Flavell Te Ururoa: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18919] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tenei po. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us seated here in the House tonight. 
] 
In the first reading debate I took the opportunity to outline the experience of my own iwi in amongst and at the side of this bill. I recall that Mr Shane Jones raised the issues that I was raising for the marae. Me penei rawa te korero i korerohia era take i runga i te marae a i te kainga i mua noa atu o te taenga mai ki konei a ka mutu koina te take ko pupu ake te taupatupatu o te noho o etahi o nga hapu tetahi ki tetahi nga iwi tetahi ki tetahi. Hoi ano he whakamarama noa ake tena ki a koe e te mema o te Nota i nga uauatanga e pa ana ki a tatou. 
[ 
Let me put it this way: those matters were debated on the marae and in the home long before they came here and as a consequence conflict welled up that caused friction between subtribes and people. However that is a mere explanation to you the Northland member in regard to the difficulties that relate to us 
.] 
I was saying to Mr Jones that the issues he raised in respect of the discussion on the marae did take place prior to the arrival of the first reading of the bill and probably continued to take place. Those issues have been a sore point in the past on various marae and although I did not like the comment at the time I appreciate the sentiment about those issues. I wanted to make it clear to him that putting that korero on the record as I have done is something I needed to do to make sure that it is on the record and to that end I leave the matter; it goes no further. It is time to focus on the future. 
The essence of this bill as with any other settlement bill comes in the text of the apology. In this case it goes something like this: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologies for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations which have undermined tribal structures and had a damaging impact on the landholdings and development of the Affiliate.” That one sentence I would suggest has enormous relevance for the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa affiliated to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust and indeed almost every iwi throughout the motu. 
Within that one sentence is a history dating back as other members have said to the first pre-colonial contact in the 1830s a history in which contemporary title was converted into title derived from the Crown and a history in which the Crown acquired Maori land to facilitate Pakeha settlement—land compulsorily acquired for public works purposes and land taken for roading railways internal communications electricity generation scenic reserves forest plantation and an aerodrome. Land was taken and with it went the subsequent loss of control and responsibility for our ancestral lands our taonga our wahi tapu. E ki ana te korero there is a saying: “Toitu te whenua whatungarongaro te tangata.”—land is permanent but people pass on. 
The apology for the theft of land and the compensation for the illegal acquisition of it is important. For some of the Te Arawa people this bill has been an opportunity for celebration and joy that at last grievances have been heard and the story told. It is also time to reflect on the long frustrating and emotional journey to this point that will come to an end—I think—this week with many of the original Te Arawa koeke claimants now having passed on. Many of those I mentioned at the first reading. E moe koutou whakangaro atu. [ 
Sleep on and away from view 
.] Farewell. 
I will signal one or two matters that came up and other members of the select committee have moved into this area ahead of me. I wanted to focus a little more on these issues at the Committee stage but I will start by heading to the issue raised with regard to Ngati Whaoa. There was a call from some submitters for a full Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into Ngati Whaoa claims even though there are at least two or three Waitangi Tribunal reports instructing the Crown to deal with the uncoupling of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa. The focus from submitters was that such a move would reflect the separate status of each group more accurately. The argument came back to us from officials that such a change should be resisted because the coupling of iwi and hapu was the way it had always been at least in instances dating back to 1990. 
At the heart of the matter was the conflict of definition between Te Pumautanga and some members of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa and we could not say that it was resolved in this bill. But this is a significant matter because the definition is relevant in the central North Island discussions and indeed in any future directions from Ngati Whaoa. To that end I have been asked to present an amendment to this bill and I intend to do so at the Committee stage. In essence it is a request from Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa. 
The second matter is with regard to Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao a matter that other members have raised. A coupling concern that some submitters talked about was to do with requesting that the designation Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao be changed to Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao but there was also a recommendation that the tupuna Ngati Tukitirangi be added to the definition and hopefully we will hear about that when we get to the Committee stage. 
Again I have to say that the advice from officials did not inspire too much confidence. The comment provided by the Office of Treaty Settlements was that this was a relatively new issue and that the coupling of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao was well established and accepted by the Crown. Neither of these responses was compelling in our view so we look forward to at least placing this matter in front of the Committee by way of a Supplementary Order Paper at the request of the representatives of Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao which will at least address their concerns and interests. 
The Hon Tau Henare raised the issues of Waitangi Tribunal claims. The Maori Party was extremely concerned to learn that during the settlement process the Crown had extinguished a number of Waitangi Tribunal claims without either the claimants’ knowledge or the claimants’ consent. The explanation put forward was that this was a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. How can it be that the Crown can extinguish Waitangi Tribunal claims through the settlement process without the express knowledge and permission of the specific claimants? That just seems so unjust to me. Surely the people who placed the claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal have the right to be formally advised that their claim is being settled and to seek their buy-in as they have been the ones who have given the time the energy and even possibly the money in pursuit of the settlement of the grievance. Our comment in the select committee report expresses our concerns. 
Other members who spoke before me have talked about Ruamata Marae. We need to talk about the story of Ruamata Marae although other members have already broached some of the issues. Since the 1960s this marae has been continually hammered by way of the Crown allowing the use of the flight path over the top of the Ngati Uenukukopako people. I have used the word “hammered” quite deliberately. In the 1960s Ruamata’s ancestral meeting house was hammered down to lower ground after it was declared by the authorities to be an obstruction in the way of the flight path. At the same time the hill on which the marae burial ground the urupa was located was hammered down by machinery as it too was declared to be an obstruction to the flight path. All of this was despite the marae being in the area long before any airport was contemplated in Rotorua. 
However it is not just the marae tupuna whare the hill and the urupa—the cemetery—that have taken a hammering. So too has the ability to develop homes on the ancestral land due to height restrictions imposed because of the flight path. Today the people of the marae continue to face many other impacts and these were mentioned by Mr Keith Locke this evening when he talked about the aircraft noise the deposits of aviation fuel and so on. This is a real concern. However one thing the authorities do not seem to want to hammer down are the nails that Mr Locke talked about that are popping out of the marae buildings. This is possibly caused by the acoustic vibrations from the low-flying aircraft—and I have been at a hui when those aeroplanes were going over the top. 
Given all of this it would be no surprise for members to hear that just over a month ago a historical claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of the people of the marae. Their claim is that they have been prejudiced by the creation of this flight path. Having said that I was pleased to hear from the Minister earlier today that this issue has been looked at and considered. I appreciate it very much that that has been taken care of. 
At this second reading I will just acknowledge that considerable progress has been made in seeking to improve the processes that govern the way in which mana whenua entitlement and determination is arrived at and I acknowledge the work that Dr Cullen has done in respect of moving these settlements along. I also recognise the importance of the meetings held between the Crown Forestry Rental Trust the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal to better coordinate resources and improve the models used. The perfect science is still a long way off and although we commend the new approach—the emphasis on rangatira ki te rangatira chief to chief—it is an approach that must continue to ensure that the success of settlements continues to move forward. We must do better and we can do better and hopefully in the next 7 or 8 weeks or so we will have the opportunity to add to the process that has been developed up to this point in time.