Flavell Te Ururoa: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5045] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa i te Whare i te po nei. Koutou i hara mai i te kainga e koro Anaru tena koe Roku koutou. Kia ora rawa atu koutou. Huri noa i te Whare kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all in the House tonight and to you especially from home koro Anaru greeting to you Roku and to you others. Greetings indeed to you all. Throughout the House greetings to us all. 
] 
In his submission to the Waitangi Tribunal in June 2003 Professor Hirini Moko Mead of Ngati Awa raised the concept of te whakahoki whenua—the return of land. He suggested that the removal of the ringa kaha—the forceful occupation by another people—and the restoration of ancestral rights can be achieved either by defeating the group holding the ringa kaha or by arranging to have the land and therefore the mana over it restored. He raised as an example the retaking of Maketu by the hapu of Te Arawa thereby restoring the ancestral rights of Te Arawa over that area some 200 years after Ngaiterangi seized the land by conquest. 
Tonight we bear witness in this House to the actions of the ringa kaha those who represent the imposed treaty settlement process of the Crown those who have threatened kotahitanga o te waka o Te Arawa—the unity of Te Arawa—in making monumental decisions about the large tracts of lakes waterways and lands encompassed in this bill. The question that the Maori Party brings to this debate is how sufficient the provisions within this bill are in restoring the ancestral rights of Te Arawa over our cherished lakes and lands. How is our rangatiratanga protected or is it our fate to be eternally grateful for the breadcrumbs thrown to our people? 
At the Maori Affairs Committee hearings submission after submission recorded the dissatisfaction of submitters challenging the Crown that the financial compensation and responsibility for cleaning the lakes were insufficient. The Te Arawa Federation of Maori Authorities made an impassioned call to suspend this bill until more appropriate compensation and redress were available. It stated: “Continuation of this settlement is irresponsible. We cannot recover from the deliberate barbaric efforts of Government to delay provision of maps and survey materials which would have enabled our ancestors to present themselves prepared for the demands of the native Land Court. We cannot understand why we were prosecuted for fishing in our own lakes. Our lakes and waterways are now devastated with unforgiving pollutants. Let us have the opportunity to reform an alliance which will not jeopardise our mana as a great tribe.” 
It was a theme that was reinforced throughout the overwhelming majority of submissions each one of them speaking of the threats that have been endured by te ahi ka roa—those who keep the fires burning at home. The rights of ahi ka roa emerge from the mana and the freedom to enjoy the benefits of tino rangatiratanga over their home whenua. The question of those who can assert mana whenua—literally those who have mana political control and authority over the land—is a highly contentious issue within this bill. Ngati Wahiao demanded that all reference to Lakes Opouri/Ngapouri Ngahewa Tutaeinanga and Okaro be deleted from the bill because they believe they never gave a mandate to any organisation to act on their behalf and particularly in this lakes settlement. They have never had a seat on the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board and additionally Ngati Wahiao lands which include the lakes are subject to current Waitangi Tribunal claims. It is disappointing that we have a settlement when the issues of ownership over these lands and lakes is still to be clarified. 
Richard Charters in a separate submission searched Archives New Zealand for the 1915 minute book relevant to the sale of the Rotomahana Parekarangi land. He reviewed the research reports leading to the 1922 settlement and right through to the hui of 1997 for Te Arawa beneficiaries. From this basis he concluded that there was no mandate given by the people of Lake Opouri there was no ratification of the settlement by those owners and in fact the people were excluded from voting on the settlement. 
Then there is Ngati Makino who claim that the bill does nothing to provide for the spiritual relationship between Ngati Makino and their ancestral lands lakes and fisheries—their tribal identity. Ngati Makino are strongly opposed. They believe: “ … the net effects of clauses 13 15 and 16 deny the descendants of Te Arawa proper and just restitution of their taonga.” 
