that wants to go through settlement will come up with various mechanisms that are more workable for it.

I raise that with specific regard to the establishment of the Waikato River Authority. That provision was implemented largely as a result of recommendations of the independent panel, largely to condense the five statutory boards in the original settlement to one river authority. There is some rationale that may lead people to think that having everybody sitting around the same table is a good thing. Certainly Waikato-Tainui have said they will have a look at it and try it out, and that it is a matter that might need to be looked at in the review. I think that it is helpful for all iwi along the Waikato River to be able to sit around the table together and have a say in what is happening in the integrated management of the river. That is a positive move, and greater benefit could be derived from that when we look at the river system as a whole and at what happens on the land and in the waterways.

But I say that if we were to apply the same thinking to, for example, the Waipā River, where there are only a couple of iwi along that catchment, and if we were to transport the other iwi from the Waikato River Authority on to a Waipā River authority, I think there would be some difficulty. I urge the Minister to consider the application of his streamlined provisions in a very pragmatic way that looks at the reality of how river systems operate and where iwi actually reside along a river. It is understandable for Waikato; not so for Waipā. I raise that as an early issue that needs some further clarification in debate and thinking, not for the purposes of this settlement but for the purposes of what the Minister proposes to do, which is implement a streamlined approach for the co-management of waterways.

I also say in relation to the role of the Waikato River Authority that it was with some trepidation amongst Waikato-Tainui that it conceded having only one iwi member alongside the other four members of this authority. Many of those within the iwi felt that their voice and their view in relation to the priorities for managing the catchment from Karapiro down would be lost amongst the voices of other iwi who were in the upper catchment. Obviously there will be offsets between interests in the upper catchment vis-à-vis interests in the lower catchment. But it is worth a go. It is worth a shot. Probably the point to mention now is that if it is worth a shot, then we should have a look at it.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

My understanding is that as we are debating the Committee stage as one question we can start at the beginning and work through. I have read this bill with great interest, including the preamble, which, in my opinion, illustrates a number of things. Firstly, it certainly educates those who do not know anything about the history of confiscation in the Waikato area. It also illustrates the dangers of omission and that the Māori people are willing to play a very, very long game.

I refer specifically to the part of the preamble that sets out a series of what I understand to be correct historical facts about the invasion—and that is what it was—of the Waikato in the early 1860s, allegedly on the grounds that Tainui were rebels, and I will come to that in a moment.

The preamble sets out a couple of major steps: the Crown military forces crossing the Mangatawhiri River in July 1863; the Crown occupying Ngāruawāhia in December 1863; and the confiscation of lands that followed in 1865. The preamble then goes on to say, correctly, that the Crown assumed control of, and exercised jurisdiction of, the river thereafter. But a bit further on—after a couple of recitals that do not say very much—it is very interesting to see these recitals: “(11) In the changing legal and political landscape of New Zealand, Waikato-Tainui have always maintained the importance of their unique relationship with the River, and the need to respect and restore its well-being: (12) Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta, who led the Kiingitanga search for justice from the 1970’s …”, etc.

So we have a little jump there from 1865, when there were widespread confiscations not just in Waikato but elsewhere, to the 1970s. That little section omits some crucial parts of history. It is a myth that used to be long promulgated that Māori grievances about confiscation were dreamt up in the recent century. That is certainly not so. My understanding from a study of history is that there were indeed complaints right from the beginning, and there was an assertion that land—and resources, but particularly land—had been wrongfully confiscated in the 1860s.

In the 1920s—omitted from the preamble here—no doubt at the urging of the Māori leaders of the day, an inquiry called the Sim Commission was set up. In 1928 the commission made a report that was quite startling. It stated: first, that Waikato-Tainui were not rebels; second, that their lands had been wrongfully confiscated from them; and, third, that there should be full and generous compensation forthwith. That report was issued in 1928.

For just under 20 years nothing happened, and, sadly, that has been the history of these disputes in this country. But in the mid-1940s—which, again, has been completely omitted from this potted history—the then matriarch of the Tainui tribe, Princess Te Pūea, when asked to agree to conscription of Māori into the armed forces refused unless the Raupatu confiscation grievance was addressed.

What happened in the 1940s culminated in the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946. It is very interesting that it mentions the Sim Commission of 20 years before in its recommendations. Its title reads as follows: “AN ACT to effect a Final Settlement of certain Claims relating to the Confiscation of Māori Lands in the Waikato District, and to provide for the Control and Administration of the Moneys granted as Compensation.”

The central provision of the Act is remarkable for its day in its clarity and lack of ambiguity. It states in section 3(1): “In settlement of all claims and demands which have heretofore been made, or which might hereafter be made upon His Majesty’s Government in New Zealand in respect of or arising out of the confiscation of lands in the Waikato district (being the areas of land shown … ), there shall be paid to the Tainui Maori Trust Board … the annual sum of five thousand pounds payable on the first day of April in each and every year: Provided that … there shall be paid … without further appropriation … (a) As soon as practicable … the sum of five thousand pounds … and … the annual sum of one thousand pounds,”.

In the early 1990s, when the last settlement was made with Tainui, some people raised the 1946 Act and it was decried for three reasons. Firstly, supposedly, these settlements were for derisory amounts. Well, I have done some research. In 1946, £5,000 was the value of a dairy farm, so today it is $2 million or $3 million. Let us be conservative and say that it is $2 million. So they were not derisory sums at all. The second reason was that, supposedly, it was negotiated with the wrong people. Well, I have read the account by Michael King of the final settlement between Princess Te Pūea and her lead advisers and Peter Fraser himself, the Prime Minister of the day.

I will paraphrase, not quote directly, the crucial chapter, which says something like this: when Te Pūea heard Fraser’s offer of £5,000 per year, she was so surprised that she urged X to his feet to accept before Fraser could change his mind.” I am confident that that is a very accurate paraphrase. Where did I get that? As I have said, it is from Michael King’s Te Puea: A Life. Who pointed me in that direction? I will tell members: the then lawyer for Tainui. I said that I wanted to get some balance on what was being argued at the time. She told me to go and get that book and read it. She said it is the best account there is. After I did so I thought that she could not have remembered what was in it, because it was quite clear that the deal was settled back then.

The third ground is that that supposedly derisory amount of $3 million a year was eroded by inflation. Certainly it was, but everyone was affected by inflation in the years from 1946 to 1990. If one retired in 1970 on a handsome pension of $65 per week, by 1975 one would be in major trouble because of 5 years of 18-percent inflation. Inflation affected everyone. It has become a bit of an old cliché. I sold my first house for $18,000. It was sold the other day for $360,000. I am not entitled to go and get back that money.

I come back to the bill. There is talk that in the 1990 settlement the river was reserved. Well, I read the 1946 Act word for word this morning, very carefully. There is absolutely no mention of the river, at all. I will not repeat that section, but it was a full and final settlement of grievances. The claim in this bill that we are talking about today is that back in the 1990s the river was reserved. It probably was, because it is a very long game. That is why this “DRIP”—the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—has been sanguinely declared on this side of the House to be meaningless and of no effect; we do not have to worry about it. They said similar things in the 1980s.

