Mahuta Nanaia: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10473] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Without putting too fine a point on the issue of the Waikato River Authority moving away from the five statutory boards model it needs to be noted that there were extensive consultations with a number of iwi along the river with regard to what would be the best management approach for the Waikato River. The statutory board model presented at the time was based in fact upon a lot of the feedback from those consultations and from those iwi. Notwithstanding that it is important to again recognise that the co-management framework really applies from the Karapiro down and that there are distinct variances or differences between the concerns and priorities of the upper catchment of the Waikato and those of the lower catchment. But everyone—each iwi along the whole of the river—recognises that if we are going to do it well we all need to be involved in it. So I put on the record that that statutory board model actually recognised some of the peculiarities of iwi relationships and I guess Waikato not wanting to impose something for upper catchment iwi that may not reconcile with their priorities and their imperatives. 
I also relate some comment to the member for ACT. People should not be discouraged by the views presented by ACT on this issue. ACT voted for the first reading but then it saw that it could not digest the progress of this settlement and it has since said that it is not going to support it. But on the points of history none the less I am so pleased that Mr Garrett has taken up the challenge of learning some of New Zealand’s Maori history. 
In terms of its Treaty settlement history as it relates to Waikato-Tainui that contribution needs to be considered quite strongly alongside another discourse—that is that this settlement is preceded by the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act. In that Act is contained an extensive history which details references to the Sim Commission. That point needs to be made because there was no intention at all by simplifying if you like a preamble in the river settlement to get away from the facts. The facts remain that Sim Commission clearly recognised the injustices of raupatu that affected Waikato-Tainui and that the raupatu was illegal and unjust. That was clearly stated with reference to the raupatu settlement. The history I think and the context for why this settlement is constructed in the way it is is clearly cross-referenced to the previous settlement that was reached in 1995. 
Mr Garrett went on to recognise the role of Princess Te Puea. One of the things that had been very clear in the Kingitanga experience was the fact that political relationships and alliances had had their time and their place and purpose and had achieved outcomes along the way. Indeed it was as a result of some very strong political alliances that in the time between Te Puea and Ngata and various politicians of the day much progress was made—that concerning development of lands and the like. But I say to Mr Garrett that he forgets that in terms of Treaty settlement history it was not until 1975 when a Labour Government established the Waitangi Tribunal where claims could be heard that we started to have the ability for these types of issues and claims to be aired in the public light. 
We were failed by history; many iwi will tell that story. In 1985 when again a Labour Government made those claims retrospective claims like this were coming to the fore. I made the point in my second reading speech that it was not until 1987 when my father the Tainui Maori Trust Board and Nga Marae Topu lodged the statement of claim for the Waikato River that this type of historical breach could be aired and given its true place in history to be rectified. And that is being done today. This is a dynamic and evolving opportunity not only for Waikato-Tainui but for the nation to say that we want to go in a different way when it comes to looking at the resource management of our taonga our waterways. We are not afraid to be able to present that with all its challenges in this settlement and to bring it to the House. I indeed support the intent and the overall aspiration of what is contained in this settlement. 
There was a comment and a very good comment made by the Greens with regard to a co-management model being adaptive and informed by evidence. I am very pleased that throughout the course of continuing to negotiate the finer points of this settlement a scoping study has been undertaken to look at what would be some of the priority projects if you like to take place in order to help to improve the health and well-being of the river. 
The proof of the pudding I agree is in the eating. It is in the practical implementation of co-management agreements and protocols which at the coalface will see riparian planting along our waterways. Farmers will be obligated to fence off waterways and plant. We will see our local people employed through opportunities that will continue to lift the well-being of their local streams and tributaries into the river. That is where the proof of the pudding of this co-management model will be and should be. But I reiterate that the opportunity through the clean-up fund to have a contestable fund which will be accessible by all peoples and many communities to show their effort along the waterway is I think an exciting thing. It will build bridges rather than divide communities. It should incentivise people to look at the health and well-being of our waterways and to say “We want to continue to work to improve their health so that we can all benefit from that.” 
Paul Quinn said that Federated Farmers’ objections should be noted and I note them too. But my response and that of many communities where those similar types of objections have come up is that at the end of the day Federated Farmers wants certainty in whom it is dealing with in regard to the river. All I can say on that front is that this legislation will provide certainty. It is just that the landscape has changed and that that organisation is looking at different faces on the other side of the table. So it should be; it is a sign of the times that Maori want to continue to be more involved in resource management because models of the past quite frankly have failed us. They have failed the environment and failed our communities so things need to change. 
