Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10251] 
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector)  
on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Kei te rere iho a roimata ki te awa o W’anganui kei te rere iho a wai kamo ki te awa o Waikato. E iri te rau kawakawa e riri ki w’are aitua. Moe mai ra e kui e moe mai ra. 
[ 
Tears flow down upon the Whanganui River as they do from the eyes upon the river of Waikato. Hang up the leaves of the kawakawa hang them upon the house of calamity. Slumber there ancient one rest there 
.] 
It is appropriate to acknowledge the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta a woman who was such a significant force in the passage of the Waikato River claims. Lady Raiha the co-negotiator of the claims with Tukoroirangi Morgan can rest in peace knowing the significance of the model that they have created will be an enduring legacy. The imprint of this legacy is woven throughout the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill promoting and emphasising the fundamental goal of restoring the health of the Waikato River. As someone from one river tribe to those of another I want to acknowledge the unique and distinctive role that our awa play in every aspect of our lives. As river people we share a special bond with our awa tupuna recognising that it is our collective responsibility to protect the mana of the river. The legislation that we debate today reminds us that the health and well-being of the Waikato River is vital for the economic environmental tourist and recreational goals of the Waikato region and indeed of Aotearoa. 
But other profound associations for Waikato-Tainui with their awa are protected within this bill. The reflections of the kuia Iti Rangihinemutu Rawiri explain some of these precious connections between the people and their river: “The Waikato River is our tupuna and looks over us throughout our lives. The river feeds us nurtures us and takes care of us healing our hurts and protecting us from harm. The river is our lifeline from which we take our name our identity and our mana.” In this sense the Waikato River was always more than simply a water highway a place to swim fish or play in a site for waka ama a food basket a source of kai. The people go to the awa to pray to be healed and to be cleansed. The relationship between the people of Waikato-Tainui and the river is one in which the mana the prestige and the mauri the life force of the two are indivisible. Waikato-Tainui described this relationship in the two key principles of their claim: te mana o te awa and mana whakahaere. 
I set out this broader world view of the Waikato River as a direct challenge to other views that may place our waterways in a singular context of economic utility. Such a focus has seen the health of the river progressively decline to the distress of the people of Waikato-Tainui. Tangata whenua take up a collective responsibility for the preservation and protection of the taonga and the resources within their tribal boundaries. This is a responsibility they hold seriously: to be tangata tiaki fully involved in the care and protection of the awa the river environment and the people. This bill emphasises the importance of the role of tangata tiaki. The people of Waikato-Tainui promote the concept of a korowai a protective cloak laid over te awa tupuna to respect and care for its ongoing health and well-being. 
In itself the legislation formalises the recognition of te mana o te awa introducing a new regime for the co-governance and co-management of the Waikato and Waipa Rivers that fully involves the iwi. This in turn enacts the tribal commitment to mana whakahaere the exercise of control access to and management of the river and the resources needed to maintain the life force of the river. For Waikato-Tainui mana whakahaere has long been exercised under the mana of the Kingitanga so today we acknowledge Kingi Tuheitia and Te Whare Kahui Ariki. 
I particularly commend Waikato-Tainui for their forbearance and initiative in being willing to reopen negotiations. Uppermost in the mind of the co-negotiators was how best to restore the health and well-being of the river. For that reason when the new Government initiated an independent review of the co-management arrangements in the original deed of settlement signed in August 2008 they did so willingly as part of their commitment to improving the outcomes. The 2008 legislation was deemed to be too cumbersome to become operational so again I commend all the parties for taking the initiative to go back to the drawing board to find a solution that will work. 
Based on that review Waikato-Tainui renegotiated the co-governance aspects of the settlement which led to the signing of a new deed of settlement in December 2009. The features of the new arrangements that have been incorporated into the bill are as follows. Governance functions relating to the river are to be consolidated in a single co-governance entity to be known as the Waikato River Authority. This is a considerable improvement on the previous arrangements which would have led to the establishment of five new entities. The vision and strategy will be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River and will be administered by the Waikato River Authority. The vision and strategy will be described as “Te Ture Whaimana” and will be incorporated directly into the  
Waikato Regional Policy Statement 
. 