The illustrious former Prime Minister and premier lawyer of the country, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, said at the time that section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act was meaningless window dressing. Sir Roger Douglas was in Cabinet at the time. It was meaningless window dressing to keep the Māoris happy and it will not have any effect—that is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said. Yet 25 years later we are still debating and still having court cases about what that means. That led directly to the principles of the Treaty, which was dreamed up across the road by the late Sir Robin Cooke and others on the bench. They said: “Well, Parliament must have meant something; it cannot have meant nothing. They have not said what the principles are so we will make some up.” That is effectively what they did.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I was going to wait until the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mr Finlayson, spoke on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, but I though that I might as well get in while the going was good. A while back—a long time ago—my nana used to say to me that when I was perturbed at somebody saying something, I should just ignore that person. I will just stay on Part 1 of this bill. It sets out what this bill does in a way that nobody could misunderstand if he or she were to read it. It is about the restoration and protection of not only a body of water but also, I think, a people’s relationship with that body of water. It is not just about protection and restoration today; it is about it being restored and protected for the sake of generations to come.

Part 1 gives effect to a deed of settlement that has, in fact, been signed twice: not only by Michael Cullen but also by our side of the House. It essentially recognises the significance of both the role that the river plays for the iwi and the effect that the iwi has on the river. If I can be so bold as to do this, I will tell the people who stand up and say this legislation is not democratic that democracy is not about only the principle of one vote. Democracy is about participation. Democracy is about getting on and coming to the right decisions. It is not how we come to those decisions but actually getting there that is important. I think that what we see in front of us is all about participatory democracy rather than the one person, one vote, old-hat stuff that a lot of people pull out of their bag when they argue a point.

I will finish on this note. I am no scholar of history, but I believe—and I can be corrected if I am wrong—that the people in Tainui who refused to be conscripted were interred at Narrow Neck between 1914 and 1918, not in the 1940s as Mr Garrett has said. In the 1940s Tainui made up some of the very strong members of the Māori Battalion. It was from 1914 to 1918 that the Government conscripted members of the Tainui iwi, and it was because of raupatu that Te Pūea said they would not fight on behalf of the Crown. I say that just to correct something that Mr Garrett said. [Interruption] Oh, now he agrees with me—now he agrees with me. I think the great thing about this place is that one can go back, read one’s Hansard, and then come back into the Chamber to apologise. But that is OK.

One of the terrible parts of our history was the flu epidemic in 1918. My own great-grandmother died in the flu epidemic. It had an effect on the people who lived along the river. To my amazement even today, when I look back on it and at what Te Pūea did, I see that the epidemic’s effect on the people was devastating—it was absolutely devastating.

All that I will say is that this bill is a new era in co-management: a new era in trying to work together for a common purpose. This legislation is not about someone saying he or she has $200 million in a pocket; this is about the Crown, iwi, and local authorities trying to get together in order to clean up a waterway. It is a significant waterway, not only to folks in Auckland who get their water from it but also spiritually to the people who live along, and whakapapa to, the river.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) Link to this

I thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for seeking leave of the Committee for the provisions of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill to be heard as one question. I think it would be very difficult to focus on various parts of the bill without going beyond those parts and talking about other issues that are important to the whole process of treaty settlement.

I listened very carefully to Mr Garrett’s contribution. I think he is somewhat confused about what we are talking about this evening. The Waikato raupatu settlement was about land—it was about land. Mr Garrett also failed to acknowledge that, regardless of what happened prior to 1995, the Crown acknowledged that Waikato-Tainui had been dealt with unfairly and that there were good reasons to revisit and settle all land confiscation matters pertaining to Waikato-Tainui.

That was about compensation. This Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill is about reinstatement—the reinstatement of a number of things. It is about the reinstatement of the health of the Waikato River, which is important to all the people of Waikato, and it is also about the reinstatement of a longstanding relationship. Like David Garrett said, this is a longstanding issue. Members would have heard it said in this Chamber on many occasions: “Waikato taniwha rau, he piko, he taniwha, he piko, he taniwha.”

[Waikato of a hundred chiefs, at every bend of the river is a chief.]

In other words, for all the tribes of the Waikato River, wherever there is a bend there is also a rangatira of Waikato-Tainui. Through the actions of the Crown, the particular relationship that those iwi had with each other and with their ancestral awa was broken. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister in the chair, acknowledged the importance of that relationship during the second reading of this bill.

To return to what David Garrett said about time lapses from 1865 onward, and about things that were mentioned and were not mentioned, I am reminded of the statement made by Sir Robert Te Kotahi Māhuta in 1975, when he said: “Nō tātou te awa, nō te awa tātou. E kore e taea te wehe, te iwi o Waikato me te awa. He taonga tuku iho nā ngā tūpuna. E whakapono ana mātou—”

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

I will take just a short call on behalf of the Greens, primarily to simply affirm our continued support for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. We believe that the bill is a step towards both restoring the mana of the affected iwi and hapū and acknowledging what was taken away from them, and going some way towards restoring what was taken away. It might also lead to some very positive environmental and social outcomes, which will be very positive—and far from incidental—but additional benefits from this sort of settlement bill.

I preface my comments by echoing my colleague who spoke when this bill was last debated in the Chamber in regretting the recent loss of Lady Māhuta, who did an extraordinary amount of work for her iwi and, indeed, for the entire country, specifically in advancing causes like the restoration of the management of the Waikato to its rightful owners.

As a default position we support these settlement bills. It is timely to recall that the delay in bringing them to fruition has been a characteristic of the process over many years, and we have seen too many generations of elders of all iwi fail to see the beneficial outcomes of many of these claims. We urge this and indeed every Government to adequately or even generously support, resource, and facilitate the conclusion of many of the outstanding settlements, all of which have a common aim of settling claims in a proper, fair, and sustainable manner.

We heard in an earlier discussion this afternoon, and it has been stated many times, that New Zealand’s natural environment is in a very poor state—an indefensibly poor state—and our economic, cultural, and social well-being, and indeed our lifestyles, are threatened by the degradation. The proposed clean-up trust that this bill establishes is, to some extent, a novel initiative. It is also a long overdue initiative. The Waikato, along with many of our rivers, is in an appalling condition. It is little short of a national disgrace. The sacrifice of the river—the quality of the river water—to the combined demands of farming, urban development, waste discharge, and excessive extraction needs to be stopped and, indeed, reversed. We see this settlement and the various agencies and practices it will establish as a very positive step towards doing that.

The co-management model that this bill proposes is not common in New Zealand; it is much more common overseas. I think it is useful for people to understand that co-management means much more than simply having two parties with an opinion, with an ability to influence outcomes. Co-management is quite a sophisticated structure in terms of land and, indeed, water management. It is an adaptive approach, which is to say that one learns by doing. It is adaptive in that one effects changes, one looks at the responses, both environmentally and socially, to those changes, and one continues to adapt to the real outcomes. It is not a theoretical approach; it is a very hands-on, grounded approach at the operational level, and that is one of the powers of a co-management approach.

It acknowledges the value of the scientific input of Western science, if you like, but also acknowledges indigenous knowledge. It has had significant success internationally in incorporating the best of what we call hard, or Western, science and indigenous knowledge that has accumulated over many generations—indeed, over centuries. It allows for putting a scientific assessment of water quality alongside a tool like a cultural health index, which informs people in a very rich and positive way about the well-being of that environment in cultural terms, and it puts things in a framework that both sides of a co-management arrangement can actually accept, deal with, and move on with.

Co-management works only with a very high and sustained level of stakeholder engagement. It will fail to the extent that all stakeholders are not engaged and do not feel that they are participating, and we hope that that will lay to rest some of the expressed opposition and some of the concerns of some of the opponents of this bill, who continue to fear that engagement will be taken away from them.

