Flavell Te Ururoa: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17941] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. As I understand it a key statement appeared throughout some of the 136 submissions received from the public about this bill and I note that the submission from Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu stated it pretty clearly. It stated: “The Crown has a duty under article 2 of the Treaty to protect Maori in use of their lands and waterways to the fullest extent practicable.” I note that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board and the Federation of Maori Authorities were united in their position which was: “Article two of the Treaty granted ‘te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’ or the ‘full and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates fisheries and other properties’. This article therefore guarantees Maori the right to determine access to their land.” I have to say that it is a view that the Maori Party absolutely supports. We know that iwi Maori have a special relationship a partnership relationship with the Crown that is separate from that of general citizens. We also know that a consequence of the unique Treaty relationship involves the duty of the Crown and all agents of the Crown to undertake the active protection of the rangatiratanga rights under article 2. 
So when the Local Government and Environment Committee finished its report without so much as even the word “Treaty” included in its brief we thought there must have been some huge mistake. We will therefore be representing the views of hapu and iwi and during the Committee stage we will introduce the Treaty clause that submitters asked to be inserted in the bill. 
It makes for interesting analysis that the first two bills on our Order Paper today—the Walking Access Bill and the Policing Bill—have both suffered from minuscule vision when it comes to the most critical issue of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are trying not to read too much into it: that in both cases Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu has been instrumental in coming forward recommending to the Crown that a Treaty clause would improve the overall effectiveness of this legislation. 
So we might ask why the Crown is not prepared to listen to the wisdom of Ngai Tahu at least in helping this nation move forward. My understanding is that Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu’s submission outlined what a Treaty clause could do in effect. A Treaty clause would ensure that the rangatiratanga and mana of tangata whenua over customary land and sites of significance were respected and protected. A Treaty clause would enable our kaitiaki responsibilities to be recognised in decision making. A Treaty clause would demonstrate that public access to private land and Maori land remained subject to negotiation and agreement with landholders. If not through the bill then one would expect at the very least that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission would include such a clause as both the Federation of Maori Authorities and the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board recommended—namely a Treaty clause being an important provision enshrined in their constitution and rules. 
This is for us a very important bill and the federation confirmed that for us. Any bill that threatens to impact on “te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” we in the Maori Party take very very seriously. Maori have already been and continue to be deprived as we have seen over our history the deprivation of our people of most of our lands and do not want to see the continuation of any more plans to alienate or confiscate in the name of the Crown. 
The Maori Party holds true to the challenge laid down so many years ago by Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana that the Treaty should be embodied in statute that legislation should ensure the protection from sale of our lands that there should be no more land confiscation and that there should be compensation for land that has been stolen. This was the challenge represented I believe through the placement before a former Labour Prime Minister of four objects. This will be a bit of a history lesson for us Madam Assistant Speaker. They were a potato a broken watch a huia feather and a greenstone tiki. As I have heard about and read about T W Ratana explained to Michael Joseph Savage that the potato was the ordinary Maori needing his or her land; the broken watch was the broken machinery of law relating to the lands of Maori—only the law could repair the law; the tiki stood for the mana of Maori people; and the huia feather a sign of a chief would be worn by Mr Savage if he would look after his Maori people. Yet as history and  
Hansard 
 record that huia feather would not be worn the tiki would be discarded—indeed we believe that those original four objects to be would all be lost in the legacy of broken promises and unfulfilled dreams. 
For us this bill would have been a great opportunity to address those expectations. This bill could have signalled a commitment to enshrine the Treaty in legislation. It could have been used to repair the law itself and to guard against further alienation. We ask why this Government is not prepared to insert a Treaty clause into the legislation. Why did it not support the Maori Party amendment to insert the Treaty clause into the Policing Bill? The numbers on that evening indicated the amendment would have passed in this House with 60 Ayes and 58 Noes. Instead what we have is a “yes but” bill. 
Clause 8 deals with the composition of the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. Submitters recommended that Maori representation the capacity for the sharing of knowledge of tikanga Maori on the commission’s board be increased from one. The select committee included that view in the report yes but no amendments were included to address it. Then we turn to the protection of sites of Maori cultural significance. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu advised that permission should be sought from tangata whenua before information relating to mahinga kai wahi tapu and other sites of cultural significance be published. Yes the committee agreed it was important but it was not so much significance but cultural sensitivities that the commission should take account of. 
Clause 10(2) minimises the advice of Ngai Tahu by suggesting that the commission should consider any cultural sensitivities of which it is aware without actually explicitly requiring it to gain the permission of tangata whenua. 
Then there is the concept of the code of responsible conduct for users and landholders. Again Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu came up with robust advice specifying that the code should include information on tikanga Maori Maori relationships with land and waters and desirable standards of behaviour to be observed when accessing sites. Yes but we will take it on the first part of this thinking of the select committee so clause 16(1)(bb) was inserted to include reference to guidance about tikanga Maori. The Federation of Maori Authorities has spoken for so many in endorsing the principle of the code of conduct as a benchmark standard to which the users must adhere. It was hoped that such gold standards would include information and understanding of Maori land à la rahui negotiated permission wahi tapu all those sorts of things as part of the desirable standards of behaviour to be observed. So it was pretty disappointing that the select committee has continued to be a little bit half-hearted about this in its recommendations to simply include a reference to guidance about tikanga Maori rather than a stronger statement of support such as adherence to tikanga Maori. 
This bill has some very positive features as it has emerged from the select committee process. We are pleased that there are new clauses to require the commission to take into account the views of local hapu and iwi in the naming of walkways over either public or private land. We are pleased too with the amendments to clause 29 to allow the commission to purchase private land as a means to provide public access. The word “acquire” has been removed from this clause to remove the implication of the compulsory acquisition of private land a concept that Maori shudder even to contemplate. But in summary our position on this bill is influenced by the prevailing “yes but” mentality. We do not believe that it is acceptable to minimise to trivialise or to compromise the guarantee of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect Maori in the use of their lands and waterways to the fullest extent practicable. Throughout this bill every attempt is made to dilute and diminish the mana of the arguments put forward by mana whenua and because of that we cannot possibly support this bill at its second reading.