The bill establishes the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust. This is a major investment and a significant environmental initiative. The trust’s contestable fund will be administered by the Waikato River Authority rather than having a separate trustee. 
Iwi-appointed commissioners will participate on hearing committees and boards of inquiry in respect of applications for resource consent to take use dam or divert water into the Waikato River for point-source discharge to the Waikato River and for activities listed in section 13 of the Resource Management Act if they relate to the Waikato River. Instead of establishing a separate statutory board the bill now provides for joint management agreements to be established between Waikato-Tainui and the Waikato Regional Council and between relevant territorial authorities for functions under the Resource Management Act that relate to the Waikato River. 
Certain customary activities of Waikato-Tainui are also recognised. These include the use of waka taua waka kopapa and waka tete at tribal events such as the annual Ngaruawahia Regatta. This is an important new feature and removes an anomaly that meant that members of Waikato-Tainui needed to seek permission to practice fundamental features of their culture and long-held traditions. 
Finally provision is made to vest certain river-related sites of significance in Waikato-Tainui for Waikato-Tainui to gift lands to the Waikato Regional Council for flood protection purposes and for Waikato-Tainui to participate in the co-management of Crown-owned river-related lands. 
The concepts behind the arrangements that are given effect to in this bill are not new. But for the first time in a Treaty settlement this bill focuses on giving tangible effect to these concepts. I thank the Maori Affairs Committee for its work on the bill to ensure that it gives effect to the new deed of settlement and for providing submitters with an opportunity to comment on the new provisions. There is no doubt that what has been achieved with this legislation will establish a precedent for other iwi. The co-management arrangements in this bill signify an important development in resource management and decision making. The tribal agreements with a range of ministries and the shared representation at the governance levels usher in a new era in Treaty relationships. Iwi and local authorities will now sit side by side at the top table working together to care for and protect te mana o te awa. It is with much pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 He tika hoki i runga i te tu nei e mihi kau ana ki te Kingi Tuheitia me tona ahurea. Ki a ratou e rere atu e rere atu. Ki a koutou e Tuku me to hoa pukumahi a Te Rai e mihi kau ana. Tena koutou. E tika atu te tu nei ki te mihi ake ki te wahine toa a Raiha e rere atu. Ko tona kaha rawa ki te tautokotia atu te ahua nei o tona awa. E mohio atu tatou mai i te timata ko tona tane a Kotahi i konei e wero atu ki te Kawana mo te tino take nei o te awa mai i te roaroa atu kia tae ki te wiki nei. No reira tena ano te mihi ki nga tokorua nei a Tuku raua ko Raiha mo to ratou kaha me wetahi o ratou nga kaimahi a muri a nga tari e tautokotia atu. 
He whakaaro i roto i aku mo te take nei mai ra ano. I timata te pakopako o te pu o nga hoia o te Kawana i tae atu i Ngaruawahia e tuku atu ki a ratou o Tainui to ratou mahi kino. Mai i tera wa e tae atu ki tenei wa e kore atu tatou e whakatikatika. Na te pai o te rangi nei kei te tae tata atu tatou ki te otinga. No reira he tino take tenei mo nga kereme. Ahakoa te nui o nga kereme mo nga wehewehe mahi atu a te Kawana ki te iwi tenei ano wetahi o nga tino kereme e mahi atu ratou o Tainui. He tangi mokemoke e kore i konei te wahine ra a Raiha me wetahi o o tatou wahine kaiwhakahaere o te motu. Wetahi o nga wahine rangatira kei te mohiotia e wetahi o tatou penei i a wau e manaaki atu e mau atu te ahua o to hoa. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
It is appropriate that I stand to greet King Tuheitia and his movement and those who have passed on. I wish to acknowledge Tuku and his hard-working colleague Lady Raiha. It is only right that I acknowledge Lady Raiha who has passed away for her efforts in supporting aspects relating to her river. We know that right from the start her husband Sir Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta would come here to challenge the Government over the Waikato River. That continued over a very long period of time to this week. Therefore I acknowledge Tuku and Lady Raiha for their efforts as well as departmental officials and staff for their support behind the scenes.  