Finally, a co-management approach always obliges practitioners to look at the detail and also to keep coming out and looking at the bigger picture. One does not get lost in the small detail, and one does not get lost in what is happening on one site; one is obliged always to come out and have that wider look to take in that wider concern. So we actively and positively support the notion of co-management. Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

It is indeed a privilege to be able to speak to this bill during the Committee stage. I will comment on just a couple of points. The first is the fact that there have been some comments about the delay in bringing this before the House. I think it is appropriate to record that at the time this was brought before the first select committee, when I joined, five administrative bodies were involved in the framework in administering this river through the settlement process. I recall, without wanting to drop officials in it, turning to the officials and asking them whether they really and truly believed, and could look me in the eye and say, that creating a multitude of five bodies was an appropriate and successful way to administer the river. The simple answer is that it was not, and the Minister showed the leadership, along with the leadership of the tribe—and in that respect I acknowledge Tuku Morgan, who is here with us today—to provide a more streamlined administrative process in creating the river authority that we now have before us.

That leads me to the second point that I will address, which is that some concern has been expressed—in fact, I saw a press release today from Federated Farmers around the fact that this bill was going through and their objections to it, etc. A lot of that concern is around the vision and the strategy, how it takes precedence over this and drives that, and so on and so forth. I think it is misplaced concern, because in the first instance the vision is, if you like, a dream that Waikato-Tainui, the Government, and local government have for the future of this river. Those broad statements of what people are looking for are set out in schedule 2; I think it is worth just touching on some of those. They are not, in my view, offensive; they are not going to drive people to the ends of the earth.

What is wrong with talking about, for instance, “the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River:”? This is, after all, what we all want in the environment. What about “the restoration and protection of the relationships of Waikato-Tainui with the Waikato River, including their economic, social, cultural, and spiritual relationships:”? These are visions, and it will be the job of the management to set out a process that over the long term will achieve the vision and the strategy. A further schedule, I think schedule 3, provides for this vision and strategy to be reviewed with the agreement of the authority. Again we need to record that the authority is made up of five Māori representatives and five Government appointees, with one of each co-chairing, so it will be a process of consensus. The whole way that it has been constructed, and the way in which Waikato-Tainui and the Crown have entered into these arrangements, is about building a relationship, building consensus, and achieving a great goal for this area of the country.

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

Without putting too fine a point on the issue of the Waikato River Authority moving away from the five statutory boards model, it needs to be noted that there were extensive consultations with a number of iwi along the river with regard to what would be the best management approach for the Waikato River. The statutory board model presented at the time was based, in fact, upon a lot of the feedback from those consultations and from those iwi. Notwithstanding that, it is important to again recognise that the co-management framework really applies from the Karapiro down, and that there are distinct variances or differences between the concerns and priorities of the upper catchment of the Waikato and those of the lower catchment. But everyone—each iwi along the whole of the river—recognises that if we are going to do it well, we all need to be involved in it. So I put on the record that that statutory board model actually recognised some of the peculiarities of iwi relationships, and, I guess, Waikato not wanting to impose something for upper catchment iwi that may not reconcile with their priorities and their imperatives.

I also relate some comment to the member for ACT. People should not be discouraged by the views presented by ACT on this issue. ACT voted for the first reading, but then it saw that it could not digest the progress of this settlement, and it has since said that it is not going to support it. But on the points of history, none the less I am so pleased that Mr Garrett has taken up the challenge of learning some of New Zealand’s Māori history.

In terms of its Treaty settlement history, as it relates to Waikato-Tainui, that contribution needs to be considered quite strongly alongside another discourse—that is, that this settlement is preceded by the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act. In that Act is contained an extensive history, which details references to the Sim Commission. That point needs to be made, because there was no intention, at all, by simplifying, if you like, a preamble in the river settlement, to get away from the facts. The facts remain that Sim Commission clearly recognised the injustices of raupatu that affected Waikato-Tainui, and that the raupatu was illegal and unjust. That was clearly stated, with reference to the raupatu settlement. The history, I think, and the context for why this settlement is constructed in the way it is, is clearly cross-referenced to the previous settlement that was reached in 1995.

Mr Garrett went on to recognise the role of Princess Te Pūea. One of the things that had been very clear in the Kīngitanga experience was the fact that political relationships and alliances had had their time, and their place and purpose, and had achieved outcomes along the way. Indeed, it was as a result of some very strong political alliances that in the time between Te Pūea and Ngata, and various politicians of the day, much progress was made—that concerning development of lands, and the like. But I say to Mr Garrett that he forgets that in terms of Treaty settlement history it was not until 1975, when a Labour Government established the Waitangi Tribunal where claims could be heard, that we started to have the ability for these types of issues and claims to be aired in the public light.

We were failed by history; many iwi will tell that story. In 1985, when again a Labour Government made those claims retrospective, claims like this were coming to the fore. I made the point in my second reading speech that it was not until 1987 when my father, the Tainui Māori Trust Board, and Ngā Marae Tōpu lodged the statement of claim for the Waikato River, that this type of historical breach could be aired and given its true place in history to be rectified. And that is being done today. This is a dynamic and evolving opportunity not only for Waikato-Tainui but for the nation to say that we want to go in a different way when it comes to looking at the resource management of our taonga, our waterways. We are not afraid to be able to present that, with all its challenges, in this settlement, and to bring it to the House. I indeed support the intent and the overall aspiration of what is contained in this settlement.

There was a comment, and a very good comment, made by the Greens, with regard to a co-management model being adaptive and informed by evidence. I am very pleased that throughout the course of continuing to negotiate the finer points of this settlement, a scoping study has been undertaken to look at what would be some of the priority projects, if you like, to take place, in order to help to improve the health and well-being of the river.

The proof of the pudding, I agree, is in the eating. It is in the practical implementation of co-management agreements and protocols, which, at the coalface, will see riparian planting along our waterways. Farmers will be obligated to fence off waterways, and plant. We will see our local people employed through opportunities that will continue to lift the well-being of their local streams and tributaries into the river. That is where the proof of the pudding of this co-management model will be and should be. But I reiterate that the opportunity through the clean-up fund to have a contestable fund, which will be accessible by all peoples and many communities, to show their effort along the waterway is, I think, an exciting thing. It will build bridges rather than divide communities. It should incentivise people to look at the health and well-being of our waterways and to say “We want to continue to work to improve their health so that we can all benefit from that.”

Paul Quinn said that Federated Farmers’ objections should be noted, and I note them, too. But my response, and that of many communities where those similar types of objections have come up, is that at the end of the day Federated Farmers wants certainty in whom it is dealing with, in regard to the river. All I can say on that front is that this legislation will provide certainty. It is just that the landscape has changed, and that that organisation is looking at different faces on the other side of the table. So it should be; it is a sign of the times that Māori want to continue to be more involved in resource management, because models of the past, quite frankly, have failed us. They have failed the environment and failed our communities, so things need to change.

The question of whether that will lead to higher costs is the other criticism from the territorial authorities. Will this model lead to higher costs for ratepayers? There is no easy answer to that, but it is a legitimate concern that has been aired to negotiators. Waikato-Tainui are mindful of that, and in working through a real and practical approach to co-management, as envisaged in this agreement, we would hope that over time investment in the river is a better value-for-cost contribution for everyone. That investment, I think, has to be something that is clear and reported back to communities. Those outcomes, again, should be demonstrated.

