Whaitiri Meka: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: General Debate[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7218. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ā tēnā koe Mr Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātau katoa. Can I preface my contribution today by saying iwi were successful traders domestically and internationally pre and post the arrival of the European settlers. So we are no strangers to good fair trading opportunities.Labour has five key principles that form our bottom line to protect New Zealand’s interests when the Trans-Pacific Partnership finally makes its way to Parliament. The five are that Pharmac must be protected that corporates cannot sue the Government for regulating in the public interest that New Zealand maintains the right to restrict sales of farmland and housing to non-resident foreign buyers that the Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld and that meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access.It is the fourth principle that I wish to speak on in the short time I have available. May I make this point as clearly and as unambiguously as possible. The authority to address or speak on whether or not the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi under the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been protected compromised or challenged rests solely with whānau hapū and iwi and the Treaty partner. The political mandate of the Treaty partner does not sit with the Crown. It does not sit with the Crown agencies—the Ministry of Māori Development Te Puni Kōkiri the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the superministry of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. It does not sit with the Federation of Māori Authorities and it certainly does not sit with the Māori Party.With humility I hold the political mandate for the whānau hapū and iwi of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti as do my colleagues Kelvin Davis Peeni Henare the Hon Nanaia Mahuta Adrian Rurawhe and Rino Tirikatene and their respective whānau hapū and iwi of their electorates. We take that political mandate and responsibility seriously.On 2 July this year I put a question to the Minister of Trade seeking who or which iwi or Māori organisations he had consulted over the Trans-Pacific Partnership. On behalf of the Minister of Trade the Hon Chris Finlayson replied saying that one of those five groups was Ngāti Kahungunu in 2010. For full disclosure I was the chief executive of that organisation at the time when the consultation apparently took place. In fact the Hon Chris Finlayson enjoyed repeating through replies to my supplementary questions that Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation was wrong and that they were consulted on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.For the House’s benefit according to his own officials’ minutes of that meeting the meeting was actually over intellectual property rights not the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement as he stated. Ngāti Kahungunu along with Ngāti Kuri Ngāti Wai Te Rarawa Ngati Porou and Ngāti Kōata are the original six applicants for Wai 262 a Treaty claim against the protection of indigenous knowledge fauna and flora. The protection of intellectual property rights had been a continuous battle for Ngāti Kahungunu hence the meeting with the Minister’s officials back in 2010.In the time remaining let me say that in my travels across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and the country whānau and hapū and iwi have major concerns with the agreement. They oppose the lack of transparency. They oppose the lack of public scrutiny. They oppose yet again that the protection of the Treaty may be used as a trade-off for other gains without first talking to them. As members of this House we all need to meet our collective responsibility under the Treaty—that is to talk to the right people in the right manner and to do the right thing. Tēnā koe Mr Speaker.