I have a historical perception on this matter. When the land wars broke out soldiers of the Crown at the outset went to Ngaruawahia and committed wrongdoings against Tainui. We have refused settlement from that time to the present. The good thing about today is that we are close to it. This settlement is a critical one in the claims process. Even though a large number of claims are about the divisive actions by the Government towards tribes this claim that Tainui has worked through is one that really stands out. I grieve with sadness that Lady Raiha is not here today as well as some of our other leading women administrators and leaders of the nation that we and I knew personally. Raiha we will continue to embrace and uphold all that your late husband strove for. So greetings to us all 
.] 
I rise today with a lot of pride and humility to support the move towards the passage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations of the day the Hon Christopher Finlayson and the officials especially those who have been there for a long long time. It is certainly right that King Tuheitia and his people have something to celebrate that is real. Just in case I forget I do want to mention the two recent co-negotiators Tuku Morgan and Lady Raiha Mahuta and also the former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Michael Cullen Mita Ririnui Shane Jones and especially myself! 
I say seriously that it is something to celebrate. It is something that Raiha was dogmatic about—and she was that. The call from her people resounded as both she and Tuku put it forward that the river was patu. They had two simple points to make. One was to clean it up so the tamariki and rangatahi of Tainui could swim in it like the old people used to. The other was to ensure that the fish survived and they could feast on them like their ancestors used to. The buggery that happened and was enacted on Tainui by the forces of the Government is well-known. That it took place in Ngaruawahia and stripped them and put them into the ground is something that this bill will certainly put right. The issue in relation to te mana o te awa has always been in both the mind and the heart of the Tainui people as well as the awa in the sense of the korowai which they wished to have purveyed. All of those issues relevant to the river need to be recognised and are important. 
Manawhakahaere embodies the authority that Waikato-Tainui and other rural tribes have established in respect of the access to and management of the Waikato River and its resources in accordance with tikanga values and ethics. As my colleagues chortle over here I want to ensure that it is understood that most of the movement in relation to this settlement was done by the Tainui people. 
David Garrett 
: Which settlement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is a great settlement. 
David Garrett 
: No; which settlement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is a great settlement that is about to happen. It is the one that will ensure that the great city of Auckland has a clean water supply. It is the one that that member David Garrett will not recognise in relation to representation. Only today we heard the famous ACT leader mentioning divisiveness as we watched a Government front bench that was scrambling. The invasion and war and of course the confiscation has been an integral part of history that people have used as an excuse to ensure that finality was not brought to the settlement. 
I along with my colleagues Nanaia Mahuta Shane Jones and the rest of the Labour members am very thankful that we have this bill today. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to the settlement of raupatu claims under the 2009 deed recognise the significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui and recognise the vision and strategy for the Waikato River which David Garrett is short on. He gullibly does not appreciate tradition or cultural heritage. He bandies words about loosely because he is one of the troops and endowed with red-neckery—if there is such a term. There have always been rednecks from the beginning even if they were soldiers and now their protégés still huff and puff about why this is not right. That member over there should certainly come to a wananga so I can teach him better. Some people’s behaviour puts an honourable settlement asunder. That member’s performance in chortling just then is just that. The teams on both sides both the Crown and Tainui have certainly worked hard and against all odds to get here. I want Mr Hide to remember that Maori are charitable and that they do give after being plundered bombed and shot to pieces. That is what this settlement is quite clearly about.  
Na te mea i roto i aku i tae atu a Te Raiha ki te komiti. 
[ 
Because I know personally that Lady Raiha turned up at the select committee 
.] 