In relation to the intent of this settlement, I am pleased that the opportunity for joint management agreements are ones that will see, in an overarching way, more iwi commissioners come on to the scene to hear resource consents. I would like to hope that my own member’s bill, which looks at elevating the recognition of iwi management plans in the planning cycle, will be a bill that will be supported across the House, because it attempts, basically, to streamline this approach and apply it in a very broad context. I think that that is a positive way forward.

I also say, just as a quick quip, with regard to issues raised regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that historically Waikato-Tainui have been to international forums to seek redress for raupatu, but each and every time they were told to go back to their own Parliament here in New Zealand. We know that any gain that will be of value to Māori, to iwi, will be made at home, when this Parliament starts to look at making laws that take account of the visions and aspirations of what iwi want to see, of what Māori want to see—that is, the better management of our resources in our areas. So nothing gained overseas will deliver more than the tin tacks delivered here, on the streets at home.

Briefly, I think that the opportunity again for Waikato-Tainui to continue to consolidate its relationship through the Kīngitanga Accord with the various ministries will be a good thing. When we look again at practical opportunities, let us look at Te Pūaha o Waikato, and let us look at what is happening with whitebaiting and the regulation of that down in that area. There is an expectation in that community that things could be done better and in a more integrated way. Perhaps, under this accord, under this sense of integrated management, we could get a win-win outcome for that community: the preservation of the whitebait fisheries and a better management of it. These are but some of the opportunities that can fall from this particular agreement.

I also point to the fact that the vision and strategy have now dropped from having recognition in the national policy statement to being in the regional policy statement. At the end of the day, what people want to see is that the vision and strategy are embraced at a real level in the plans and rules of the regional council, so that everything that happens within the domain of the Waikato River hinges on those high ideals and principles that are contained in the vision and strategy.

In saying that, I point out that the Guardians Establishment Committee—Gordon Blake, Tukoroirangi Morgan, and every member who participated on that committee—worked long and hard to ensure that the vision and strategy was not an airy-fairy document but something that many communities, many people, and Waikato-Tainui can hold as solid aspirations to be achieved and realised through the implementation of this settlement. That process, in itself, was again a bridge-building one, and should be commended. To all the members who were on that committee, I offer my personal thanks for their commitment and tireless effort to produce a vision and strategy of which I think we in this Parliament can all be proud, should members take the time to read it. It is one that I think other iwi may want to look to as a starting point for conversations about what they want to see for their rivers and waterways. Those are the types of issues that I think are important to highlight in the Committee stage. They should not be ignored.

Can I just make a final point to the Minister, while I have the floor, and it does not require a response. When it comes to the application of the streamlined model, I urge horses for courses and that the model, where it fits, should be looked to as a positive one. But where it does not fit—and iwi will soon tell us that these are the clunky bits, and are very pragmatic about it—I urge the Minister to consider that, especially as it applies to the Waipā River. It was no coincidence, when the Waikato Maniapoto Maori Trust Board was established, that that relationship was an inherent one relating to our whakapapa connections. Also, in history, when the confiscations affected Waikato so traumatically, it was Maniapoto that looked after Waikato. There are deeper connections in that, but in its simplicity, when we try to look for a solution for the Waikato River, we cannot have a clean Waikato River without a clean Waipā River. The solutions are really hand in hand, in terms of what the Minister does in negotiating forward a Treaty settlement and a model to help Maniapoto clean up the Waipā River. We cannot have a clean Waikato River without a clean Waipā River. That is the reality. It is the biggest tributary going into the Waikato River, and affects the health and well-being of it. When we are looking at a sustainable model for waterways, in this instance we have to see the two as hand in hand. Kia ora tātou.

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

I acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, and because of her contribution I think it is appropriate, now that she has finished her call, to make a couple of comments. I acknowledge the very lengthy gestation period of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill; it was long. I have already paid tribute to the negotiators for Waikato-Tainui and the iwi itself, because I thought their performance was a classy one. They were prepared to allow additional time for the incoming National Government to take a look at the arrangements in order to see whether something more streamlined could be developed, and indeed it has been.

The second point that the member raised was the issue of costs. That is a very important issue. I think there are a few myths about costs in this whole exercise. It is fair to say there is an ongoing debate about costs as they relate to the implementation of Treaty settlements. The joint management agreement mechanism provided for in the bill is an existing mechanism under the Resource Management Act 1991. In this instance it has been tailored to provide more effective participation for iwi, and I do not believe that the implementation of the Waikato River joint management agreements will be at an additional cost to ratepayers in the region.

The other point I would make about costs—and it is borne out in the settlement—is that as part of the settlement the Crown has provided a $210 million contestable clean-up fund for iwi, local and regional authorities, stakeholders, and the public to use for river clean-up activities. The Crown will also pay for the ongoing costs of the authority, for the fees of members of the authority, and for iwi participation in the arrangements. So a very generous contribution has been made by the Crown to the costs of implementing this settlement.

The member also raised the issue of the vision and strategy, and Mr Quinn referred to the review of the vision and strategy. I thought that was a most helpful intervention on his part. I think it would be helpful for those who are concerned about the reviews to take a good, hard look at clauses 13A to 13C of the bill, and at schedule 2B. One can see that the review process set out there is a very rigorous one that permits good engagement by all relevant parties in the community and members of the public, to ensure that the review is done well. I note clause 13A, which states: “Within 3 months of the settlement date, the Authority must begin a review of the vision and strategy—”. As Mr Quinn observed, clause 13B provides for regular subsequent reviews. So I do not think that there can be any cause for concern about the review procedure for the vision and strategy, if people take the time and trouble to read the particular provisions of the bill that I have referred to.

Another point—and I thought it was a very valuable one—was made by Mr Henare, quite apart from his correcting the historical account given earlier in the debate by Mr Garrett. It was about the idea of democracy being one person, one vote. As Mr Henare observed, that is one aspect of democracy, but it is not the only one. I do not know whether the ACT members are suggesting that in order to have a pure Athenian democracy in New Zealand, every single person who plays a role in the State should be elected. I would caution him against that, by reference, for example, to—

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I rise—having been conferred with a new status, it would seem, today by the Minister of Māori Affairs—to speak as a native of New Zealand. I am pondering on that and on what its various combinations, permutations, and interpretations might mean for me. However, I will work my way through that in due course. I dare say there are a number of other people around the country who might have been watching question time who are reflecting on their status as a native of Aotearoa New Zealand.

With that novel approach I want to discuss a number of things, and, because we are debating the Committee stage as one question, as I understand it, I am able to address Part 2 as much as any other part. First of all, I welcome the comments of the speaker from the ACT Party—not because they were inherently worthwhile, although some of them probably were—in part because it was a much better speech than I thought it would be. We were treated to some fairly despicable comments made by ACT Party members last week, when this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill came before the House. The reference to hocus-pocus and to that categorising of another world view I thought was disrespectful, unfortunate at the very least, and despicable at worst. At that time I said that although I do not have, share, or was born into the same ontological perspective or world view that Māori have, that does not stop me from appreciating an ontology that is different from my own.

