Whaitiri Meka: Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16168. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei. It is an absolute privilege to again rise in support of the second reading of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I too want to acknowledge the whānau who have not been able to make it from Napier because of the closure of the airport. Quite rightly like the Hon Chris Finlayson said this is really a part of the process. The critical part is the third reading. I do just want to say to those who could not make it due to fog that I know you are here in spirit and despite your absence from here I know your excitement at the thought that we are almost at the end of this journey. I do want to acknowledge that.I was fortunate to be on the Māori Affairs Committee in Napier. We were talking about the speed with which the Māori Affairs Committee is working in terms of dealing with these bills and can I say that at the hearing we had at Napier the Māori AffairsCommittee was split. We had half in one area and the other half in Napier. I want to acknowledge the honourable Te Ururoa Flavell who chaired the Māori Affairs Committee in Napier and to share with the House that we had many submissions. The fact that the honourable Minister Finlayson has just commended the bill shows that the submissions were not of any major concern. But I do want to acknowledge those in Napier and around Hawke’s Bay who came to submit to this bill and to strengthen it for what it has become.There was one thing I did pick up in the submissions in Napier. We talk about the relationships that are critical for Treaty settlements not just between iwi and the Crown but obviously iwi with iwi and hapū with hapū. In the submissions of the early submitters to the Napier hearings there were concerns around certain hapū missing out and not being reflected in this bill. I have got to say that for the short 7 or so months—not even 7 months—since I have been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee that seems to be a common thread coming through: where hapū or iwi are in a claim out of a claim or in nowhere claim. We heard that through the Manungaharuru-Tangitū but I do want to acknowledge Tānia Hopmans Uncle Bevan Taylor from Tāngoio and Petane Marae who were able to take the concerns raised at the submissions and report back to the select committee.Treaty claims are a very complex and convoluted area and only when you know the history of not just that particular claim but previous claims and the previous injustices does the whole picture unfold itself. Clearly it was important to have the opportunity to sit with Tānia to explain the concerns of Ngāi Tahu—and not Ngāi Tahu from the South Island but the hapū of Ngāi Tahu from the Nūhaka-Mōhaka area of the Hawke’s Bay who clearly were one of those hapū who felt left out. They were not reflected in the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement and clearly did not see themselves in the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Claims Settlement Bill. But I was assured having shared a flight back with Tānia that that actually was not the case. Again it just goes to my point around what processes we allow for people who feel that they are not adequately reflected or whose interests or beneficial interests are not reflected in Treaty settlements.The issue for me having heard those submissions was to do with knowing that the whakapapa and the genealogical links can go back many many generations. I recall from both my colleagues the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and our able chair Mr Tau Henare that the role of the Māori Affairs Committee is not to determine whakapapa. It is not to determine whose whakapapa is more correct than the others and I think I have used that—it has been a very good point made several times—as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. This message is not just to the House but clearly to those whose Treaty settlements have not been heard in order to reflect that it is not and should never ever be the role of the Crown to determine whose whakapapa should and should not be included.Again that goes to my point around getting to those points where there are very passionate people when it comes to whakapapa and your mana whenua over areas but for me it is around creating a process for that to happen and where it should rightly sit and that is with the whānau the hapū and the iwi. But often for members of the Māori Affairs Committee it feels sometimes that people who are putting up their cases to be included are looking for some sort of adjudication by the Māori Affairs Committee so I am proud to be associated with a committee that draws the line that that is not the role of the committee. As I said coming back to this particular bill—and subsequent ones that the Hon Chris Finlayson has acknowledged—that seems to be a recurring issue.I really did not want to take too much more time of the House. Clearly the report that was produced by the select committee with very very minor details has been presented. I do too join with others in the House and look forward to the third reading of theManungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I am really confident and clear that the passing of this bill added to the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Act with the other four large natural groupings of the Ngāti Kahungunu iwi collective settlements is going to do some amazing things for the region of Hawke’s Bay from Paritū all the way down to Turakirae in the Wairarapa. It is with those closing words that I again support the second reading of the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I wish them well and look forward to them all joining us in the third reading. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.