Lady Raiha Mahuta turned up right at the end of the select committee and she was mauiui—very very mauiui. That blockhead does not understand what that means. She stepped up to the counter and she said: “This is like Shakespeare’s play being played out all over again.” 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: That’s true. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I say to Mr Hide that a pound of flesh is being sought but nobody can take any more because we want to settle it. That member can bloody well sit there and snidely say that this should not be good— 
David Garrett 
: How much was $6000 worth in 1944 Parekura? Do you know? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I know more than that member about this. He can sit there snidely with that ungracious behaviour at a very very important time when there is something very very important to celebrate. I know about what has been taken from the Tainui people and I know the great effort the negotiators and a decent Minister—for this settlement anyway—have undertaken. For the environment and the culture of the river this is a very very important settlement. It shows that we care about the tangata whenua. This is real stuff. This is not aspirational. This is not a bill or a signing-up that is being misrepresented by the Government. I want to commend Tuku Morgan and especially Lady Raiha. She is not here but certainly her spirit embodies these few final days of legislation. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I too want to begin my contribution on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill by paying my respects to Lady Raiha Mahuta. She was a dedicated and dignified negotiator for Waikato-Tainui. She earned the respect of all those who negotiated with her. Throughout as Mr Horomia said she was ably assisted by Tuku Morgan and I acknowledge his great work. My last meeting with Lady Mahuta occurred a few days before her death. She was desperately ill but made every endeavour to get to that meeting. The Prime Minister was also there. She wanted to attend that meeting because she wanted to discuss the time frame for progressing this bill through its final stages because of its importance to her and to her iwi. 
The river and its catchment play a significant strategic role for New Zealand as a source of energy. It is the location of a very significant primary industry and of course of recreational activities. There are very important values and relationships between the river the people and its communities including public and private interests and these need to be recognised. 
It has always been important that the proposed arrangements be effective in achieving positive outcomes and in meeting the purpose of the deed. For that reason the incoming Government initiated an independent review of the deed of the arrangements in the deed of settlement signed in August 2008 and based on that review renegotiated certain aspects of the settlement. This led to the signing of a new deed of settlement in December 2009. In saying that I too acknowledge the work of the previous administration in negotiating the original deed. I particularly acknowledge the work of my predecessor Dr Cullen and the work of Messrs Horomia and Ririnui. 
I acknowledge also the willingness of Waikato-Tainui to reopen negotiations. It was a significant step to take in terms of reopening a deed of settlement but I believe it has resulted in improvements that will bring about more streamlined arrangements and better outcomes for everyone. It is appropriate to acknowledge the work of the independent review panel chaired by Mr Evan Williams of Auckland and the willingness of the iwi along the Waikato River and the Waipa River to support the process. The Waikato Regional Council and other regional authorities have made a significant contribution to ensure we can achieve a sound economically efficient model for the river. In that regard the support and close interest shown by the Minister for the Environment has been very helpful indeed. This occasion cannot pass without also acknowledging the work of the Crown’s chief negotiator Brian Roche and his team. 
Mrs Turia has outlined the features of the new arrangements which have been incorporated in the bill. There are important policy objectives associated with the framework and I do not need to dwell on them because she has already spoken to those. 
This bill provides effective legal mechanisms for Waikato-Tainui to participate in the governance of the river reflecting the significance of the river to Waikato-Tainui. The bill streamlines improves and coordinates governance and management arrangements for the river to support its strategic importance to New Zealand and also for the restoration and protection of the health and well-being of the river. Most important the bill provides clear direction and certainty about co-governance of the river. 
Cornerstones for the new arrangements are that governance functions relating to the river will now be consolidated in a single entity to be known as the Waikato River Authority and the vision and strategy will be the primary direction-setting document for the river. The contestable clean-up trust is a major investment by the Government and a significant environmental initiative. The far-sightedness of Waikato-Tainui in negotiating such a fund which has long-term benefits for the river is to be applauded. 
This bill will settle a longstanding Treaty grievance and at the same time ensure that the ongoing Treaty relationship with Waikato-Tainui is based on sound arrangements with real outcomes. The vision of Sir Robert Mahuta the determination of Lady Mahuta and the patience and dedication of so many of the people of Waikato-Tainui have borne fruit and the outcome is one from which the entire community will benefit. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Tenei e tika ana me whakahoki nga mihi kua wharikihia nei e koutou kei waenganui i a tatou i tenei Whare e pa ana ki taku whaea a ki a ratou katoa e huri ki tua o te arai. No reira tena koutou katoa. Tenei ano e mihi atu ki nga tini mate i whakapau kaha ki nga mahi hei whakahoki i o matou nei whenua i raupatutia ana ki te kite i tenei wahanga kei waenganui i a tatou i tenei rangi te whakahoki o to tatou nei awa tupuna a Waikato. 