However, one of the things that I celebrate and appreciate in different ontologies and different world views is that this legislation sets down in black and white some very significant and unique language that would be found nowhere else in the world. I think that is significant and that it should be brought to the attention of this Committee. For example, in Part 2, the “Statement of significance of Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui” states: “The Waikato River is our tupuna (ancestor) which has mana (spiritual authority and power) and in turn represents the mana and mauri (life force) of Waikato-Tainui. The Waikato River is a single indivisible being that flows from Te Taheke Hukahuka o Te Puuha o Waikato (the mouth) and includes its waters, banks and beds (and all minerals under them) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries,” and so on. It goes on to state: “as well as its metaphysical being. Our relationship with the Waikato River, and our respect for it, gives rise to our responsibilities to protect te mana o te Awa and to exercise our mana whakahaere in accordance with long established tikanga to ensure the wellbeing of the river. Our relationship with the river and our respect for it lies at the heart of our spiritual and physical wellbeing, and our tribal identity and culture.”

That is to be celebrated. It is to be celebrated that that kind of characterisation, that kind of description, of a relationship that is from an ontology that is not universally shared but may be appreciated is part of the foundation of this nation. I understand what it means to be a native of Aotearoa New Zealand as a partner in Te Tiriti. I understand that. I recognise that this is the way that indigenous people may achieve recognition, status, respect, legal recognition, accord, and, in this case, authority over a natural resource. I welcome that. I think that it is part of where we have come in our journey in working through Treaty settlements.

I said last week that I thought that the co-management model in Part 2 was unique. I have since read something that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations wrote a little while ago, where he was quoted as saying that it is not unique and that, in fact, in the 1990s the previous National Government had a similar co-management model with Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei at the Michael Joseph Savage memorial at Bastion Point, or Takaparawhau, in Auckland. There was a co-management model between the Auckland City Council, I think, and Ngāti Whātua. Even if this is not unique, I still consider it to be an evolutionary development of the kinds of solutions that may be found for the modern day. As we proceed through Treaty settlements and as new issues emerge—because they will emerge and they are emerging—we can find novel ways of addressing them.

The other point I will just make is in relation to clause 9. Again, I think it is important to bring this to the attention of not only the Committee but also the New Zealand public. The subheading above clause 9 is “Te Ture Whaimana”. As I understand it, that is the authority of this model. It states the scope and vision of the strategy. It recognises right at the outset: “(1) The Waikato River and its contribution to New Zealand’s cultural, social, environmental, and economic wellbeing is of national importance.” That is something for everybody. That is something for Māori and Pākehā alike. The Waikato River and what it contributes to one of the most fertile and productive parts of Aotearoa New Zealand is of economic significance and importance to everybody, but it is also important to New Zealand’s cultural, social, and environmental well-being. That is the stuff that underpins this legislation.

I congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee. There has been a number of amendments, and I also notice a Supplementary Order Paper dated today in the name of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I presume. Some small, technical details still require a little bit of amendment, but I think that the work the select committee has done on this bill has been very significant. I congratulate the select committee members on that. In this bill we have a number of landmarks, signals, and signs in this co-management authority model that can be used for future settlements. They can be used as issues arise as our partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi matures, develops, and evolves over the next century. This has been and is a significant moment for the passage of this legislation.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

I firstly acknowledge the contribution of Nanaia Mahuta, who went to great pains to point out that the Committee should not be disappointed with the contribution of ACT or with ACT’s view. She is absolutely right, because we are presenting a unique view. We are presenting a view that is different from that of any other party in this Parliament. Mr Garrett took considerable time and effort to explain some of the historical background to the negotiations between the Crown and Tainui over the last 150 years. I see that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, is smiling. Well, I am not sure whether he listened closely, but Mr Garrett explained that in the 1940s, before Princess Te Pūea would agree to conscription she required that a settlement be reached. There had been a demand for a settlement previously, but she demanded that a settlement had to be reached before she would agree to the conscription of Māori. That settlement was reached, and Mr Garrett pointed out that it was an immediate payment of £5,000 and an annual payment of £5,000 thereafter. Those payments continued until the early 1990s.

As Mr Garrett freely acknowledged, that £5,000 payment—$10,000 in today’s terms—has been eroded by inflation. But, interestingly, inflation in New Zealand really took hold only from about 1975 onwards. Mr Garrett also pointed out that in those days £5,000 was the value of a dairy farm. In essence, there was a full and final settlement that was worth one dairy farm initially and was then worth one dairy farm every year thereafter, ad infinitum.

What was Mr Henare’s contribution? Mr Henare said that Māori were locked away. He said that Māori went to jail during the period from 1914 to 1918. That may well be so. Mr Henare may be absolutely right. But that is not what Mr Garrett said. He did not even comment on the period from 1914 to 1918. He said very clearly, and I invite any member of the Committee to challenge it, that before Princess Te Pūea would agree to conscription during the Second World War she required a settlement, and she got that settlement.

It was also interesting that Mr Henare made that claim, and he made it by saying that he was no scholar of history. He actually acknowledged, before he uttered those words, that he did not know anything about the subject, but he offered to make those comments. But it was worse than that, because we heard absolutely condescending comments from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who said that Mr Henare correctly corrected Mr Garrett’s historical account. So there we have it. The Minister said that Mr Henare, who freely acknowledges that he is no student of history, corrected Mr Garrett. Once again, I see the Minister smiling. Well, it has come as a shock to me this afternoon, and I do not think I would have understood it myself unless I had actually heard it with my own ears, that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, is challenging the whole basis of our democracy. He knocks the concept of one person, one vote. He made the condescending comment—

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

We have a tendency to overcomplicate some of these issues. The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill is about restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the Waikato River, not just for this generation but for the generations to come. Why are we doing that? We are doing it because right now the river is polluted. It has had years and years of herbicides, pesticides, and effluent dumped into it. That has made it unsuitable for swimming and for gathering food. Māori cannot gather their traditional food sources. That is the reason we are here debating this bill. What is the alternative? Is it to continue to dump herbicides, pesticides, effluent, rubbish, and goodness knows what into the Waikato River? That is not an option. That is why we are here debating this bill.

I really struggle to see what the ACT Party has against the bill. The bill talks about a single co-governance entity. Well, what is wrong with that? The bill previously provided for a number of entities to look after the river, which would have led to confusion and ambiguity over roles. It would not have led to the river being cleaned up. What is wrong with having a vision and strategy for the river? What is wrong with having a vision of a river where our kids can swim without jumping into a pile of rubbish and where native eels are not overrun by exotic species? There is nothing wrong with having a vision for the river and putting in place a strategy to ensure that that vision is fulfilled.

What is wrong with having the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust, a group to sort out the clean-up of the river? What is wrong with iwi participating in the resource consent process concerning the Waikato River? The attitude that Māori should not have the right to be involved in that process is wrong. That sort of argument builds up resentment and anger within Māori, because we have been excluded from decision making over our resources for way too long. I believe that this whole bill is long overdue. What is wrong with having joint management agreements? What is wrong with sharing the decision making? There is nothing at all wrong with it. It is long overdue. What is the problem with recognising customary activities?

When the Māori Affairs Committee was at Hopuhopu, I recall a farmer who spoke about his farm, which was next to a lake. Over the years the water level of the lake had been reduced, and he was able to get a whole heap of extra land for his farm so he could raise more cows, or do whatever he did. He had absolutely no concern about the rights of iwi to continue to fish for eels in the swamps that had been drained and to gather food in the traditional Māori way. He could not see that an injustice had been done to Māori. He believed that his method of growing food and gathering food was far more important than the way in which Māori had gathered food traditionally over the years. He just did not care that Māori rights, the Māori way of doing things, and our lifestyle had been diminished and harmed. What is wrong with a cultural harvest? In the legislation there is a provision that talks about cultural harvest.