Then there was Pua Miria Maka of Ngati Pikaio who stated that the financial compensation offered is an insult and that the social and financial liability for the desecration of the lakes is not adequately addressed. Maka’s submission—and others from Kiri Potaka-Dewes of Ngati Rangiteaorere from Maru Tapsell of Waitaha and from Michelle Beckett of Ngati Whakaue—has given particular emphasis to describing the proposed settlement as inconsistent with the tikanga of Te Arawa and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It states: “The separation of the mana and authority of the beds of our lakes from the waters of our lakes and all other taonga within is inconsistent with the cultural and spiritual integrity of the lakes themselves and Te Arawa kawa and tikanga.” 
The submission of Te Ariki Morehu for and on behalf of Ngati Hinekura talked about his position as an elder of Te Arawa having been attained through his upbringing at Otara marae and over half a century of intense involvement in Te Arawa affairs. Te Ariki expanded upon the metaphysical or spiritual relationship of Te Arawa with our lakes which he referred to as sacred and regarded as a taonga since the discovery by our ancestor Ihenga. He explored the significance of Te Arawa holding mana whenua and rangatiratanga over these lakes since the time of Ihenga—our customary role as owners and kaitiaki of the lakes. He explained how these rights and responsibilities have been transmitted from generation to generation in Te Arawa waiata and karakia—their use governed by Te Arawa tikanga. The lakes waterways streams rivers swamps and springs were a vital food source and a medicinal resource as well as being part of an extensive communications network. He spoke about them being essential to the spiritual and cultural well-being of Te Arawa with the waters from the various parts often used in ritual and ceremony. He said: “For Te Arawa their lakes and waterways are not inert lifeless objects. In a very real sense the lakes are regarded as tupuna awa tupuna moana; living taonga of Te Arawa … the full names of Lakes Rotorua and Lake Rotoiti are Rotorua nui a Kahumatamomoe and te Roto iti i kitea ai e Ihenga; Te Arawa ancestors who came on the Arawa canoe.” Malcolm Short on behalf of Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust extended this further to note that Lake Rotorua is not just a taonga for all of Te Arawa but also a national treasure for all New Zealanders. 
Against the context of our most precious taonga the despoliation of the waters and the disruption of the relationship of Te Arawa peoples to their lakes is seen as a catastrophic breach of Te Tiriti. Te ahi ka roa o Maketu explained the ways in which people have fought for decades against what was described as “the blankets of bureaucracy that have smothered our people” and “the erosion of the whanau and hapu integrity of tangata whenua.” They said: “ … this is the yardstick that I use when I state unreservedly that we are being ripped off.” 
The rip-off of the Crown’s policies and actions was given contemporary relevance with the submission of Colleen Skerrett-White who advised that the Crown’s failure to protect the exploitation of Te Arawa culture tikanga and kawa from the growing ravages of the tourism industry alongside its actions with regard to the lands lakes and geothermal interests has effectively denied Te Arawa the opportunity to use and develop their assets to move from a subsistence to a cash economy. 
The debates in this House tonight form part of the history that following generations will revisit. Indeed the submission from David Wickliffe lays this challenge: “The Rotorua Lakes Bill is simply history repeating itself which we now know has not been in the best interests of Ngati Tamakari.” It has been my intention tonight to do the best I can to represent the interests and aspirations of my constituency. I have attempted to present their korero to the House tonight for the esteemed representatives here to consider their heartfelt call for justice. 
Don Morrison who can whakapapa to a number of tribes spoke—as in turn did his father and his father and his mother and her father Hemi Te Tuparoa. He stood to remind the Crown of what he called its deliberate discrimination that comes from appropriation and a position of power against Te Arawa. He said: “ … it is stated the Crown profoundly regrets that past Crown actions have had a negative impact on Te Arawa’s rangatiratanga … and you the Crown go further to ‘begin the process of healing’. Am I to be overcome with humility and gratitude and accept with thanks those words of fine gesture? I will tell my children’s children what I am about to tell you.” 
The challenge for all members of this House tonight is whether we can live with what we will tell our children’s children. Is the apology a sincere apology? Is the redress appropriate to the rangatiratanga of Te Arawa? Is this the price of citizenship we should accept with thanks? We have a whakatauaki that I think is appropriate at this time: Kia mate ururoa kei mate wheke—it is better to fight like a shark than to give in like an octopus. Kia ora tatou.