Flavell Te Ururoa: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5354] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena no tatou katoa. In reference to Part 1 I point the Minister Mark Burton and other members in the Chamber tonight to a couple of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 57 which I have put forward. I will try to explain them hopefully fairly clearly. 
The first point is to raise again that the notion of “full and final” is something that I suspect our people do not accept. Maybe it was thought in 1922 that that settlement would be full and final yet here we are revisiting it. I note the point made by Mr Finlayson that unless settlements are done in a fair and equitable way and people know what is going on there will be a time when these sorts of settlements come back in the door. So I just put that out there as a prediction—that at one point or another that will happen. 
The second point I raise concerns my amendments to clause 5. I hope the Minister will consider some of these things. Firstly there is to be group called the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group which is to be made up of Te Arawa the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty. Under the bill the involvement of Te Arawa in this group is limited to only two members. I do not know whether the Minister picked that up. Te Arawa is mentioned as having two members but for the members from Environment Bay of Plenty and the Rotorua District Council no numbers are mentioned. It may be that their numbers are limited. I hope to address that further on in the discussions. 
It is important to have all of the parties at the table. The district council must accept some of the responsibility for the state of the lakes as should Environment Bay of Plenty as the current agency operating on behalf of the Crown. But surely it is appropriate that the number of representatives from Te Arawa as the owner equals the combined total of the representatives of both other agencies. How else can the owner ensure leverage to address the issues of cleaning up the lake? I am suggesting in my Supplementary Order Paper that the number of those representatives on that body equal the number of representatives of Te Arawa and that that be stated. To put it another way those responsible for the state of the lake could continue to fail unless this matter is addressed. 
The other issue I mention is that there is actually nothing in the bill that sets out the responsibilities of the Crown. Let us make it clear: the Crown had the responsibility the Crown stuffed up the Crown acknowledges that it stuffed up and the Crown is handing back a polluted site. These are the sorts of things that stick in the heart and soul of my people. 
To that end I will recommend the insertion of a new clause—and hopefully the Minister will consider this—stating that the total number appointed to the group by the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty must not exceed the number appointed by the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. That is part of a recommendation that will be put up later. 
I just also point out to the Minister that the hapu and iwi are set out in schedule 2 and clauses 5 6 and 7 talk about a review of the iwi and hapu. In terms of the management entity there is actually some doubling up of hapu. So a review would be a very important move. 
The apology in the bill acknowledges the part that Te Arawa has played in terms of Aotearoa. It states: “Te Arawa has honoured its obligations and responsibilities under te Tiriti o Waitangi …”. We have contributed to the war effort overseas and we gifted portions of the annuity for the national good in the 1930s and 1940s. It also states: “Te Arawa has demonstrated a record of co-operation with the Crown …” but the benefits back from the Crown were not realised. Finally it acknowledges that Te Arawa have made a significant contribution to tourism and to the wealth of New Zealand—Rotorua in particular. 
Also the Crown acknowledges its actions—this is quite important. The contribution of the Crown includes the introduction of exotic fish; prosecution of Te Arawa people for fishing without licences; deliberate delays in providing survey plans and public maps to Te Arawa for Native Land Court hearings; and the failure to review the annuity paid to Te Arawa as a part of the 1922 agreement. The Crown acknowledges that the pollution and degradation of several of the lakes have caused a sense of grievance. It acknowledges its failure to deal with grievances in any appropriate way despite petitions to the Government tribunal hearings and the like. These issues are actually documented in the bill. The bill sets out for the whole nation to see what the Crown acknowledges. So what is up with that? Te Arawa contributes to the nation and what do they get back? Exotic fish prosecution and deliberate delays.  
 In relation to clause 13 although the Maori Affairs Committee considered submissions from a number of iwi Ngati Whaoa in particular were clear that they wanted three lakes to be withdrawn: Ngahewa Ngapouri—also known as Opouri—and Tutaeinanga. Why? Because determination of the ownership of these lakes and the surrounding areas is still in debate before the Waitangi Tribunal. Yes a report was written by Judge Fox regarding a hearing for urgency and the Melvin report was produced but I ask whether it would not have been better for us to wait for the process of law to run its full course before implementing this bill. Let iwi have the ability to take issues to court—the Waitangi Tribunal in this case—allow the process of law to go to its nth degree then make decisions from that. Including these lakes now may well result in further grievance down the line. 
It is against this background that my Supplementary Order Paper takes these lakes out of the agreement. It omits clause 15 which refers to the settlement of the lakes claim being final. It will never be final for generation after generation especially as as we note our people revisit injustice. 
Clause 16 talks about the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider claims. This question was put by the select committee to the officials. It seems that the motivation is so that Te Arawa cannot relitigate issues around claims and settlements. So where are the safety mechanisms to ensure that the bill is enacted to its full capacity and where do Te Arawa go to seek redress? These are some of the questions that need to be asked and answered. This is important bearing in mind that the Crown with the bill acknowledges that it stonewalled Te Arawa’s attempts to get justice. Since 1922 it has taken 80 to 90 years to get a settlement. In one sense our people do not trust the Crown. 
These are important amendments that I hope the Minister will consider as we go through the Supplementary Order Paper process. I have taken the amendments fairly seriously in putting them in front of the Committee—in particular in front of the Minister—to address some of the anomalies that are part of this bill.