Let me tell all the Tainui-Waikato people listening to this debate that I had a friend who was a navy diver, and he had the job one day of swimming into the intake pipe that goes from the river under the road into the Meremere power station. His job was to clean it. He told me that as he was swimming up the pipe to clean it—and he is a naval diver; he has been in many dangerous diving situations—the moment he was the most fearful was when he swam into a nest of blind eels. “Talk about pollute the Waikato River!”, he told me—not in those words. At the moment he swam into that nest, he did in fact pollute the river. It was the scariest moment of his diving career.

There are many eels and other native organisms and species that Māori have had access to over the years, and this bill will help Māori to reclaim that access and be able to continue with those traditional practices.

I will address, finally, what Rodney Hide spoke about the other day. Rodney Hide was not speaking about the principle of “one man, one vote”. He was speaking about the hocus-pocus—those were his words—of the Māori understanding of, and the Māori relationship with, the Waikato River. He does not believe—and that is fair enough; that is his right—that the Waikato River is an entity. He does not have that emotional, cultural, and spiritual connection with the river. [Interruption] I am not from Waikato-Tainui; I am from up north. I have a spiritual, cultural connection with the Taumarere River up there, but those two rivers do have a connection in our family whakapapa and history. That is because of a place in the Waipā tributary, a place called Te Rore, where my tupuna Pomarenui met his Waterloo.

Te Rore was the place where he camped overnight, and, unfortunately for him, a few of his Tainui enemies caught up with him and happened to kill him. It was said that when they were preparing him for dinner, they found corn kernels from his morning meal inside his stomach. They planted those kernels and from there the corn crops around Tainui and Waikato grew.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this

He mihi nui ki Tainui-Waikato, tēnā koutou. I was not going to take a call on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, but sometimes the rhetoric around one is overwhelming. I am very excited that we are moving into a more sophisticated era under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are moving beyond the limited concept of conservative Pākehā that one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa. I stand as a Pākehā, proud to live with Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our founding document, and absolutely committed to finding new ways through the colonisation effects of the past. Only people who do not understand what colonisation means would say that this is not a step forward, and that the co-management that is being proposed is not an incredibly positive model for Pākehā, for tangata Tiriti, for tauiwi katoa as well as for Māori. It is said “He piko, he taniwha”, and the terrible, terrible thing is, through the governance of the Crown and Environment Waikato, it has become “He piko, ngā paru”. Waikato-Tainui has every reason to seek redress. It has found with the Crown a positive way forward in the situation, because this river, like so many awa across the motu, has been deeply abused.

Maybe the ACT Party do not get it, but for me as a Pākehā, rivers are the veins of the land, they are the sources of life, and they are part of my spiritual identity, not at all through whakapapa—my whakapapa goes back to Ireland—but through experience of living in this country. It is so important that we start growing up and stop relying on the failed policies of regional authorities to address the issues of tangata whenua, and the constant tokenism, the constant setting up of liaison people or advisory groups, when what we need is co-governance. What we need is respect for the Tiriti and rangatiratanga to be upheld.

So members should think about Waikato. I stood with Pakihana Hawke from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei when they were talking about putting that pipeline from Waikato into Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Waikato’s river is so dirty, but the Franklin District councillors were happy to license it to be pumped with all that pollution into Tāmaki for the people to drink—that is what has been going on. It is not the fault of the tangata whenua; it is the fault of the people who are on those committees, those wonderful democratic bodies that have allowed us to pump polluted water into Auckland to drink, let alone the abuse of tangata whenua.

I also think about what is really going on and what the big challenge is for co-management and for clean-up of Waikato, because Waikato is like another awa, the awa Tarawera. Both of them have pulp mills that have used and abused them. Waikato has been abused by the Kinleith pulp and paper mill for a very many years whereby the effluent from that pulp mill goes to Lake Maraetai through a tributary into Waikato, and that effluent is full of organochlorine chemicals. That is just one major abuse that has been vested upon the people who might have liked to be able to exercise their customary rights over the Waikato River.

So co-management and a facing up to the vision that this bill is helping to facilitate cannot come too soon for the Green Party in terms of the life force of that river. It is very important for us to acknowledge that the regional councils around this country, particularly with reference to Waikato and places like Tarawera, have continued to license and issue resource consents that have destroyed the mauri and the mana of the rivers. I remember when we were fighting the issue about the water going into Tāmaki-makau-rau that there were more than 40 resource consents for tanneries, dairy effluents, the pulp mill, and also the toxic dumps that are actually on the banks of the Waikato, and all of that was being licensed. It was not some kind of accident, it was something facilitated by district councils and by regional councils of elected members who said they were democrats but who were actually abusers.

I cannot wait for the day when we have a proper dialogue at a regional level where tangata whenua can educate people who do not have a concept of what customary knowledge is, what the life force of a river is all about, and how we maintain and sustain it for the well-being of everyone in the community. I welcome this fund that will allow us to contest the best ways to clean up rivers, because we are tired of having to listen in court hearings to tangata whenua asking for their rights; they should be granted. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Hoi nō, hei kōrero tuatahi, me mihi au ki a rātau te hunga kua w’etūrangitia, rātau e whai nei i tenei ture i te wā e ora ana. Nō reira, rātau ki a rātau, tātau anō ki a tātau e hui tahi nei i roto i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou huri rauna kia ora tātau. Kia ora tātau. Tēnā koe e Tuku kua tae mai nei i roto i a tātau, kia rongohia i ngā kōrero a te kiore e whai nei i tōna whiore i tēnei rā, ki taku taha matau.

Te rongo anō ki ngā kōrero, ā, kia tautoko i te tū rangatira a Waikato-Tainui me tō rātau awa. Mai i nohinohi ana kua rongo mātau i tērā kōrero “Ko te awa ko au, ko au ko te awa.” Nō reira me mihi au ki a koutou i tata oti nei i tēnei hīkoi kia w’akatutukitia ai te kaupapa o taua kōrero. Hari ana kei konei mātau katoa ngā mea Māori e kōrero tautoko ana tātau i a tātau i runga i te whakaaro rangatira, tērā kia whakahokia mai te mana o tō tātau taonga ki a tātau anō rā. Nō reira, tēnā tātau. Tēnā tātau, me tērā whakaaro kua kōrerohia nei, e te kiore e kōrero nei i taku taha mō tēnei mea te moni kua tukuna e te Kāwanatanga i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. I te mea, ka hoki taku mahara ki tētahi atu kōrero e mea ana, mēnā ko te whenua i riro atu, ko te whenua me hoki mai. E tika ana taua kōrero. Me te mea anō hoki mēnā e hiahia ana te tangata nei ki tōna moni, ka pai. Engari, whakahokia mai te katoa o taua whenua kua tāhae nei i ngā tau kua pahure ake. Nō reira, hari ana au kia tū nei i tēnei rā ki te tautoko i tēnei kaupapa me te mōhio anō hoki, kei reira tonu wētahi whakaaro kia whakamana tūturu ai i a Waikato-Tainui me tōna awa.

