Flavell Te Ururoa: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5378] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Kia ora tatou katoa. Firstly I will summarise some of the comments made this afternoon and this evening in respect of this bill. I will make it really clear to the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton that in a sense I am fairly confident that most iwi Maori would like to move forward with the settlements behind us. But the mere fact that most of the iwi involved in settlements have experienced splits that have devastated iwi hapu and whanau in some cases resulting in physical violence in relation to simple things like votes must tell us there are some concerns about the process. The Maori Party intends to continue to challenge the process used to achieve settlements. But we are also willing to contribute to some ideas that have been put up by a number of people over the years to try to find a way forward. We also acknowledge the work being done by the new chief executive or general manager—whatever his title is—of the Office of Treaty Settlements in going around people and getting some views back in respect of moving forward. That is the first thing I want to say. 
But the practical reality right here and right now is that the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill has come to this Parliament so I attempted in the first part of this session to talk about its history and how it has got here. We talked about the notion that in 1922 one might have thought that this particular issue had been solved through agreement between the Crown and Te Arawa. I believe that Te Arawa my people my koroua and kuia believed at that time there was a way forward by way of an agreement that looked at the issue of ownership. The practical reality right here and right now is that we are revisiting the dreams and aspirations the people had at that time on the back of the view that back in 1922 it might have been thought an agreement would provide an economic platform for Te Arawa to develop through a board. But that development did not happen. Why? The annuity did not increase. There was no issue about reviewing it and of course over time the money got to the point of being absolutely useless for the development of the people. 
The deed today comes to us against that background and it is also acknowledged by the Crown that it comes against the background of a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is an acknowledgement by the Crown of that and that this settlement is about doing something about it. How does the Crown do something about it? It offers some money and it offers some lakes back. Yet as we said a little earlier the Crown has offered the lakes back but there is no water—water is not part of the settlement. So one would think that that issue remains out there to be discussed. 
The problem as I mentioned earlier is that the Crown has assumed ownership of the Crown stratum—that being the water above the lake bed and the sky above that. The big issue for me is that that matter has not been tested in court and other speakers along with myself have said that this is the first time the notion has been tested in the Parliament of this land. The downside of it of course for the benefit of those who are listening is that it creates a precedent. Once a precedent is created it says that that is it for everybody else. So everybody needs to know that here it is on the Table tonight and again on Thursday that the Crown has assumed ownership of the stratum. How do we know that? It is called the Crown stratum yet this is the first time it appears in the laws of this land. 
So will this agreement be lasting? I have suggested as have other speakers that no the agreement will not be lasting. It will not be full and final and I make no apologies for encouraging our people to come back and relitigate the whole issue. Why? It has come against a background of protest that started with the “fiscal envelope”. Is the “fiscal envelope” still alive? The answer is yes it is. I need to say that this bill is set in the context of the “fiscal envelope” and that all of the conditions that came out of the settlements with Ngai Tahu and Tainui have had an impact on this particular bill. One issue that came up which I want to put out there again is in respect of ownership. OK—Te Arawa are getting the lakes back but in fact they can be outvoted by the other two bodies that are part of the management board or the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. Te Arawa can be outvoted in fact by the same groups that contributed to the pollution of Lake Rotorua.