Mahuta Nanaia: Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Labour supports the passage of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill and I want to comment on three specific aspects that were raised in submissions. I want to thank the people of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura for hosting the Māori Affairs Committee at Karapiro where we heard a number of supportive submissions. I also want to I guess convey with concern subsequent emails that were sent to select committee members in relation to the consideration of the bill. I know for a fact that that particular submitter is well aware of the political process and although he may not be satisfied perhaps my contribution in this second reading may explain how some of those matters were considered.The issue of the co-management of the Waikato River and the point that was raised in the submission by Koroki Kahukura was that it was an expectation that they would continue to assert their role in the kaitiakitanga of the Waikato River because they live right next to it. There was no dispute over that in relation to the Waikato River settlement in relation to Raukawa in so far as the interests running from Karapiro to Arapuni. The issue that was raised with the select committee was that in order to carry out legitimate co-management responsibilities as an aligned iwi interest there was a cost to it. We did pursue at select committee level whether there was an opportunity for some co-management cost to be ascribed to the rights and interests that are conveyed in the legislation. We received advice from officials that this was not possible and that this was to be considered within the context of the Waikato River settlement.Again this is problematic for Koroki Kahukura because they have to negotiate within the already set parameters from the ascribing of co-management funds through the Waikato settlement. So we saw the dilemma. The select committee saw the dilemma that if you are going to ascribe rights and functions within a settlement the cost should be provided for albeit to make clear I guess what the obligation and expectation arising from the river settlement management instruments could be towards Koroki Kahukura. I think partly what they were asking for was to give clarity on how their co-management function could be carried out and to be able to accept the true cost of this. [Bell rung] Unfortunately we were unable to achieve that and again that was probably what led to the email.There were other issues in relation to land-banked properties and we have to see the three land-banked properties that were identified in relation to Maungatautari mountain. In terms of Maungatautari itself—and both Louise Upston and Sue Moroney will know quite clearly what the tensions are—the community certainly was very concerned about the transfer of ownership of Maungatautari mountain to Ngāti Koroki Kahukura in andof themselves. In 2011 when all those tensions resurfaced it brought into question the extent to which the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was prepared to consider the three properties that were identified in Arapuni. This became a problem. This was certainly how it was explained at the select committee level.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry I rang the bell—a 2 minute bell in fact. When the clock was set it was set at 5 minutes so you actually have some more time.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Oh fantastic!The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): So that is my apology. You actually have 5 more minutes—my apologies.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Fantastic. So I can take my time here. As I said the members listening to the debate have to consider the aspiration of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura in wanting the full title of the maunga returned to them in the context that it was a very political issue. What we have in the bill is an establishment of the Te Hapori o Maungatautari which is a community-wide if you like way of managing the maunga.I accept that the political tensions have been very high and tense and it is positive to hear that the Minister says that further negotiation around the fence—in particular the ownership of it—can continue to happen. It needs to happen because if we want to ensure that Maungatautari is a maunga that everyone can continue to enjoy have access to and be a part of preserving—again—the ecological regeneration and repatriation of native wildlife to that place then a very fluid and committed conversation has to happen with the ongoing management of Maungatautari.The three properties that were identified by Ngāti Koroki Kahukura when they went into this settlement did not become a part of their redress package. They did convey to us through the submissions whether this could be reconsidered. We were told that there was an objection by Ngāti Raukawa their neighbours and on that basis there was no instrument or provision to reconsider the transfer of these properties because an objection existed.Can I say that at select committee this started to raise questions about the issue of whether there should be an opportunity to retrospectively reconsider properties when things have moved on. So in 2011 when there were tensions around Maungatautari and the issues of the Arapuni properties got put on hold because of those tensions and in 2012 when it came closer to the time to actually complete the legislation there was no ability to go back and address this. I think that is more a policy issue. We recognise that. But it provided the curious situation where we thought: “Heck if these two parties can’t agree and they don’t have the ability as time has passed to reconsider whether they can come to some kind of agreement because time makes all the world of difference you could get the situation where properties that have been rightly identified with tribal interests could be sold outside of either interest.” and it just did not make sense to us.So Minister we understand that this is a policy issue. We understand that there was no scope for officials to move this forward but I think common sense should have prevailed. If in the event any one of these three properties goes on the open market and neither Raukawa nor Ngāti Koroki has the ability to buy back these properties then I think it is a great shame. If in the event the way in which Ngāti Raukawa interests to purchase these properties are strengthened because of their objection through a process then again I do not think that the outcome has really served the best interests of the parties who have a clear relationship to those lands. I say this knowing that officials have put their minds to these issues and heard some very abrasive views from Ngāti Koroki Kahukura on the matter. But I am heartened that none of these issues affected the quantum of the settlement that they do have.There is an opportunity for Ngāti Koriko Kahukura to continue to convey their aspirations as tangata whenua kaitiaki in their rohe. There could be more to be done in this space of Maungatautari. I hope that greater commitment can be achieved and that people do not fear what Ngāti Koroki Kahukura can do for the benefit of—certainly—the maunga the community and the river. Tēnā koutou katoa.