Nō reira hari ana au i te mea kei konei a Reipa, kei konei a Nāhinara, kei konei te Pāti Māori, kei konei te Rōpū Kākāriki e tū kotahi ana, ki te whakamana i tēnei whakaaro, me te mihi anō hoki ki a koe e te tuahine e Nanaia e kōrerohia ana kei roto i tēnei pire wētahi huarahi mō ā mātau nei whanaunga puta noa i te motu. Tērā kia hanga i tētahi rōpū mā te iwi, mā te Kāwanatanga hei tohungia, hei kawe i te mana mā tētahi rōpū anō hei whakahaere i te taonga. Nō reira, i roto i tēnei ngā whakaaro pai mō mātau anō hoki pea kei roto o Te Tai Tokerau, engari i tēnei rā, he tū poto tēnei ki te mihi atu ki a tātau anō rā, ngā uri o Ueoneone, me Reitū rāua ko Reipae e nohonoho nei i roto i tō tātau Whare. Tēnā koutou, me tā tātau nei awa. Tēnā tātau, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman. Indeed, I acknowledge in the first instance those ones who have passed away and who followed this bill when they were alive. So I say unto them, you, the dead, remain there, and we, the living, the ones assembled here in our House, to ourselves, greetings throughout. Greetings. Greetings to you, Tuku, who have arrived here in our midst to hear the squeaks from the mouse on my right-hand side, chasing its own tail.

But you have also heard supporting statements in regard to Waikato-Tainui’s noble stance about their river. From the time I was a toddler, I heard the expression “I am the river, and the river is me.” So I commend you as this journey draws to a close and the nub of that expression reaches fulfilment. How overjoyed I am that we, the Māori ones, are all here supporting each other with one noble thing in mind, that control over our resources be returned to us. So congratulations to us all. Greetings to us, and that thought put forward by the mouse beside me about the money given by the Government in previous years. It brings to mind the expression that if the land is taken, then it must be returned. That is correct. If a person covets money, that is fine. However, return all of the land that was stolen in the past.

So I am pleased to stand today to endorse this bill, in the knowledge that there are other ideas around formalising Waikato-Tainui control over the river. I am glad, too, that Labour, National, the Māori Party, and the Greens are standing together to endorse this bill. I also acknowledge the member Nanaia, who spoke on the bill, and about initiatives that our relatives around the country could pick up on: that is, to establish a group working for the people whom the Government will appoint to manage the resource. Perhaps there are positive elements for us to adopt in the far north, but today I take this short call to acknowledge all of us, descendants of Ueoneone, Reitū, and Reipae, seated about this House. Greetings to you, and especially our river. Greetings to us, and thank you all. ]

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

E tautokotia atu ngā kōrero a te tangata o te nōta, a Hone, mō te āhua o te awa nei. E mihi kau ana ki a rātau e mau kaha mai rā nō, te whakatikatika o tēnei tino take. E kite atu tātau te tīmata a Bob mā, a rātau mā i whai i muri mai o tēnei, tae mai ki te wā nei. Kei te kite atu ki te kaha rawa i roto i a tātau, i a koe e Tuku, tēnā koe, me te tuahine a Nanaia. Engari e tino mihi atu ki taku hoa, ki te wahine rangatira a Lady Raihā mō tōna kaha rawa. Ahakoa e kore i konei, e mōhio atu tātau e tinanatia tōna kaha i roto i te pire nei. Nō reira, tēnā tātau.

[I endorse the statements made by the member from the far north, Hone, in respect of this river. I also acknowledge those who worked hard, right from the outset, to settle this important matter. We saw the initial work by Sir Robert, and by others who followed to the present day. We note how hard we have worked, including you, Tuku—congratulations, and to you as well, fellow member Nanaia. My highest accolade goes to my friend Lady Raihā; her efforts were untiring. Although she is not here, we know that her efforts are embodied in this bill. So greetings to us.]

Nearing the end of the select committee hearing at Hopuhopu, Lady Raihā Māhuta, the last speaker, suggested that it was like being on a stage set for a Shakespearean play. She pontificated about Shylock chasing his pound of flesh. She said it felt like that—Shylock chasing the pound of flesh. I have listened to the ramblings of the ACT Party today. They smacked of King Lear and Much Ado About Nothing. That is what they sound like.

It is interesting that those members utilise the actions of Princess Te Pūea. Why she was chasing the beginning of a settlement was not just about conscription; it was because of what the British had done to Waikato-Tainui. The British took gunboats up the river and set to on every corner, as history tells us. The better parts of Michael King’s writings suggest that, along with Parihaka, it was one of the worst instances—not too dissimilar to what happened at Ngātapa in Tairawhiti—of setting on a people anā. And they were a people who chased and embellished paimārire.

It was interesting to listen to Mr Garrett quantify. He is a bit of a mathematical wizard, and he suggested that £5,000 at that time is now worth $1 million.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I am glad that Tau Henare is still in the Chamber, because I always like to correct things when I have got them slightly wrong. On this occasion, having checked the reference, I am very happy to say that Tau is correct and that Princess Te Pūea suspended the dispute about the raupatu claim for the duration of the war. The events that I described took place in 1945, so Tau was correct there. He could have taken a wager off me, but he chose to be kind, and I am grateful to him.

I think it is worthwhile recording the circumstances of that settlement in 1945, and I will read from Michael King’s book Te Puea, published in 1975, at chapter 13, “Raupatu and other causes”. King says this: “The eventual offer made on the marae the following day was for £6000 per year for 50 years, and £5000 thereafter in perpetuity. The boldness of the move took the conservative spokesman by surprise. Before disagreement could erupt yet again, Te Puea told Roore Edwards to get to his feet and accept. He stood up and said,”—and I will do my best—“ ‘Kua oti te take nei,’ which Mick Jones translated to Fraser”—that is, Peter Fraser—“as ‘the matter is finalised satisfactorily’. In this manner, a sore that had festered for eighty-two years was at last on the way to being healed.” So I was slightly incorrect, and I am very happy to acknowledge that.

I have learnt a new word here tonight from the Hon Maryan Street—ontologies. I have not had time to check the dictionary, and I do not have a laptop, but I suspect from the context that it means world views. The Hon Maryan Street talked about competing world views, and that is absolutely fine. I do not care whether someone believes that the Waikato River is a living entity with a life force. I do not care whether Mr Finlayson still holds to the religion I was imbued with as a young boy that states that a piece of wafer, on the ringing of a bell, literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. As a man of 51, I find that absurd. But if the Hon Chris Finlayson wishes to continue to believe it, that is his business. I have no problem with that. If other people wish to believe in the tooth fairy, I have no problem with that. In the last 20 years or so a number of New Zealanders have declared their religion as Jedi, which I believe is taken from a series of science fiction films of the 1980s. Who cares? That is their business.

But what we have here is a world view of a specific, narrow group of Māori that is being foisted upon not just Pākehā New Zealanders, but also other Māori. We are supposed to have a secular Government, yet highways have been delayed because of the alleged presence of a taniwha. This is the same kind of thing. No one in this country, whether Māori, Pākehā, Chinese, or whatever, should have his or her plans and life—

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

A, kia ora anō tātau. I te tuatahi ka tukua ki roto i te reo Māori ēnei kōrero ōku. Ētahi wāhanga hei tirohanga mā tātau i roto i tēnei pire. I te tuatahi, kua tukua te hōhonutanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi kia whai waewae ai ki roto i tēnā iwi o tātau, arā, a Waikato-Tainui. Kua tukua te Tiriti o Waitangi me tōna ūpoko tuarua, kia whiwhi ringaringa ai i roto i te mana whakahaere kua waihangatia ki roto i tēnei pire.

