Mapp Wayne: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2790] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I wish to acknowledge at the outset the people of Te Arawa who are here. As the deputy leader of the National Party said we acknowledge and understand the significance and the importance of this issue to the people of Te Arawa. I grew up in Reporoa so I am well familiar with Te Arawa’s relationship with the community and indeed with the lakes. 
I wish to make some particular points for the record. There will obviously be an opportunity in the future to hear the submissions to go through the material in the Maori Affairs Committee and to consider things. 
The first point to note is that I suggest that this is an unusual settlement. It is not of the same character as the settlements of Tainui of the various iwi of the Taranaki area and of various other iwi throughout the country. The reason is that this matter has already been subject to a settlement in the 1920s. That particular settlement was a result of a consensual process; it was not an imposed settlement. Everyone in this House would acknowledge that the situations of Tainui and of the Taranaki iwi in particular were quite different. There was a history of confiscation there as a result of the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s—a radically different situation from that of Te Arawa. In fact it is worth noting that Te Arawa has had a particularly friendly relationship with the Crown and that it has extended over a period beginning pre-1865 and continuing post-1865. I have to note at least for the sake of historical accuracy that that particular friendship was not always appreciated by neighbouring tribes particularly during that era. 
The reason I put that on the record is that that relationship flavoured the consensual nature of the 1920s settlement. As I said it was not a settlement that was born out of war or of oppression; it was one that was freely and fairly negotiated. But today we are revisiting it. That is one of the concerns that National has raised in the past and raises today. Free and consensual settlements ought to endure but in fact we are overturning this particular settlement. 
I turn to the two particular aspects of significance. As Mr Brownlee has noted the first element of the current settlement is the updating of the financial settlement. That part is very reasonable. The 1920s figure for the annuity ought to be updated and there is a very particular reason why I say that. No one in the 1920s whether on the side of the Crown or on that of Te Arawa could have anticipated the level of inflation that occurred in the subsequent 86 years. This might seem a rather artificial statement to make but the truth is that the 20th century experienced a vastly greater level of inflation than had ever ever occurred in the history of mankind. In the 18th and 19th centuries and in the centuries prior to them inflation was virtually non-existent—it was almost an unknown concept. It is truly a creation of the 20th century and to a significant degree it has disappeared in the last 10 years. So in that sense the annuity ought to be updated to remove effectively the effects of that inflation. That is being done and indeed it is being capitalised. National supports that particular aspect of the settlement and we have recorded that support today. 
The second part of the settlement however—and I have to put it this way—is the complete reversal of the position of the 1920s settlement. In 1922 the lake beds were transferred to the Crown effectively in return for the annuity. It was literally a sale if you will. Today we are reversing that sale but actually updating the annuity as well. So if we look at it in that sense we find that we are reversing a situation where actual consideration was given to the transfer of the lake beds and today are returning them as let us say a gift. But the effect of that is of course to call into question the enduring nature of consensual settlements. 
I want to look more closely at the nature of the transfer of the lake beds. I noted that Pita Paraone said that it was really no different from the case of Ngati Tuwharetoa and Lake Taupo and I certainly understand my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s concerns about and interests in that particular issue. This is more than just a symbolic transfer. There is actually quite a significant difference between the two situations. The Ngati Tuwharetoa situation did not require legislation; it was a matter essentially of the Maori Land Court and that was because the ownership had never been formally transferred in the way that occurred in the Te Arawa situation in the 1920s. 
The second point is that the ownership is intended to be more than merely symbolic. Certainly that is how the Ngati Tuwharetoa transfer was interpreted back then; perhaps there is some difference on that issue today. The legislation that we are presented with specifically states that Te Arawa can lease for terms of up to 35 years the lake beds. They can license—in fact in perpetuity—the use of the lake beds presumably for a fee. Mr Pita Paraone referred to the protection of existing interests both those of the Crown where there are particular interests and also those of other owners. He referred to jetties boatsheds ramps boathouses and the like. In this instance however it will be completely in the power of Te Arawa as I understand it as owners to allow people—or not as the case may be—to build jetties ramps and so forth. 
Tariana Turia 
: That’s right. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Indeed as Tariana Turia has quite rightly said that is a consequence of ownership that is intended to be more than a symbolic transfer. That is a very significant change indeed and quite different I suggest from the situation of Ngati Tuwharetoa. It is a complete reversal of the situation in the 1920s. 
I might just conclude on this particular point. In many ways and I noted this specifically some 2 years ago when these negotiations were being mooted the Te Arawa settlement was intended to forecast what would happen with the foreshore and seabed. I suggest that in some respects at least—perhaps not many—it has done so. In fact I guess the particular complaint of the Maori Party in particular is that the foreshore and seabed legislation does not mirror that of the Te Arawa case where there is a true transfer of ownership. But as many will know that has caused real controversy in the region of Rotorua. 
I conclude on this point. Lake beds riverbeds the foreshore in particular and the seabed have historically been considered part of the commons—owned by all of us all New Zealanders irrespective of race and background in common. This settlement sets a precedent whereby a large number of lakes in the North Island will now be owned by a particular group Te Arawa. I understand that it is obviously due to the historic connection but it is a revolutionary change and not one that National thinks is in the national interest.