Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5346] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want to join the debate at this point partly to encourage all members to ensure that they have actually read the preamble to the bill. It is a useful starting point for understanding why we are here. Some members have read it thoroughly and others perhaps have not had the opportunity to do so yet. As my colleague Dave Hereora illustrated the preamble lays out a historical account of this settlement and it has formed an important part of the basis of the agreement between Te Arawa and the Crown. 
 I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr Henare raised and I think they were raised last week when the discussion on the preamble was commenced by Mr Brownlee. Indeed on the question of mandate firstly the matters came up during the second reading and for that matter came before the select committee. There has been considerable discussion around this question of the legitimacy of the mandate. 
It has to be noted perhaps first and foremost that the iwi and hapu that opposed the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board’s mandate in their submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee—and my colleague Mr Flavell referred to them in his second reading speech—generally appear themselves not to have any formal mandate on which they were acting in making their presentation before the committee. It is an interesting dilemma for members to consider whereby a properly mandated body was being challenged before the committee in its proven mandate by a small group that had no mandate on which to act. I urge members to consider where the justice of claim to proper representation therefore sits in that regard. 
I stress that the mandate the trust board has developed has been properly accepted. The process was extensive and is a well-trodden path in other previous settlements. It includes: multiple hui a-iwi—seven I understand in this case; proper submission of the deed of mandate to the Crown; a public consultation on that deed; proper consideration by a range of officials; and ultimately formal acceptance of the mandate. It is important that members who were not part of the select committee are aware that the Waitangi Tribunal relatively recently considered the question of the trust board’s mandate in relation to application for an urgent inquiry by some of the members who also appeared before the select committee. I tell members that the tribunal upheld that the mandate was collectively determined appropriate to deal with the complex overlapping customary interests in the lakes and has been well-maintained. I emphasise that the mandate has been well-maintained throughout the extended period of negotiation. I have no doubt the mandate recognised by my predecessor the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham was appropriate for the negotiation of the settlement of all of Te Arawa’s claims to the lakes and that it remains as strong today. 
On the question of ratification Mr Henare quite rightly visited that. It is an important question in any settlement and is one that often comes up at this point in the process of considering legislation. Firstly perhaps it is a little misleading to look at the bald census figures and Mr Henare referred to some. I think the generally held view is around 40000—that is the figure that is often said to refer to those who whakapapa to Te Arawa; some say a little more and so on. But we should bear in mind a number of things: firstly that figure is all of the people including those under 18—of which there are a considerable number—who are below voting age. If we take off those we are left with around 23000 people of voting age in Te Arawa. So it is about 58 percent of that total. 
Secondly with regard to those who choose to register to participate in the process well that is a choice. So it is important that we are confident and I think we can be. I think Sir Douglas Graham went through a very clear process to ensure his confidence and I remain satisfied of it. There has been a full opportunity for all those who are eligible to participate should they choose to. Of the 51 percent who did register to participate 94 percent approved the settlement. That is a very high level of approval by any measure. 
I reassure members because it is a legitimate issue to raise that the ratification rate for Te Arawa lakes is comparable with ratification rates in previous settlements. For example the Nga Tahu settlement results were almost identical to Te Arawa with a participation rate of around 50 percent and an approval rate of 94 percent as opposed to Te Arawa’s at 51 and 94 percent. Back in 1995 the Waikato Tainui settlement voter turn-out rate—in other words the participation rate—was only 40 percent with 65 percent approval. Yet as we have seen these two other examples have endured. I want to give that reassurance to members. 
Finally Mr Henare also raised the matter of the removal of jurisdiction of courts and the Waitangi Tribunal in this legislation. I reassure him and other members that that is normal and typical of what occurs in settlement legislation because it is a necessary part of ensuring that the end result is full and final.