Ehara i te mea he rā hari tēnei, kāo, he rā pōuri nā te mea i rainei roa i te tatari rātau kia whiwhi reo ai rātau mō ngā taonga e hāngai tonu ana ki ō rātau whatumanawa, ki ō rātau ngākau. Nā reira e tika ana tātau kia mihi atu ki te iwi nā rātau te kaupapa nei i poipoi, nā rātau te kaupapa nei i manaaki i tō rātau wā. Mā te wā e titiro pēhea kē rānei ngā uri whakatupu me tā rātau taka, tā rātau poipoi i tēnei kaupapa. Otirā mihi noa atu tēnei ki a rātau i ngā taha e rua, i hahau, i manaaki, kātahi ka whakapuāwaitia i tō tātau aroaro i tēnei rā. Nā reira, tēnā tātau katoa.

[So greetings to us all once again. Firstly, I would like to make some statements in Māori in respect of some provisions for us to consider in this bill—in the first instance, the provision for the Treaty of Waitangi and its enormous implications in the bill, which gives traction to that tribe of ours, Waikato-Tainui. Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi provides the governance entity created in this bill with the tools and mechanisms to carry out its functions.

It is not as though this is a joyous day—no, not at all. It is tinged with sadness, too, because they have waited a very long time to have a say in how things so close to their hearts and very existence are managed and conserved. Therefore, it is appropriate that we acknowledge the people who nurtured and took care of this matter when they were alive. Time will tell how the younger ones treat and nurture what this bill will generate. Indeed, I acknowledge those on both sides of the House who fashioned and developed the bill that is before us today. Thank you .]

There are two aspects to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill that are very deserving of some focus in the most positive way. The first is the real meat that is given to the concept of co-management. I refer here to the obligation on those statutory authorities to work with the tangata whenua to detail plans that deal with plant life, ngā hua whenua, the flora and fauna, customary practices—not the least of which is fishing—and a host of other things. It is a genuine attempt to try to build into the machinery of the law some processes where both perspectives can be brought to bear. That is not easy. This most certainly will be not the last attempt that is made. I dare say that refinements will take place on this bill in the future. But unlike colleagues from that side of the House, we have to trust ourselves. And we have to trust the people to whom we are bequeathing this responsibility, not only physically but also in a chronological and a generational sense, so that they will want to carry this perspective forward, so that we can create, in our resource management and with those ancestral treasures, as the Waikato refer to them, something larger than ourselves.

That is what is sadly missing in this bleak, impoverished view being given on that side of the House. It is not so much that those members do not believe in themselves; it is that they do not seem to believe in anything. They seem to think that their status will rise by deriding and attempting to humiliate or to belittle those features of identity in the current cultural mix that represent modern New Zealand society in so far as we are dealing with the implementation of the Treaty settlement. I think that that is probably the most worrying aspect.

But we can derive great solace from the fact that those members will not be here for long anyhow, and the Waikato-Tainui will be here well beyond us and our families, as they are a group whose identity is derived from a cosmic metaphor. It is a blend of the taha wairua and te taha tangata. That is what will go on to define New Zealand when we celebrate 200 years of the Treaty of Waitangi and well beyond, not the view reflected in this sort of “Prendergastian” blast this afternoon. All that that is doing is reminding voters that we must never surrender the future of New Zealand’s race relations stewardship to such barren minds, who have a very narrow and self-serving agenda, which is to cause themselves to grow and to try to impoverish the rest of us in our zest to hand on something better to our mokopuna, to our children, so that these ancestral squabbles can pass by.

That is why it is a pleasure to stand with our colleagues today. Who knows? Maybe Waikato-Tainui will one day be able to stop the State-owned enterprises from privatising that Huntly power station, because it will have the first right of refusal. This is a great day. Kia ora tātou katoa.

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

I thought that I would make brief reference to the spiritual and cultural references in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I thank members for their very helpful contributions. As Maryan Street said, it is a very interesting ontological argument. I have to confess that I was looking up the etymology of that word and Mrs Chadwick must have pimped on me to Maryan Street, because she came along and said to me “Don’t you know the meaning of ontology?”. But, anyway!

A number of points have been made, but I just refer Mr Garrett to clause 8(1) of the bill, which says: “The Crown recognises the statement of significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui as stated in this section.”, and that statement is set out. The inclusion of those references was made at the request of Waikato-Tainui, who wished to articulate their relationship with the river in their own words. Those references are carefully defined, so I do not believe that the potential confusion that has been suggested by Mr Garrett and his colleagues, will occur. I can recall, a couple of years ago actually, making a speech that was not as intense as Mr Garrett’s contribution, but it was critical of some references to this sort of thing. I think it was in the Te Arawa lakes legislation. I would like to think that a few years on not only have I grown older but I have grown up, because I think those references are appropriate in this bill.

I do not think that it is very helpful for any member of this House to indulge in some form of cultural imperialism: that if there are references to Western Christianity, or something like that, then it is acceptable, but references to this sort of thing represent, as the National Business Review foolishly said on Friday, some kind of challenge to the separation of Church and State. It is nothing of the sort. It is not a challenge to the separation of Church and State, and I think the member demeans himself in relation to that kind of thing. I simply say to him, and it was a point made, I think, by Mr Horomia—who referred to Christian practices going back 5,000 years; actually, I think it is about 2,000 years, but maybe he has a greater insight into these things than I do—that it is very easy to diminish Seder dinners, masses, and things like that. People find their own way to happiness and their own way to eternity. My very strong advice to Mr Garrett is to bone up on hell and purgatory. After that contribution I think he is in dire, dire need of some study, because I say on balance that I think he is headed there.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

It seems to me that there are two ways we can conduct this debate. We can actually talk about the issues that are in this bill, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, or we can use the opportunity to attack people and to attack the way they present their arguments. That is what we heard from Parekura Horomia and, sadly, Shane Jones.

Mr Horomia talked about Much Ado About Nothing. He said the implication was that the objections of the ACT Party are much to do about nothing. He talked about Mr Garrett and me, and he certainly implied that Mr Garrett and I were scaremongering about democracy. Mr Jones said that ACT Party members do not seem to believe in anything, that they belittle this debate, and that we must ensure that New Zealand’s race relations are never surrendered to the ACT Party, or words to that affect. I could respond in kind. I could attack Mr Jones. I could attack Mr Horomia. I do not intend to do that.

What I want to do, though, is to answer the question of Kelvin Davis. Mr Davis asked what was wrong with the bill. The objectives of the bill are to clean up the Waikato River and to reduce the pollution, the fertilisers, and the nutrients that flow into the river. There is nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Let me restate our objections to the bill—slowly, clearly, and succinctly. Under the way this country is governed right now, we have a series of regional councils throughout the country. They are elected. There is the odd unitary council.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I seek leave to table a document. The document is a statement by the Minister of Local Government and ACT leader, Rodney Hide, and it states that he and his colleague Nick Smith sacked the democratically elected body Environment Canterbury.

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

I will stand quickly to commend the Minister and all the support for this great bill, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I especially commend Labour members, including former member Michael Cullen. I make a special mention of the Māori Affairs Committee and our colleague on that committee, Nanaia Mahuta. I thank Hone Harawira for his kind words, and everybody else. This is a great bill. Kia ora tātou.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Steve Chadwick) Link to this

I move, That the report be adopted.