Mahuta Nanaia: Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 31 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):I am pleased to be able to take a brief call in the first reading of this bill the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. I want to mihi to all the iwi who have been identified as members of this collective redress and I want to more specifically go to some of the detail of the bill which I will be raising in the select committee because at the end of the day our role as the Māori Affairs Committee will be to put under some scrutiny the ambitions of the deed and the aspects of how the legislation relates to that.Firstly I do want to question officials further around the issues of how the co-governance model operates and what the relationship of that body will be with regard to the Auckland Council or the super-city council. One would consider that if all the volcanic cones all the maunga are managed in a collective way to be able to reflect in part the relationship of those iwi with those maunga but for the greater purposes of public use then you would want to know that there is a deliberate connect with Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development for example in Auckland because it is there to promote Auckland as a super-city and it is there to ensure that tourism based on the natural features and those aspects can be achieved in a very comprehensive way. I just want to ask whether there is a formal relationship of the co-governance group with the way in which Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development develops its plans and its aspirations for improving tourism in the isthmus.Secondly and more specifically is in relation to Part 4 and schedule 5 of the bill which are all the provisions around the rights of first refusal. There is a level of detail around the time frames in which rights of first refusal provisions can take place—a 40-day period roughly—and if hindsight is anything to go by this whole mechanism is still a bit clunky. I can say that from certainly our iwi’s perspective which is that the rights of first refusal mechanism does not operate as smoothly as it could and that it should be reviewed as a matter of course. So I want to pursue in more detail how these provisions apply whether they will actually achieve what they are intended to achieve and whether the time frames are realistic in terms of enabling a transfer.Also there are a number of Crown lands identified that can be transferred at some point or another to respective iwi or to some authorities. I would like to pursue whether or not it is an “all in” or a “some in” type of approach towards the Crown assets. I am sure that the officials will be able to help certainly my thinking and clarity in that respect.I am aware that certainly iwi with Waikato connections are pursuing their individual and specific claims and I want to in some part commend Michael Dreaver for starting with where people can agree and realising the huge task before him which will be going to the more specific. I need only point out the Waikato iwi who are included here: Ngāti Tamaoho Te Akitai Te Kawerau-a-Maki Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. These will all have very distinct interests within the isthmus. Boundary issues will be achallenge—to work that out. More specifically because it is the Auckland isthmus there will be a fusing I think of some historical claims with some contemporary claims.So how the approach to that will take place going forward although it is not under the direct purview of this particular bill is of some interest I would expect to members of the Māori Affairs Committee as to how there will be scope for those individual iwi to be able to achieve their specific claims. We should pursue this with a level of vigour that enables a good healthy opportunity for specific claims to be able to leverage off what is in here—for example the transfer of rights of first refusal lands to more specific identified iwi I think might be one area where there is crossover.I have grown up for some of my life in Auckland. I was born there and lived there until I was about 5. I got towed around by my parents to all sorts of places. We spent a lot of time in Māngere by Māngere Mountain at the place of old Bob Kerr who used to then be at the university where my father was studying. We learnt a lot about the history in that part of Auckland and certainly in Ngāti Te Ata’s footprints around Matukutureia around the stonefields there: Te Akitai Pūkaki and around the airport. So I have some affinity with the need to ensure that the boundary issues are relatively well sorted out here.As a young child growing up and having the honour of listening to some of the old people whom I can recollect from that time I say that they were very clear about whose interests were within Tāmaki now that it has been kind of fused together. But naming is an important thing and I want to pick up on the point raised by Rino Te Ururoa and Shane: if we have nothing else as Māori to stake our claim naming becomes very important. And who can whakapapa to the names in the rohe will often tell you who has mana whenua status. Without throwing all the balls in the air here on this issue I thought it was interesting too that some of the maunga did not have the Māori names set out. Again this will be a question for the officials and perhaps it may be clarified in the submissions as to why this did not take place but it is of certain note that this type of omission has taken place.Another point to raise is really to paraphrase again what the Minister said: this bill does not address all the historical claims in the isthmus and it does not provide the level of redress that this House has been used to when debating Treaty settlements. However it does provide scope and it provides scope for a collective of iwi and their significance in the biggest city of New Zealand to find a way of working together around some common interests and for that I commend the Office of Treaty Settlements I commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and I commend Michael Dreaver and his team for bringing this bill to the House.I was at the signing for the bill and I heard all the side stories. But what I was more interested in was that people had the fortitude and the foresight to be able to identify the things that they can agree on. In this day and age certainly in Auckland and certainly with regard to the way in which Treaty settlements are quickly evolving I think this will provide a good lot of scope certainly in the area of tourism and certainly in the area of preservation of natural features within the Tāmaki isthmus to be protected to be utilised to be enhanced and also to leverage what Auckland City has to offer to many people who are visiting and living in the city.So again I am looking forward to the bill coming to the select committee. I am looking forward to the submissions and I hope we have a robust number of submissions that can clarify some of the questions that are swirling around and have been presented to the House today. When it comes to the second reading speech perhaps I will be in a position where I can answer some of the questions that I have brought to the House today. Tēnā koutou.