Peters Winston: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17649. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Kia ora. Tēnā koutou katoa. Tūhoe’s case for justice is not in dispute. Tūhoe’s case is about belatedly attempting to correct a grave series of historical wrongs. Tūhoe’s grievance is recognised by New Zealand First and we have never ever thought otherwise. But on 31 May last year we wrote to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations because we were concerned about the boundaries being encompassed within this bill the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill in an endeavour to settle with Tūhoe. Nothing we are going to say today is any way a questioning of or attack on Tūhoe’s leadership or their long-suffering forbearance over decades. We in New Zealand First accept that respect that salute that and honour them for that.However the issue for us becomes whether this bill is in fact going to do what it claims to do—that is to resolve a historical wrong. We fear on the evidence and on the history that we understand that there are other claimants being swept within the boundaries of this bill who themselves are going to be wronged because of it. In short we are concerned about the eastern boundary of the claim within this legislation. Let us be very clear: New Zealand First is not opposed in any way shape or form to attempting to fix up this grave historical wrong but we do not want one created as well whilst we try to do that.Hon Member: That’s a really good point.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a very good point. I wrote to Mr Finlayson and he wrote this back: “The substance of Ngāi Tūhoe’s settlement has been well-scrutinised by the Waitangi Tribunal and the High Court as a result of concerns of other iwi and hapū whose areas of interest overlap with that of Ngāi Tūhoe. The Waitangi Tribunal and the High Court have concluded that the proposed Ngāi Tūhoe settlement does not”—and these are the very critical words—“prejudice the interests of any other iwi or hapū.”Well what about Ūpokorehe’s claim? And who here is going to tell me that they have not got a legitimate concern under this bill? The finest Māori politician who has ever been—in fact one of the finest politicians this country has ever seen—was a man called Sir Apirana Ngata. If Sir Apirana Ngata way back in 1929 recognised the iwi I am talking about who here is going to dispute it? Who in this Parliament including the Minister including the High Court including the department and including all these other so-called experts is going to dispute that back in 1929 Sir Apirana Ngata the then Minister—that is the Minister of Native Affairs as it was at the time—issued a seal and ensign recognising that iwi’s status to Ōpōtiki and to the Ōhiwa Harbour connection? Except that in this bill all of a sudden Tūhoe is at the edge and has claims to Ōhiwa Harbour and traditional fishing rights.I want to know from some Māori member who sat on that committee what happened to the claimants about whom I speak—those claimants who somebody no less than the absolutely totally esteemed leader Apirana Ngata recognised way back on 12 December 1929. If you are going to say that these people’s rights are not in any way trammelled or fettered or influenced—Hon Tau Henare: Why didn’t you come to the select committee?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I cannot come to the Māori Affairs Committee because I am on so many other ones. Unlike that member I actually do some work. Unlike that member I am on other select committees and we cannot be on them all. But long before he got here I was aware of this issue.Hon Tau Henare: Weren’t you Minister of Māori Affairs?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am the Minister Mr Henare who went to Tūhoe and gave them back their land. What is his record?Hon Tau Henare: What did you do?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no I am the Minister—Hon Tau Henare: What did you do?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: See here we go. He wants to shout down—Hon Nanaia Mahuta: My apologies for interrupting the member in mid-sway but I seek leave to table for the benefit of the member because New Zealand First is not represented on the Māori Affairs Committee the departmental report dated 19 March drawing specific attention to page 5—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a public record.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: —which details the issues—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Firstly I disapprove of the member interrupting to table a document. The second thing is that I am not going to put the leave because it is a public document.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to remind that member out there who was interjecting that unlike his record I went to Tūhoe—and they will remember it—back in 1991 and we handed back that land at their request.Hon Tau Henare: Who tried to stop the inquiry into Waikaremoana?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No one else did so let us not have this sort of humbug here. I am not disputing Waikaremoana; I am not disputing anything else but what I am disputing is that on the eastern boundary I have a concern that some people’s rights to a fair hearing will be compromised. If you say this—Hon Tau Henare: Mates.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look you are not a lawyer Mr Henare so why do you not keep quiet for a second.Hon Tau Henare: You’re not a lawyer either.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes I am a lawyer actually—a very esteemed one. Can I just say this. When you say something like “does not prejudice the interests of any other iwi or hapū.” ask yourself historically can that possibly be true? We know what happens if a settlement like this gets through. If there is a legitimate claimant and they go through the same process it will become so much harder. That is why this is happening here and it is happening up there in the far north. It is happening up there in Tai Tokerau as we speak and there is no way this Minister is going to get a settlement up there for the very same reasons. There is a dispute as to who speaks for what where and when and it is a very very valid dispute. No one is challenging Tūhoe here. I am just saying: “Let us have a settlement”—[Interruption] I beg your pardon?Hon Tau Henare: But.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well at least I am saying “but”. How can you say that Ōhiwa and access to the coast was a Tūhoe right all those years ago? They had access to Tangaroa. They had access to Tangaroa and it is a different principle and one that this Minister does not understand. But that is a totally different principle to ownership and just because some courts find it this way and just because some civil servants find it this way and just because the Waitangi grievance procedure finds it this way it does not make right. We have been around too long to accept that as fundamental. I want to say to Mr Henare one more time: do you think you know more than Sir Apirana Ngata?Hon Tau Henare: What the hell has that got to do with it?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well it has got everything to do with it. If in 1929 the Minister of Native Affairs recognised these people as having legitimate claims why is this member disputing it? Why for example is my esteemed colleague Pita Sharplesgoing to argue against his former great leader? Or does he say that Sir Apirana Ngata was wrong? That is all I am saying. I think it is a valid point to put because if you are going to have a settlement of a grave and serious wrong which these people have suffered under for so long let us for goodness’ sake get it right.