Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Makino Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Makino Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4004. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
Tena koe tena koutou. Tenei e tapiri atu aku mihi ki a koutou NgatiMakino Te Arawa waka i tau mai nei ki roto i tenei Whare to koutou Whare ki te whakarongo kienei o ngakorero. Ki a tatou katoa ka nui te mihi. Tenei e tikaana me mihi atu ki ngatini mate i kawea mai nei e koutou i runga i ou koutou pokohiwi tae atu ki ngawhakaahua e iri nei i ngatara o tenei Whare moteneiwapoto. Naratou i kaweangatoimahatanga e paana ki nga tino hiahia kei waenganui i a koutou no reira ka mihi atu ra ki a ratou heke iho mai ki a tatou katoa. Ko a matou nei wahanga he paku whakaaro e paana ki te nuinga o a koutou nei mahi no reira i raro i tera ka tu ki te korero ki tenei kaupapa. 
[ 
Thank you and greetings to you collectively. I add my salutations to you Ngati Makino Te Arawa canoe who have arrived here in this House—indeed your House—to listen to these addresses. To you all I acknowledge you greatly. It is only right that I pay a tribute to the multitude who have passed away whom you bring here upon your shoulders including the photographs of those who have died too which hang on the walls of this House for this brief moment. They bore the full might of the burdens in terms of what you really wanted amongst you so I pay a tribute to them right down to us all. Our part is to give some consideration small as it might seem to much of what you have done and on that basis I rise to address this matter 
.] 
It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a small contribution to this particular settlement. As I am not on the Maori Affairs Committee I did draw on the debate in the House this morning. I want to perhaps highlight a couple of things that are synonymous with most Treaty settlements. Yes it is correct that legislation can take away land. Yes it is correct that battles can take away the lives of people but no it is not correct that mana can be restored by legislation. I think that is a really important point because for Ngati Makino I am absolutely assured that despite the adversity of history despite what may have happened to their people in times gone past to this present day their mana remains intact. It is confirmed and only strengthened by the trail in which their tupuna fought to seek resolution of their claims that we humbly stand here to try to rectify some small part of that. 
So that is one aspect. The other aspect that I want to draw on is comments made by the Minister. He made a very wise comment in saying that really once Treaty settlements are achieved the most important part is the implementation component. In speaking to members through this House of Parliament I too agree that it is not so much the fiscal quantum of any of the settlements that come before the House because from a fiscal point of view it will never ever be enough to reconcile historical injustices. But if you look at the entirety of what people have tried to seek through the settlement package then we see some glimmers of opportunity not only in reconciliation but also in restoration for future opportunities. 
So with that in mind Minister I particularly point to the notes that you drew our attention to which is the components of the cultural redress. There was limited debate in the second reading of this legislation in the House because most members agreed that the bill was fine in its entirety. But I really want to for the purposes of the  
Hansard 
 and maybe if people are looking back to our debates as parliamentarians give light to some of the aspects of the legislation. I want to point to Part 2 and the cultural redress. 
First of all there are the amendments regarding protocols. It is of interest to me that Ngati Makino were quite specific about having some defined protocols in relation to taonga tuturu and in relation to the Crown minerals process. What drew my attention to this was a number of things—firstly clause 18. I wanted to make the comment that although it is unclear in the way that the legislation is written now a protocol can be cancelled at the discretion of the Minister. What might the specific aspects of those considerations be? If it is the intention of Ngati Makino to ensure that these protocols will lock in their opportunity to have a say on what happens in say the designation of spatial exploration of minerals then it must be one of the measures by which a future Government would be held to account to ensure the implementation intent can be achieved. 
I would think that if a future Minister overseeing their responsibilities as they apply to Ngati Makino thinks that they can just cancel the protocol even after having consultation but without giving regard to the intent and spirit of the deed of settlement for Ngati Makino then they have surely failed the test of the expectation of this legislation. 
The other point that I want to raise is that although I am sure that the Crown minerals protocol contained in this legislation does not go nearly far enough it is definitely a flag in the ground because in the future if technological advances and mining extraction methods improve and are non-invasive and less intrusive on the environment then one might expect that Ngati Makino is putting a stake in the ground to say “Well hang on for anything that happens in our area not only do we want to be consulted but also we potentially may have an interest that is currently not expressed.” This particular bill is silent on all those fronts maybe for good reason but I want to put on the record that those are some of the future opportunities of successful implementation of Ngati Makino that can be achieved; these will be I think some of the future tests that a future Government will be held to account on. 
The other point—and I said I was not going to take a long call—was on the issue of the letters of introduction in two spaces; firstly with the local authorities and secondly with the Minister of Housing. There are two important points I want to make here. It is one thing opening the door; it is another thing being able to get people in the door sitting down and discussing the real issues of the day. It would be a very real concern to me if for example Government policy seeks to move the four well-beings within local government legislation and thereby does not allow Ngati Makino to express their aspirations for their areas their rohe in a holistic way. The four well-beings within local government legislation provide for that. 
On the issue of housing again it is one thing opening a door; it is another thing ushering them in to be able to sit at the table and talk about the real issues. The provision of social housing becomes a very real issue when we are talking about housing for Maori whanau in whichever rohe; but more important how do we unlock the opportunities the economic opportunities to partner with iwi to provide either social housing of their own or their own housing development opportunities? 
I did not want to take too long. The ground has been well traversed for Ngati Makino. Another lesson that I learnt before coming to Parliament from one of my kaumatua was “Eh dear when you stand up to talk on those issues about Maori kaupapa make sure you can whakapapa to it. If you can’t don’t talk for too long.” 
Kia ora koutou katoa.