Mahuta Nanaia: Second Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Second Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:562. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tenei e tautoko ana nga mihi ki nga iwi i tae mai nei ki te whakarongo ki a matau nei korero. No reira ki a koutou katoa tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
Thank you. I endorse the acknowledgments to the tribes who have arrived here to listen to our speeches. Hence greetings to you all greetings greetings 
.] 
This second reading opportunity is just a brief chance for members of the Maori Affairs Committee to report back on some key aspects of what they heard during the select committee. Can I say first of all on my part that although I am not a current member of the Maori Affairs Committee we were hosted with absolute hospitality and respect. The role of the select committee I think is a difficult one because there are great expectations placed on what the select committee should be doing at the point of hearings when we go out into your community. So can I say to Ngati Manawa Ngati Whare Ngati 
Pahauwera Ngati Porou and Nga Wai o Maniapoto koutou katoa for your kind hospitality in hosting us the gratitude is ours.  
Can I just point to some comments for each of the settlements—firstly Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare. Really I think the things that stood out for me were issues around representation on the Rangitaiki River Forum. When we heard evidence from Ngati Haku Patuheuheu and about their claims to the Rangitaiki and considered issues around the Rangitaiki River Forum we were confident that there were enabling provisions so that at such a time when Ngati Haku Patuheuheu wanted to be a part of the forum the model was there to enable that to happen.  
Secondly on the fisheries protocol as stated in the settlement we were confident that this was an opportunity for both Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare to have a proactive and ongoing role in the fisheries of their river and we recommended no change. And thirdly on the substantive issue of their maunga Tawhiuau—and this is probably something to highlight to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—the select committee members were quite mindful that if another Treaty settlement impinged on Ngati Manawa’s interest in Tawhiuau then this was a significant matter that the Minister would have to pay attention to so that those rights were not infringed upon. I wanted to highlight those issues in the second reading because they will be matters that may need to be considered if the Crown thinks it is going to have other settlements impinging upon its interest.  
I want to go to Ngati Pahauwera briefly. Probably two issues stood out there. Firstly we did have representations to the select committee that contested the mandate of Pahauwera. Having considered at length the aspects around the Pahauwera mandate the select committee was confident—absolutely confident—in the mandate that was expressed by Pahauwera and their ability to get to the point of settlement and we did not consider any substantive change to the legislation on this front.  
This is an important question I should mention for all Treaty settlements because often claimants and cross-claimants come to the select committee table thinking that we can change issues around this substantially. It is very difficult to do so. I want to commend Te Ururoa Flavell who chaired the committee for the hearing of this bill and I think he managed the process quite well and to a positive outcome.  
The definition of “Ngati 
Pahauwera” and the interests of the Ngai Tahu hapu was one of those issues where we really found ourselves conflicted and the same thing arose in the Ngati Porou settlement. Members of the select committee did not think it was beholden upon us to adjudicate over whakapapa within iwi. So on that basis although we understand and heard the full representations of Ngai Tahu hapu we accept that for the purposes of this settlement the definition of “Ngati 
Pahauwera” in the bill stands.  
I want to move to a substantive lot of hearings that we had on the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. I want to pay tribute to those who got this far having heard the number of cross-claimants who came to the hearings. You think you have got problems; come to my place. We have got all sorts of things happening back home.  
But can I say that one of the things that stood out in the Ngati Porou claim settlement hearings at the select committee level was that there was this high sense of urgency from many claimants that they did not have the ability to have their historical grievances aired. There is an innovation in this particular settlement around an airing-of-grievances process that I understand is being proposed.  
Again one of the issues that really stood out substantially in this particular settlement is that people need the opportunity to have their histories told and captured in some shape and form so that they are on the historical record. Again we were not in a position—and we do not feel as select committee members that we should have been in the position—to adjudicate over whakapapa. That is solely for Ngati Porou to determine. But the process in itself if there is the opportunity through the airing-of-grievances part of this particular settlement that histories can be heard told and captured should be considered as a positive part of giving a complete picture.  
I certainly want to pay tribute to Api Mahuika who actually personally bore the brunt of a lot of criticisms at the select committee table. I can say from some personal reflection that the position he holds is not an easy one. It is thankless and you bear a lot of responsibility with little gratitude afterwards. But can I say that the dignity with which the claim was put to the select committee had a strong bearing on my view that this is the best opportunity for Ngati Porou going forward and for the generations to come. What stood out even more was that there was a firm focus on this being an opportunity for the next generation to move forward.  
Finally I come back to my home town in a sense and that is Nga Wai o Maniapoto. I want to in this second reading highlight two particular aspects—maybe three. First is the interests of Raukawa in Wharepuhunga. They came to the select committee with a representation that the select committee should change or broaden the reach of Raukawa in terms of the Wharepuhunga. The select committee took that on board but did not think that any change to the legislation was necessary. However I would urge the Minister to seek some confirmation from the Office of Treaty Settlements that the memorandum of understanding that has been reached between Raukawa and Maniapoto will be confirmed before the third reading because this will be a positive part of ensuring that both Raukawa and Maniapoto interests in the Waipa will be clearly stated.  
Second is the issue of the clean-up fund being added to the Waikato River Authority. It is not the outcome that Maniapoto was seeking but is an opportunity to have issues of clean-up addressed. But the real issue there will be Waikato and Maniapoto assuring themselves that the ongoing aspects of clean-up of the upper river catchment are a matter yet to be negotiated with the Crown and should be a matter supported by Waikato in the overall interests of having a clean Waipa so that we get a clean Waikato River. In terms of the Lower Waipa catchment I am confident that with a bit of common sense and a bit of time both Waikato and Maniapoto will sort out its interests and how to manage aspects in the Lower Waipa catchment.  
Overall this feels like a rushed process but it is only the second readings. I am confident that in the third reading of the legislation members will be able to focus on those settlements that they want to highlight in terms of the opportunities they provide for the people going forward. No reira ki a koutou katoa tena tatou.