The question of whether that will lead to higher costs is the other criticism from the territorial authorities. Will this model lead to higher costs for ratepayers? There is no easy answer to that but it is a legitimate concern that has been aired to negotiators. Waikato-Tainui are mindful of that and in working through a real and practical approach to co-management as envisaged in this agreement we would hope that over time investment in the river is a better value-for-cost contribution for everyone. That investment I think has to be something that is clear and reported back to communities. Those outcomes again should be demonstrated. 
In relation to the intent of this settlement I am pleased that the opportunity for joint management agreements are ones that will see in an overarching way more iwi commissioners come on to the scene to hear resource consents. I would like to hope that my own member’s bill which looks at elevating the recognition of iwi management plans in the planning cycle will be a bill that will be supported across the House because it attempts basically to streamline this approach and apply it in a very broad context. I think that that is a positive way forward. 
I also say just as a quick quip with regard to issues raised regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that historically Waikato-Tainui have been to international forums to seek redress for raupatu but each and every time they were told to go back to their own Parliament here in New Zealand. We know that any gain that will be of value to Maori to iwi will be made at home when this Parliament starts to look at making laws that take account of the visions and aspirations of what iwi want to see of what Maori want to see—that is the better management of our resources in our areas. So nothing gained overseas will deliver more than the tin tacks delivered here on the streets at home. 
Briefly I think that the opportunity again for Waikato-Tainui to continue to consolidate its relationship through the Kingitanga Accord with the various ministries will be a good thing. When we look again at practical opportunities let us look at Te Puaha o Waikato and let us look at what is happening with whitebaiting and the regulation of that down in that area. There is an expectation in that community that things could be done better and in a more integrated way. Perhaps under this accord under this sense of integrated management we could get a win-win outcome for that community: the preservation of the whitebait fisheries and a better management of it. These are but some of the opportunities that can fall from this particular agreement. 
I also point to the fact that the vision and strategy have now dropped from having recognition in the national policy statement to being in the regional policy statement. At the end of the day what people want to see is that the vision and strategy are embraced at a real level in the plans and rules of the regional council so that everything that happens within the domain of the Waikato River hinges on those high ideals and principles that are contained in the vision and strategy. 
In saying that I point out that the Guardians Establishment Committee—Gordon Blake Tukoroirangi Morgan and every member who participated on that committee—worked long and hard to ensure that the vision and strategy was not an airy-fairy document but something that many communities many people and Waikato-Tainui can hold as solid aspirations to be achieved and realised through the implementation of this settlement. That process in itself was again a bridge-building one and should be commended. To all the members who were on that committee I offer my personal thanks for their commitment and tireless effort to produce a vision and strategy of which I think we in this Parliament can all be proud should members take the time to read it. It is one that I think other iwi may want to look to as a starting point for conversations about what they want to see for their rivers and waterways. Those are the types of issues that I think are important to highlight in the Committee stage. They should not be ignored. 
Can I just make a final point to the Minister while I have the floor and it does not require a response. When it comes to the application of the streamlined model I urge horses for courses and that the model where it fits should be looked to as a positive one. But where it does not fit—and iwi will soon tell us that these are the clunky bits and are very pragmatic about it—I urge the Minister to consider that especially as it applies to the Waipa River. It was no coincidence when the Waikato Maniapoto Maori Trust Board was established that that relationship was an inherent one relating to our whakapapa connections. Also in history when the confiscations affected Waikato so traumatically it was Maniapoto that looked after Waikato. There are deeper connections in that but in its simplicity when we try to look for a solution for the Waikato River we cannot have a clean Waikato River without a clean Waipa River. The solutions are really hand in hand in terms of what the Minister does in negotiating forward a Treaty settlement and a model to help Maniapoto clean up the Waipa River. We cannot have a clean Waikato River without a clean Waipa River. That is the reality. It is the biggest tributary going into the Waikato River and affects the health and well-being of it. When we are looking at a sustainable model for waterways in this instance we have to see the two as hand in hand. Kia ora tatou. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just before I call the honourable Minister I advise members that the interpretation problems that we had earlier have been remedied.