[ 
It is apt that I respond to the tributes that you expressed amongst us in this House specifically to my mother and indeed to all those who have passed beyond the veil. A personal greeting to you all. I too acknowledge the many who have died and were involved in this settlement to have our confiscated lands and our ancestral Waikato River returned to us. They worked hard exhausted themselves and regretfully did not see the part of the settlement before us today 
.] 
I stand and acknowledge the many tributes that have been put forward in this House specifically to my mother and indeed to the many people who have passed and have been involved with both the Waikato River settlement and the Waikato raupatu settlement. Many people have exhausted their effort determination talent expertise and wisdom to see the return of Waikato lands and our awa to our people so that we can look forward and so that there is a future for the next generation. 
I acknowledge that this is the second reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and I want to add a contribution that may be helpful in terms of the debate that is about to take place in the Committee stage that will lead on to the passing of this legislation. I want to acknowledge the key tenets of this settlement. They are mainly to see the health and well-being of the Waikato River restored. Unlike the lands settlement the major benefactor of this one will be the Waikato River itself. It is a very different kind of mind-set or space to put oneself into when we are talking about the health and well-being of the river and the challenge over a generation to see it restored to what many of our old people remembered a clear and pristine state. 
Many people in the House may say “Look this is an unachievable task.” but back in 1987 when a statement of claim was put forward to the Waitangi Tribunal to say that the Waikato River and those lands that were confiscated from us belong to us and we belong to them and they will be returned a lot of people did not believe that. The passage of time has now seen the realisation of that very very ambitious aspiration and we should really acknowledge that that in itself is a huge huge milestone. 
I acknowledge that the two key elements underpinning this settlement are quite simple: the mana of the awa and manawhakahaere for the awa. If I can I will add some clarification for the House because many interpretations have been put forward. It is my belief that if one were to condense a sense of what mana of the awa is to our people there would be no straight interpretation but history will show that Waikato at no point ceded authority over our river to anybody. We still maintain and affirm the strong sense that the mana of the awa is intact and we are merely its caretakers custodians or caregivers if one likes and that that mana has basically transcended everything else over a long period of time. 
That is why manawhakahaere becomes so important because the future will show that our relationship to the river and our ongoing connection to the best interests of and outcomes for the river will sustain our people and lead to the well-being not only of the Waikato but also of all those who live in our region. It is about the ongoing care protection and management of the river. That is my interpretation of it. 
The challenge to negotiate a precedent-setting agreement such as this has not been without sacrifice and struggle. I did say in 1987 when the statement of claim was lodged that nobody believed that it would happen but it has happened and we recognise that. I acknowledge both the National and Labour Governments which have played their respective roles in the challenge to see history rectified to see past wrongs rectified and to see that justice is served. It is pertinent to note that the signing of the Waikato River settlement on 22 August was a ground-breaking opportunity for the nation. Never before had co-governance or co-management been a concept so willingly accepted by the Crown. In that respect I pay tribute to Michael Cullen for his leadership because it took leadership to make something like that happen. 
Under the current Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson Waikato-Tainui were asked to participate in an independent review to look at some of the co-management provisions and to see whether they could be streamlined. If there are gains to be made from this example for other river iwi such as those who have spoken Waikato would be the first to offer its model as a potential way forward. However let it not be said that Waikato is imposing this model on any other river iwi. If any gains can be taken from it so be it but that is for river iwi themselves when they enter into their negotiations not only to be able to draw the gains potentially from this model but also to build on their own aspirations for how they want to see the future well-being and management of their own awa. We are not in a position of telling other iwi what to do because it is important that each iwi must find a solution that works for them. 
Some of the panel’s recommendations led to the establishment of a number of changes that a select committee considered which is where I want to focus my contribution: on the creation of the Waikato River Authority. There was a lot of debate at a political level about the five statutory boards and whether this was an onerous provision that would lead to a disconnection in relation to an integrated approach to decision making along the river. Time will tell whether the right decision was made but let us give it a shot. That is the message I want to give in the House today because it clearly was the message coming back from the tribe and from the many consultations it had. If this is going to be seen as an opportunity to move forward and make better decisions on the river let us give it a shot but when it comes time for the review let us look at it in a very serious manner. 
