Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Can I first acknowledge the maiden speeches made earlier today and of course all of the maiden speeches for the 54th Parliament. I take heart from the members on the Government benches who in most of the speeches I've heard use words like kaitiakitanga" "wairua". They are using the very words that their own Government is saying causes too much confusion yet they stand in this House and say that they base their principled approach to coming into Parliament on words like "kaitiakitanga". Here we are looking at kaitiakitanga and te Oranga o te Taiao which I will come to very shortly. We heard from the Minister a little bit earlier talking about the recognition of tikanga in law. I want to read for the Minister a little something from the Supreme Court / Te Kōti Mana Nui o Aotearoa. The Supreme Court has recently affirmed "that tikanga Māori can be a source of enforceable rights and interests and is relevant to developing the common law. Tikanga is also recognised in various ways through many Acts of Parliament". And that says that we actually have the ability to look towards a model of tikanga or in this case with respect to this bill te Oranga o te Taiao the wellbeing of our natural surroundings—things that I've heard in maiden speeches right across the House not just in the 54th Parliament; the 53rd 52nd 51st—my entire time here. So te Oranga o te Taiao isn't a new concept. Te Oranga o te Taiao is also a concept that has been evolved over many many decades in many many pieces of legislation as well as many court rulings. The Supreme Court makes it very clear that tikanga Māori is part of the evolution of the relationship of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That's what's being lost here with the proposal in this particular repeal bill; that's being lost. I've heard members from the other side of the House talk about ruling for all and talking about making sure that they represent their constituents. Well I look forward to some of them going back to the iwi in their district to make sure that they represent all of the people in their rohe to make sure that their voices are being heard on this important bill. Sadly that's not going to happen because it is being rushed through the House. We know that this is a big piece of work. We also know that there's lots of work to be done in terms of the relationships between iwi and the Crown and this particular bill undermines it. The fact is that we don't have a regulatory impact statement that we are unable to engage with organisations and Public Service departments the likes of Te Arawhiti to understand what the Māori perspective is on this; to understand the amount of work that they've put into this particular bit of legislation that's being repealed today. Because what's not quantified in this piece of work is the goodwill from Māori to make sure that we look after our natural environment; that's not being spoken about here. Yes we want to look towards the opportunities of being able to make sure that we can build into the future that we can protect our natural environments into the future but what we're not looking at and what we're not talking about is actually the slap in the face to many iwi who through goodwill sat with local government sat with central government sat with many Government departments in order to have something that was workable and recognised their rights as well as the rights of the entire community. I'm looking forward to members—and I've heard them call out Mr Rutherford and a good friend of mine Mr Luxton at the back there—heading back to the Bay of Plenty and sitting down with Ngāti Ranginui Ngāi Te Rangi Ngāti Pūkenga to talk through exactly what's happening here. Because what this repeal bill does too is it can't help but make Māori think that actually wait there's more to come. If I think about the representation across local government in this country—because what this does is it puts a lot of the emphasis back into the local government space and I'm OK with that but local government have already made it clear that you know what for the most part they have a very good relationship with their iwi; others don't. What this tells iwi and what this tells Māori in this country is that who knows what's around the corner? Is this Government going to repeal Māori wards legislation once again minimising Māori voice at the local government level? I'm looking forward to hearing contributions from my tuakana and Tāmaki-makau-rau resident Mr Dan Bidois about what this means for the iwi Māori statutory board in Tāmaki-makau-rau.I'm looking forward to hearing from the Minister: what does this mean for tribes that are yet to settle their dispute with the Crown? What does this mean for the tribes that are currently negotiating with the Crown? How does that impact on their ability to make sure that they get fair rights when resource management in their own district their own rohe is considered? These are matters that sadly we could not discuss debate or hear from experts on because of this rushed process in something that is so significant. This bill literally takes Māori-Crown relations back to 1991. Back to 1991; that's what this bill does. For example it says in here it repeals "to go back to iwi authority". Well I'm going to ask Mr Bishop in the committee stage of this House: how many iwi have been created under legislation in this House? How many iwi are now officially recognised since 1991 and how many are yet to be officially recognised through settlements in this House? I bet you that side won't be able to tell me. I bet you that side will not be able to tell me and that makes me really sad. It makes me sad because of the goodwill Māori have had to make sure that they can protect the taiao. It's quite clear. When we make these decisions we've got to make sure that tribes like Mr Seymour's tribe Ngāti Rēhia—Ngāti Rēhia who has an agreement with the local council in the Far North but doesn't have one with the regional council because of the refusal of the regional council. Now what we're doing is limiting their rights. Ngāti Rēhia—Mr Seymour's own tribe; the descendants of Tāreha. So I'm looking forward to making sure that the Minister answers those questions so that the rest of the country can hear exactly what's going on in this piece of legislation. This bill will set Māori- Crown relationships back decades; it will set them back decades. In fact if Mr Seymour and Mr Bishop want to have a look at the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) they'll see what determines an iwi authority and they'll know through the settlements that they've been part of in the nine years they've been in Parliament which is the same time as mine that those have actually changed; the definition has actually changed. The Ngā Hapu o Ngāti Porou legislation is another example of how that relationship has evolved and yes while in this repeal bill we might look towards protecting Ngā Hapu o Ngāti Porou what about all the others? What about all of the other iwi who have come and sat in the gallery of this House and listened to speakers from all across this House talk about how right it is to make sure that we correct the injustices of the past? They've sat in this House and listened to speakers talk about why it is important that we work together and maintain strong Crown relationships. That's what this bill is going to do: it is going to set those relationships back decades. I also look forward to exploring even more through the committee stage of the House the impact that this has on Tāmaki-makau-rau the consideration of the super-city legislation and the fact that as we look through the super-city legislation and what it affords Māori it pretty much contradicts what's in here sending us back to the RMA of 1991. That's just not good enough. All of that we'll have the good opportunity from my colleagues on this side of the House to make sure that the Government answers these questions because the people of Aotearoa New Zealand deserve to hear it—the very people that members on that side of the House claim to represent all people in Aotearoa New Zealand. On this side of the House we are opposed to this. We extended the olive branch to say "Let's do this in the bipartisan way." And I can say that through the process of the committee of the whole House amendments will be put on this Table and it will be recorded whether or not this Government supports it. Because this side of the House is quite clear on what needs to happen in order for this country to not only one advance its interests economically but two protect its environment. That's the challenge that we'll be putting to this Government. I do not commend this bill to the House."