Mahuta Nanaia: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18702. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):This debate actually shows how difficult it is to deal with some of the very complex issues that confront the whole Treaty settlement space. The Māori Affairs Committee has been very clear all the way through that the thing we cannot arbitrate on is whakapapa and we also cannot determine the way in which history has affected the peculiarities of settlements for distinct iwi who come to the direct negotiation process. On the point around inland interests on the coastal area in fact my own hapū is a very good example. Far be it from me to speak on the history and nature of relationships within the Tūhoe area but this is what happens for my particular hapū domiciled in Huntly which is a river iwi and why we have coastal interests out in Hauraki in Ngāti Paoa. It is because of a gift. So we have a customary interest in an area where my ancestors have traditionally always gone to harvest kai moana and that was because of whakapapa relationships. How that was expressed was a gift of land. Was it an exclusive gift of land? No it was an opportunity to seasonally harvest kai moana to feed our people. Quid pro quo if need be—we would give tuna back to the people out on the coast if they needed it. That is the nature of the type of relationship that can exist for an inland tribe out on the coast and there are pockets of these types of situations within iwi and across various iwi because of the nature of whakapapa connections.Now can I come back to the particular. With regards to their customary interest that has been expressed in the Ōhiwa Harbour it is a non-exclusive interest which is why when the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked whether or not the Māori Affairs Committee had asked questions I can say that we certainly did. We were very clear at the time that the customary interest was an expression of a connection that it was non-exclusive and that there were other interests to be determined that were outstanding before the full I guess expression of what was happening around that particular part of the harbour. We were really clear in our minds that that was the case. However the assertions of Te Ūpokorehe put into question the extent of the overlapping interests and the need for that to be further defined. They were challenging the select committee to say that they needed to have assurance that their overlapping interest—their ability to preserve their distinct interests in their area—could be pursued after this settlement progressed. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has given an explanation on that. There is a clarification and we certainly accept it.The other question that the select committee was at pains to ask was: does this settlement prejudicially affect anybody who chooses to express their interest with Tūhoe? No it does not. There are whakapapa overlaps or intermarriages that create I guess connections for people who can whakapapa to both Ngāi Tūhoe and Ngāti Ruapani. Are they excluded from this settlement? No they are not. That is a really important point to raise because people participating in this debate who with respect might not have been privy to the explanations that the Māori Affairs Committee was privy to would not understand this. If we believe that this Treaty settlement is so exclusive that it starts to push out people who can whakapapa both ways then we are severely misled. This is not the case. This is an inclusive settlement. It provides opportunities for people who whakapapa through Ruapani and Ngāi Tūhoe to derive a benefit should they so desire. If not and if they want to preserve their interests exclusively within the Ngāti Ruapani aspirations of proceeding with their claims interest there is another path to follow. They will not be stopped. That can go ahead.There are other aspects of the debate that have arisen that are a larger challenge and can be dealt with within the context of this settlement. Can I say that there are ways in which overlapping claims have been dealt with through the Treaty settlement process. Distinctly within this one there has been the establishment of pou rāhui for example recognised by Ngāi Tūhoe and sought by Ngāti Manawa. You know there are statements of associations and statements of statutory acknowledgments. They are all different layers of ways of recognising overlapping interests. It is really important I believe if we are to progress with durable settlements that the way in which we speak about settlements in the House and the way in which they actually apply out there within tribal domains and on the ground require relationships to work which is why I preceded my whole contribution with a very clear statement that was given to the Māori Affairs Committee by Ngāi Tūhoe.This has not been a settlement that has been arrived at as easily as some might assert because there has been toil and rigour around preserving relationships—not cutting off relationships but preserving them—and if people cared to dive deeper into how difficult it has been go and ask people but do not come to the Chamber and perpetuate a myth that relationships on the ground do not matter for Ngāi Tūhoe. They have worked very hard there were some ups and downs within their tribe to get to this point but they are still maintaining that actually at the end of the day we have to live in our rohe we have to live alongside other people and we have to work with them because we want this to work for us.That has to be the pervading point that people walk away from this debate with—that notwithstanding some of the difficulties around proceeding with the interests of Te Ūpokorehe Ngāti Ruapani Ngāti Manawa and others the relationship to make this settlement all that is can be is absolutely at the core of why Ngāi Tūhoe want to proceed in a way that is inclusive not exclusive that looks forward not backwards and that determines to ensure that this promotes I think the greatest opportunities of what can happen and that is actually in the second part of the settlement. You know it is a very important debate to be had. Again I was the one who said we were not going to take up time in this debate but those were some very important issues to respond to and people with no knowledge of the discussions that took place at the Māori Affairs Committee might care to listen to this particular contribution. Kia ora.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 468 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 1 be agreed to.