I say again that Waikato did not want to be in the position whereby we were saying to every other iwi along the river when they were making their decisions about the best interests of their parts of the river what they should be doing. I want that recorded in the House because when the review comes up we may need to relook at this decision at some point in the future. 
The other point to be made is the composition of the Waikato River Authority—five Crown members and five members from all the iwi along the river. Again there was a strong go-forward feel from the tribe on this issue but it should be recorded in the House that the concern was that Waikato did not want to see its interests diluted against the backdrop of the many other iwi certainly in the upper catchment. I raise that as a potential area that might be considered in a future review. 
The other change that resulted from the independent review panel was putting the vision and strategy directly into the regional policy statement rather than setting it at the national policy level. It has been proposed that there are a number of advantages for this being the case and that it is a more direct way of having an influence on the decisions as to what happens in regard to the setting of policy for the Waikato River. However I raise this point again because if at any time there is a concern from the territorial authorities about the implementation of the regional policy statement or any change in their commitment to reflect at a practical level what is happening within the development of policy or at an implementation level then the course of redress for Waikato must be directly with the Crown not with the territorial authorities. That is a very genuine concern that I raise and I want to ensure that it receives a full and robust debate during the Committee stage. 
Mention has been made of the clean-up fund which is a great opportunity for many people who are committed to participating in the cleaning up of the river and of the provision of the endowment fund to the Waikato-Tainui Endowed College. We want to see the intellectual wealth of our people focused and harnessed in this area of environmental management of stewardship and of having some practical cases being looked at as the best practice in the area of resource management. 
Then there are the joint-management agreements. I was absolutely delighted that albeit on a sad occasion the first joint-management agreement was signed on 23 March the day on which my mother passed. She would have liked nothing more than to be there. One thing she did say was “After me the work continues.” For the Waikato District Council to be able to sign the first joint-management agreement as a clear reflection of its intention to work with us in going forward on the Waikato River I think has been something that we back home have well recognised. 
I want to acknowledge the Maori Affairs Committee because of the efforts of the select committee. It goes without saying that the committee has to sit through a number of submissions some of which are very positive and some of which are very negative. Sadly some of those submissions have come to the fore now and I will spend time in the Committee stage debating that. The select committee should be commended for the work that it did in this area because it heard a number of submissions and went through all of the issues and presented its findings in what I think is a very good report for the House to consider. 
Last of all I acknowledge the negotiating team—both the Crown negotiators and Tainui negotiators. I think that every tribe that has participated in a negotiation process has realised that nothing worth having comes easy. It is as simple as that. Can I say with the leave of the House that the efforts of the co-negotiators for Tainui Tuku Morgan and my late mother have come with huge personal sacrifice struggle and a lot of personal criticism directed at them for having the courage to show leadership and say that this can be a better way forward for the future of our kids our grandkids and the generations after them. No reira ki a ratou katoa tatou katoa tenei te mihi atu ki a koutou. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is an honour to speak in the second reading debate on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill after Nanaia Mahuta. I acknowledge her contribution. 
I begin my contribution to this debate in the way that others have done by acknowledging the special role played by Lady Raiha Mahuta in bringing this matter to this point in the House. It is a proud moment. I also honour the contributions of others who have been involved in that process over many years: Sir Robert Mahuta; Tukoroirangi Morgan who is a former member of this House; and indeed the negotiators on the Government side from both Labour and National Governments. 
I am pleased to take the opportunity to make some comments on the bill and to signal that the Green Party will support its passage into law. We do this not only because supporting settlements is our default position but also because there are some particularly positive and sensible elements in the form of settlement proposed in the bill. The key word in the title of the bill and the word that provides a context for its provisions is “Raupatu”—confiscation. The Waikato settlement of 1995 and the Crown apology that formed part of it made clear beyond dispute that the military and legislative actions of the Crown in 1863 that cost Waikato their lives their land and their cultural and economic base were illegal and in gross breach of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. A royal commission of inquiry as long ago as 1926 found that the raupatu the confiscation of Waikato land by the Crown had been wholly excessive and that a grave injustice had been done to tangata whenua. Iwi and Maori have been extraordinarily patient for generations in their wait for a fair deal and equally modest in their demands and expectations in regard to compensation. It is to be hoped that those who accuse Maori of venality as some farmers have done in the news media today of having a victim mentality or of demanding special privileges as we have heard in the House today will one day read and understand the real history of this and other settlements and realise how generous Maori have been and continue to be in these processes. 
