Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14483] 
Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill 
In Committee 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. Leave is granted. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Now that we are in the Committee stage of the bill I really want to draw the attention of the Committee to a point I raised in the second reading that was not addressed by the Maori Affairs Committee in relation to the upper Waipa catchment. As was stated by the select committee it received a submission from Maniapoto asking it to determine the boundary of Raukawa’s interest in the upper Waipa catchment. Rightly the committee said no to that and that it was more a matter for Raukawa and Maniapoto to determine. The issue that I foresaw and raise with the Committee is that although there are very strong whakapapa links between Raukawa and Maniapoto as they apply to the upper Waipa catchment the current-day manifestation of those whakapapa links does not show itself in a practical sense in terms of the residence along the Waipa River. So it is my strong contention that we will probably revisit this particular matter with a view to possibly amending the bill. 
I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 43(2)(a)(ii) which is specifically the part of the bill that I foreshadow that at some time in the future I intend to bring an amendment to the House on in order to actually clarify the nature of Raukawa’s interest in the upper Waipa catchment. I say this with a level of confidence because in effect this settlement takes precedence over a settlement that is yet to be determined with Maniapoto. Substantially the issues raised in the Maniapoto settlement will be about the Waipa River. So we have a situation where Waikato was ahead of the game: iwi negotiated the Waikato River settlement and understood that the Waipa River was an important tributary and affected the end game of what was being achieved in the Waikato. Maniapoto were behind the eight ball and are yet to have their settlement determined. But Maniapoto are absolutely focused on ensuring that the whole of the Waipa catchment will be addressed in a similar manner to the Waikato and that will determine the full extent of all the interests along the Waipa River. So we have a situation where Raukawa rightly said they had some interest in the Waikato River and they believe it also extends to some area of the Waipa. I believe that that matter will come up in the future but I wanted in good faith to raise it with the Committee because we should put our mind to it when we start to review the practical effect of how this legislation will be implemented. 
Notwithstanding that the joint management agreements I believe will be a really positive opportunity for iwi to participate in the practical implementation of achieving the aspiration of a clean Waikato River because the agreements will enable iwi to participate in the policy and planning processes and in the regulatory processes through the monitoring of water quality and the monitoring of resource consents—but also through determining the extent of customary interests. How that will manifest itself for each of the iwi Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa may be very different but I think it is an important progression in terms of how iwi see themselves as being positive contributors to resource management and certainly to the better management of their waterways. 
I say on the point of joint management agreements that I was very heartened to see that Tuwharetoa has led the way on those without a Treaty settlement but with the support of the Taupo District Council. I attended a couple of years ago a ceremony at Waihi where the Taupo District Council had a full and extensive consultation or negotiation with Tuwharetoa and they basically went down this route. I believe that if we can try to ensure that councils work in that kind of manner with iwi then we are continuing to push iwi at the front end of the resource management processes rather than at the back end where they have to object. We are encouraging iwi to be a critical part of deciding the way that resource consents are administered in their areas and of monitoring those consents and that can only be a good thing. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill because now we can get down to the nuts and bolts of it. I am looking at Parts 2 and 3 and the co-governance or co-management arrangements that exist in each of those parts. Part 2 addresses the co-governance of the Waikato River and Part 3 addresses the Upper Waikato River co-management arrangement plans. 
I wonder whether I could prevail upon the Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 169 which to all intents and purposes looks technical. There are a couple of things I am not sure about and I ask the Minister whether she is able to explain the rationale for some of the Supplementary Order Paper. I am clearly not wishing at all to be obstructive but it would be helpful to know. For example at the beginning of Part 2 straight under the title “Co-governance of Waikato River” a new clause 8A is to be inserted that talks about the relationship with the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act. I am wondering why this new clause is being inserted at this point or why there is not some reference earlier in the legislation. The Supplementary Order Paper talks about inserting a clause about the relationship with the raupatu claims which I have mentioned. It then says that the matters provided for in sections 9 to 34 are also provided for in sections 9 to 34 of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. I ask the Minister whether this is simply a cross-referencing. Can she clarify that for me? 
Obviously we spent some time yesterday when we were last talking about this bill in its second reading on the relationship between this legislation governing the management and operation of the Waikato River upstream and downstream if you like across Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa interests in the river. We said that this was distinct from the raupatu claims. If the Minister could clarify the placement of that clause I would be grateful. 
The next amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper is the omission of clause 38(1) which is part of the bit that I was especially excited about yesterday when I was talking about the review that had been built into the management and the plan of the membership of the authority. That was a very useful thing to do because it allows for some flexibility in the future should it be required. Clause 38 deals with the review and amendment of the plan. It is taking out the part that refers to Ngati Tuwharetoa and says that for them “the Trust must give the other Trusts written or electronic notice within 30 business days …”. Again if this is simply an administrative matter I would be pleased to hear about it from the Minister. 
Similarly in respect of clause 38(2)(a) there is a reference in the Supplementary Order Paper to inserting the words “… and the Trust for Ngati Tuwharetoa if it did not participate in the preparation of the plan and decides under clause 4(4A) of Schedule 5 to participate in the review …”. I suppose this is where I need a little background from the Minister as to why this insertion happens here. Again there may be a simple explanation that is eluding me at this hour of night. 
