Mahuta Nanaia: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10466] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 In speaking to the Committee stage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill I want to reaffirm the positive sign that Labour will continue to support it and to highlight a number of issues I think should be raised for consideration in the House and be put on the record. In the first instance it was the Minister’s suggestion to have another look at this legislation. Let it be a salient lesson to everyone in the House how difficult it is for iwi to move forward on Treaty claims. When this settlement was reached with Labour on 22 August 2008 there were clear undertakings agreed to by Waikato-Tainui. Then we had the subsequent election and the consideration of the current Minister of whether this current Government could work through the provisions of that agreement. 
When the independent review panel was instituted with the Minister’s view in mind to look at co-management provisions and the streamlining of those it took over 12 months to then revisit this settlement. That period of gestation was felt not only with a certain amount of goodwill on the part of Waikato-Tainui but also with a high level of difficulty in terms of trying to get traction and movement in finalising the terms of an agreement that Waikato-Tainui thought had been agreed to. 
I raise that with the Minister in the chair the Hon Christopher Finlayson because in his attempt to look at a better way of addressing this it left a gestational period that in many respects was a difficult period for Waikato-Tainui. In recognising that I make the point I raised earlier in the second reading that although the Minister’s attempt to look at streamlining the co-management provisions may have been achieved I reinforce that it would not be Waikato-Tainui’s view that this settlement is a one-size-fits-all approach. Every iwi that has a river and that wants to go through settlement will come up with various mechanisms that are more workable for it. 
I raise that with specific regard to the establishment of the Waikato River Authority. That provision was implemented largely as a result of recommendations of the independent panel largely to condense the five statutory boards in the original settlement to one river authority. There is some rationale that may lead people to think that having everybody sitting around the same table is a good thing. Certainly Waikato-Tainui have said they will have a look at it and try it out and that it is a matter that might need to be looked at in the review. I think that it is helpful for all iwi along the Waikato River to be able to sit around the table together and have a say in what is happening in the integrated management of the river. That is a positive move and greater benefit could be derived from that when we look at the river system as a whole and at what happens on the land and in the waterways. 
But I say that if we were to apply the same thinking to for example the Waipa River where there are only a couple of iwi along that catchment and if we were to transport the other iwi from the Waikato River Authority on to a Waipa River authority I think there would be some difficulty. I urge the Minister to consider the application of his streamlined provisions in a very pragmatic way that looks at the reality of how river systems operate and where iwi actually reside along a river. It is understandable for Waikato; not so for Waipa. I raise that as an early issue that needs some further clarification in debate and thinking not for the purposes of this settlement but for the purposes of what the Minister proposes to do which is implement a streamlined approach for the co-management of waterways. 
I also say in relation to the role of the Waikato River Authority that it was with some trepidation amongst Waikato-Tainui that it conceded having only one iwi member alongside the other four members of this authority. Many of those within the iwi felt that their voice and their view in relation to the priorities for managing the catchment from Karapiro down would be lost amongst the voices of other iwi who were in the upper catchment. Obviously there will be offsets between interests in the upper catchment vis-à-vis interests in the lower catchment. But it is worth a go. It is worth a shot. Probably the point to mention now is that if it is worth a shot then we should have a look at it.