With a few notable exceptions the co-management model that is found in this bill has not been readily accepted or adopted in many places around New Zealand. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this is a symptom of the Crown and Crown agencies being unwilling to relinquish control over land water and other resources. This bill represents a genuine attempt to share power over the river and its present and future management. That is commendable and we hope it will be followed by a more open and accepting approach to co-management more generally. 
Concern has been expressed notably by Ngati Koroki Kahukura that their exclusion from the settlement and from representation on the Waikato River Authority will compromise their interest in the river. The reason given for this exclusion from the authority—that a number larger than 10 would be unworkable—is far from persuasive although I welcomed Nanaia Mahuta’s comments about this matter. The reassurances from the Maori Affairs Committee in respect of this iwi and in respect of similar concerns voiced by others including Ngati Te Ata o Waiohua Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Raukawa and Te Arawa must be honoured as any failure to recognise the interests and mana of these tribes would threaten the integrity and success of the whole settlement. Throughout the commentary from the Maori Affairs Committee there are reassurances that nothing in this bill can or will in any way disadvantage other river iwi who assert rights to some part of the river or of the resources within or around it. It would be appropriate for the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to restate these assurances in the House. 
It was with some alarm that we noted that the select committee preferred that the direction-setting document for the authority and its work which is designated “Te Ture Whaimana” should not have the status of a national policy statement. But that concern was alleviated when we saw that rather than being downgraded the intention was for the document to take precedence over any national policy statement or other Resource Management Act planning document. 
We support the establishment of a single governing body with equal representation from iwi and Crown agencies as being in the spirit of the Treaty relationship and in the sense that a single entity ought to be better able to take an integrated and comprehensive strategic view of management needs and practices. 
The proposed clean-up trust with assured funding to support projects is a long-overdue initiative. The condition of the Waikato River as with so many of our rivers and waterways is nothing short of a national disgrace. The sacrifice of the river water to the combined demands of farming urban development excessive extraction and discharge of waste is a trend that must be stopped and indeed reversed if we are to protect our own future wellbeing socially culturally and economically and to assure future generations of a useful and usable freshwater resource. Our only concern would be that the funding put aside may not be sufficient for the task. We would also expect that the trustees take a broad view of what constitutes a project to restore the health and the mauri of the water including for example the provision of funds to take legal action against polluters and to disperse sums to research develop and implement and enable changes to land-use practices that over time have contributed to and will otherwise continue to contribute to the water’s degradation. 
The Green Party welcomes the bill back from the select committee and gives its undertaking to support it. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I oppose it as the Minister of Local Government I oppose it as the leader of the ACT Party and I oppose it as a New Zealander. This bill represents a radical departure in terms of the management of natural resources and in terms of local government in New Zealand. I do not think that members appreciate how big the departure is. Indeed the Government is on record as saying that this is a one-off and that it is unique but today we heard Minister Turia say when she began the second reading debate that it will be the model the benchmark. We heard the Labour Party say that that was the case too. 
The way we manage natural resources in New Zealand is through private property owners and the Department of Conservation managing the resources that they hold in freehold or as part of the Crown estate. Overlaying that we have regional councils—in this case the Waikato Regional Council—which are required under the Resource Management Act to take care and to provide the framework within which water air land and other resources are managed to protect the common interests that we have in these resources. 
The regional councils have enormous power. In the case of a farmer for example a regional council can allow or deny the ability to use a water right. It can set rules for how one can farm one’s land how much fertilizer one can have on one’s land and how many stock units one can have. So the power of the regional council over people’s way of life is enormous. That is why we have a process of electing locally in our regions representatives to represent us—because if they make decisions we disagree with we can vote them out. 
Someone might be a farmer who is being regulated in a way that that person considers to be unjust and his or her response to that is the democratic one of agitating politically to get that representative or that council dumped and to have one’s say. That means that regional councils have to have regard for the interests of the people in their community and in their catchment. That is why the Government had to think long and hard when it was confronted with the issue of Environment Canterbury—it had to think long and hard about its responsibilities to the people of Canterbury and about denying them the opportunity to have an election this time around while we sought to sort out the problems caused by the dysfunction of Environment Canterbury. 