The Supplementary Order Paper makes three other changes. I do not think there is anything particularly significant although when one takes away the word “and” in legislation and my reference here for the Minister is clause 46(2)(a)(i) does it mean that each of those provisions—that is why the trust should meet no less than twice a year—become separate or are they to be aggregated? Do we assume that the purpose of meeting no less than twice each year is to do each of those things set out in subparagraphs (i) (ii) and (iii) by the omission of the word “and”? 
I think the other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are simply technical. They are the ones relating to clause 57(3) and schedule 4. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify any of those questions that I have raised. I am sorry; there are also changes to schedule 5. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the overarching purpose of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill because I believe that this is the most exciting part of the bill. The overarching purpose is to restore and protect the health and well-being of the Waikato River for present and future generations. I think that that is the most admirable part of the bill. The purpose goes on to say that the legislation “recognises the significance of the Waikato River to the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi:”. Again I think it is wonderful that finally the people and the tribes along the Waikato River will have an opportunity to have a say in the co-management and the co-governance the kawanatanga of the Waikato River so that it can be restored to the condition it was in over 100 years ago when people could gather food swim and play in the river without fear of contracting illnesses or anything due to the pollution and the degradation that has gone on. They could swim there without worrying about getting injured on any deep debris that has been dumped there for whatever reason. 
Yesterday I heard from the Hon Rodney Hide that this bill was a sad day for democracy because in his opinion it would exclude people from participating in the democratic process. I believe that the Hon Rodney Hide was wrong. I believe that this is a great day for democracy because it shows that New Zealand is finally coming of age when we can have Maori sitting at the decision-making table on the Waikato River Authority. There will be five members from the river iwi and five members selected by the Minister along with recommendations from regional councils. It is great that there will be equal numbers of Maori and non-Maori making decisions about the co-governance of this river. 
This is a great day for democracy. This is an inclusive bill and it is great to see that New Zealand is coming of age. It also is in line with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 18 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedure”. This allows Maori to choose their representatives. 
Article 26 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned”. They have the right “to own use develop and control the lands and territories and resources that they possess” and “States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous persons concerned.” This bill does all that. It allows the tribes along the Waikato River—Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Raukawa Te Arawa tribes and Waikato-Tainui people—to be able to participate in the governance. This is good legislation. 
Article 29 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources.” Again this bill supports that. So this is not a sad day for democracy; this is not bad legislation. It is inclusive legislation and it is giving Maori their opportunity finally to be able to have their say on how the Waikato River will be managed and governed. 
The Waikato River Authority is a good body that will work together inclusively; it will not exclude any groups of people. It is a body that will listen and fulfil the needs and dreams of the Waikato people. 
This bill also establishes the Waikato River Clean-up Trust. That trust is a group that will be tasked with the job of doing the clean-up which is also a good part of this bill. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I will just briefly reiterate the great points that have been made by the two previous speakers Maryan Street and Kelvin Davis. The Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill is about modernising and making sure that the highway forward is recognised by the nation. Certainly the co-governance framework is about that. Last night we heard some huffing and puffing about why this bill was dangerous and excessive for this country. I forgot to commend the chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee Tau Henare last night. I wish to do that tonight and congratulate him on the way he guided the committee under the co-governance that generally happens in select committees to ensure we got to a better place with this bill. 
I suppose the purpose of the Waikato River Authority is to set the primary direction for the vision and strategy to achieve the restoration and protection of the river. We have heard about all the relevant issues. Those people whom I heard in the media today scaremongering about this type of management are up the tree to be quite frank. If we cannot move as we modernise ourselves—we have seen a super-city formed in this country in which some people have been appointed without going through any election process—then it should be not too right for people to suggest that this legislation is the wrong thing to do. Its purpose in the purest sense is as a great mechanism to condition us for the way forward. 
These people are aligned with and live with this river. The river is the people and the people are the river. It needs to be recognised that Tainui-Waikato has paved the way in the first instance and that their whanaunga up the river have decided to collectively come together. That is something that is very very important for this nation. I really commend and support this bill. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will not take a long call. However I want to raise an issue with the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs. If she could respond to it maybe in the third reading that would be very helpful. It is to do with the appointment of members to the Waikato River Authority. The legislation is very explicit in terms of the method by which the Minister for the Environment and local government select their members. Just as a point of clarification it would be helpful to know this with regard to where iwi appoint members as those appointments do not necessarily coincide with the election cycles of particular trust boards. 
My question is that if a member is elected to a trust board and is nominated to sit on the river authority and then an election takes place and that person is no longer a member of the trust board does he or she continue to finish that term? It is not a big issue but it could become a point of contention for tribal members who may not have confidence in that member who is nevertheless representing their interests on the trust board. I just raise that question as something that might potentially be considered for response in the third reading. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s view—even though it is not clearly expressed in the legislation—reflected in order to interpret the intent of the discussions that have taken place. I think it is a very important issue because we know that the cycles of membership of trust boards are as tumultuous as our cycle here in Parliament and politics often gets in the way of good representation. 
Notwithstanding that issue it is my sincere ambition that any members appointed to the river authority will do the best job that they can on behalf of their iwi. Should they no longer be elected to represent their iwi by sitting on their trust board that should not affect their term in office. But as I say politics often gets in the way. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s thoughts on that particular issue. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 169 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.