Tirikatene Rino: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTirikatene Rino: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution at this Committee stage on the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. I do note that it is sort of unusual that we have a Committee stage for Treaty bills but I do understand the nature of the important amendments that have been put through in Supplementary Order Papers 467 and 468.I would just like to start off with the very simple one Supplementary Order Paper 467. When this bill initially made its journey through the House it was obviously an omnibus bill a combined bill. That Supplementary Order Paper is now splitting out the two bills that are contained in there. The first bill obviously is the Tūhoe Claims Settlement Bill which deals specifically with the Crown’s apologies and the historical context for Tūhoe and then also the separate bill of the Te Urewera Bill. I think it is important that we do mention that because that is a real innovation in the evolution of Treaty settlements—the fact that we are giving legal recognition to Te Urewera through its own bill. I can only think that had my relations down south had the imagination back in the day we would have loved to have an “Aoraki Maunga Bill” to complement our Ngāi Tahu settlement. I congratulate Tūhoe and the negotiators on this innovation which is a landmark for Te Urewera for Tūhoe and for all the iwi with associations with and interests in Te Urewera.I guess that leads me on to the second Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 468. It is relatively straightforward I guess. Two Central North Island Iwi Holdings cultural redress properties were originally included but there were concerns from Ngāti Manawa. I am pleased that there was productive kōrero that went on that led to a resolution of whatever the concerns were which has allowed the transfer of Waitehouhi and Korokoro o Te Huatahi as cultural redress properties for Tūhoe.So the purpose I guess of these Supplementary Order Papers is important. We want to make sure that for any technical matters or matters that are unresolved—that we could not get resolved through the select committee consideration—we now have the opportunity to resolve them. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and all of his team for working on these outstanding matters.I guess the final matter that we have been discussing is around this issue of Te Ūpokorehe and the shared interests—or not—of neighbouring iwi. This is prevalent right across all Treaty settlements as we know especially for those hapū and iwi that are on boundaries. There is a lot of intermarriage and some hapū can fall on both sides of the divide. So we see these issues right across the motu. In fact I do not think there is one Treaty settlement that does not have these sorts of tricky boundary relationship issues or assertions of rights and interests that overlap or intersect between neighbours.I think that is just the nature of our people how we roamed and marauded around these lands and how we made peace—how we takawaenga-ed—and how we came together. The issue around Te Ūpokorehe is I believe no different from the many others. If I could use an example even one that is very dear to our chief the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Ngāti Wai—I am thinking of Hauturu when we did Ngāti Manuhiri. For Hauturu or Little Barrier Island obviously the sequencing or the progress that Ngāti Manuhiri made—obviously they were ahead of the queue and so they were able to pen their settlement a lot earlier than their relations who were coming behind them. But there was a great concern from Ngāti Wai around the rights that Ngāti Manuhiri purported to have to Hauturu which they believed was pretty much to the exclusion of Ngāti Wai. We were pleased to work through that issue very constructively with all sides and in particular at the Māori Affairs Committee to make sure that it was non-exclusive that there was recognition and that there was room to accommodate Ngāti Wai and other interests that were yet to come through. I think that situation is no different from this situation.The Minister has made it very clear and it has been provided for in the legislation that there is room to accommodate the rights that are recognised through subsequent settlements that may come through in the future. I am thinking of another example quite close to home which would be Kāpiti Island. Kāpiti Island is obviously Ngati Toa Rangatira and the headquarters for Te Rauparaha back in the day but there is accommodation on Kāpiti for Ngāti Raukawa and Te Ātiawa. Once those regions or areas of inquiry and settlements are concluded their rights and interests can be recognised through their respective settlements. So it is not about exclusivity. I think that as much as iwi like to assert their exclusive rights to certain things the nature of these Treaty settlements is complex in particular when you have many different close whakapapa arrangements neighbours and history which is part of us as Māori people across the motu.So I just want to acknowledge the Minister for clarifying that there is the ability to include Te Ūpokorehe Ngāti Ruapani or other rights that can be affirmed through subsequent settlements that may come through the settlement process. I do not want to prejudge anything obviously. It is not my place to do that but it is this Parliament’s place to make sure that this piece of legislation is given due proper attention. Obviously this Parliament is the ultimate authority in terms of authorising and giving mandate to this piece of legislation and I think we have covered some very important areas here and I am very comfortable with the explanations that have been provided. Hopefully that will give comfort to those other iwi who are further back in the pipeline of advancing their settlements with the Crown. Thank you very much.