1. Question No. 1—Treaty of Waitangi NegotiationsJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi NegotiationsORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Why did he introduce the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill and the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill when in November 2021 the Waitangi Tribunal called for the Crown to postpone the introduction of the settlement legislation and allow the litigation in front of the Supreme Court to take its course?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I made the decision to introduce the bills because having taken the iwi 30 years to achieve a signed deed of settlement during which they sustained many challenges including litigation over the last four years it was time to honour the agreement made. In the process to reach agreement for redress over Treaty breaches in this case Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua the Crown must balance a range of interests which in this case included those of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua in achieving a long-awaited settlement those of Rangitāne who cannot get some settlement redress until legislation is passed and the burden of litigation that has been carried by Raukawa in defending their Treaty settlement interests and their mana whenua. The decision was very carefully weighed. I took time to consider the most recent tribunal decision as well as the recent High Court decisions; I met with all interested parties and I understand their positions. I weighed the fact that the Supreme Court proceedings will not be the end of this matter and it is likely that Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and Ngāti Rangitāne would be waiting another 10 years with no certainty the result would be materially different for them than it is now. Iwi would continue to miss out on the economic benefit of their settlement if the legislation is not progressed. Taking into account all the circumstances I considered that the balance was in favour of ending further delay and bringing the benefits of redress to all of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.Jan Logie: Why does the Minister believe he is a better judge of the fairness of the process than the Waitangi Tribunal an expert body with a more-than-20-year relationship with the hapū involved in this settlement and these claims?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Waitangi Tribunal has been seized of issues for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua for some years. It made some decisions back in 2017 that let to further engagement further discussion further review. It made an interesting point or proposition in one of its more recent decisions—I'm talking about the tribunal now—that suggested in relation to the mandate held by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust that it may not have had a mandate for one of the iwi that it was representing Ngāi Tūmapūhia and it should have known that because Ngāi Tūmapūhia had been part of litigation challenging the mandate—notwithstanding earlier findings of the tribunal that that only way to deal with mandate is to go through the agreed process for withdrawing mandate. On balance considering the tribunal's decision considering the extra effort that went in and the improved package that was agreed to with the settlement trust and having heard from all the parties and seeing the risk of further delay I made the judgment that it was time to bring the legislation to the House.Jan Logie: Why has the Minister introduced legislation that brings to an end litigation in which the Crown is the defendant and where the Waitangi Tribunal has said that proceeding to legislate would be a breach of the Treaty?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This is the tribunal that four years ago said that the settlement trust's mandate was intact and should be respected and then four years later without explaining why considered that the mandate was somehow not properly formed. So there are issues about the consistency of decision making by the tribunal. But in the end bringing the legislation to the House does not bring litigation to an end and in fact the Supreme Court is this very day hearing from parties relating to this particular settlement. There are points of law that the Supreme Court can consider and as I understand it is considering but it means that those who come under the mandate represented by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust can get on and realise the benefits of the agreement they have reached with the Crown.Jan Logie: What is the Minister's response to the letter from the Federation of Māori Authorities and the New Zealand Māori Council informing the Government that if it continues with this legislation without waiting for resolution of the application before the Supreme Court they will consider the 1987 lands and 1989 forestry agreements between the federation council and Crown to have been repudiated?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My response is that neither of those bodies understand the detail of the agreements reached with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and in fact the return of Crown forest land to that settlement trust was the commitment by that settlement trust to ensure that one of the parties that has a specific claim on a very specific part of the Ngāumu Forest land can participate and exercise their kaitiaki rights and I'm confident that the settlement trust will forge a strong relationship with that grouping to ensure that their interests and rights over that part of the Ngāumu Forest are observed. The spirit and letter of the pieces of legislation that the Federation of Māori Authorities and the New Zealand Māori Council refer to are being honoured.Jan Logie: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the letter from the federation and the Māori Council.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jan Logie: Is the Crown extinguishing rights that exist in law to prevent a larger financial cost to the Crown?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I think I indicated in my answer to the primary question the Crown acts in a way that is fair to all parties with an interest in a particular matter. It's important I think for this House to know that there are parties who have not played a single part in putting the particular settlement agreement together that have a stake in this and that is Ngāti Raukawa and to a lesser extent Ngāti Tūwharetoa whose mana whenua was in a sense under attack through a claim on the Pouākani lands around Mangakino because—and in fact as the High Court noted that itself the tribunal had failed to recognise was inconsistent with the tikanga that ought to be applied when it comes to a Māori organisation claiming rights and interests in land that is not in their rohe. I think all the way through the way the Crown has approached this is to make sure that all those with an interest not only in the settlement but in the peripheral issues to it are treated properly and fairly and have done. Now Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and their people can realise the benefits of their agreement.Jan Logie: Prior to this year has any Government ever introduced legislation the week before a Supreme Court hearing which extinguishes the rights of the appellants before the court?SPEAKER: I'll let the Minister answer it. I'm not sure that he has responsibility for it.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to just point out to the House that it is not correct to say that the litigation rights of any party have been extinguished. The Supreme Court is continuing to hear matters raised and the appeals raised by the Wairarapa Moana Incorporation and other parties. There are points of law that it can consider and it is considering those.