I remember hearing at length form Labour members opposite about the loss of democracy. Well here is a question: what about the loss of democracy inherent in this bill? The loss of that democracy is huge. Let me explain. This bill introduces co-governance to New Zealand at the local government level across an entire catchment across everyone in it for the first time ever. We have not had that model before. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Isn’t it a great day? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Tau Henare calls out that it is a great day. Well I have to say that it is a very very sad day for the people of Waikato and the people of New Zealand. Let me explain why. What we will now have is the Waikato River Authority and it will be made up of people who are not elected from that community. The authority will represent the tribes of the region and there will be Crown appointments. I know that Tau Henare likes this because his brother-in-law Tukoroirangi Morgan negotiated it. The Tainui people will be in the box seat for the use of the river and the catchment so why would they not be appreciative of this bill? But the bill is wrong. 
The Waikato River Authority—unelected appointed by the tribes and matched by the Crown—will set the vision and strategy for the river and the catchment and the Waikato Regional Council will have nothing to do but follow it. Picture this—it will go like this: in the future a dairy farmer will apply for a water-right consent or to roll over an existing consent and the Waikato Regional Council will deny the farmer that consent at the cost of his or her livelihood and way of life. The council will do that not because of the Waikato Regional Council’s decision but because of the decision of the Waikato River Authority which will decide on the basis that the activity does not fit with the authority’s vision and strategy. That is what makes this a sad day. It might be all right for Tau Henare and his mates who are in the driver’s seat but it is a bad bad day for the people of Waikato. 
David Bennett 
: Let us decide. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well that is a very interesting comment. I would be happy with that but the Waikato Regional Council did not get a choice. This is Parliament I say to Mr Bennett and the Waikato Regional Council could have done this if it had chosen to but Parliament and the Government came along negotiated without their involvement and now through Parliament is forcing it upon them. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why did you sack Environment Canterbury? You’re the Minister. You talk about democracy and you sacked Environment Canterbury. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Now we have a backbench National MP not agreeing with the sacking of Environment Canterbury which I find very interesting. My point about Environment Canterbury I say to Mr Quinn—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is chirping away because my microphone is not working and I cannot sit in my seat. If he listened for a change rather than trying to be a smart dick in this Parliament we might get some sense. 
Paul Quinn 
: Anger management. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I have no problems with anger. All I am saying is that if Mr Quinn would let me make my speech he might understand what the issue is. I will go on with my speech. I respect Maori values and spiritual views— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —people can believe what they like—but it is very difficult when we put that into law. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that the noise is a bit too loud. As I understand it a member cannot move from his seat—and Mr Quinn’s seat is at the back—in order to interject on a speaker in the way that Mr Quinn is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that a member cannot move to take advantage of interjection. But in the House there is a general kind of acceptance that people move for other reasons. The member is correct that the noise level has got a bit higher. I caution members. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: One of the difficulties is that people do shout down those with a dissenting view in this House. Let me read this passage from clause 8. This is what the Crown is legislating for: “The Waikato River is our tupuna (ancestor) which has mana (spiritual authority and power) and in turn represents the mana and mauri (life force) of Waikato-Tainui. The Waikato River is a single indivisible being”—which is to say that the river is a living thing; it is an ancestor according to this legislation—“that flows from Te Taheke Hukahuka to Te Puuaha o Waikato (the mouth) and includes its waters banks and beds (and all minerals under them) and its streams waterways tributaries lakes aquatic fisheries vegetation flood plains wetlands islands springs water column airspace and substratum as well as its metaphysical being.” 
So the whole lot the whole catchment is an indivisible living thing that is the ancestor of a people. The only people who can interpret whether that ancestor is upset or hurt or being annoyed disrupted or affected are the people who believe that. Now I do not happen to believe it. I think it is hocus-pocus. But what we are doing is legislating this hocus-pocus and the Waikato River Authority the Waikato Regional Council and the people of the Waikato will have to live by that. I say shame on the National Party which once used to stand against this and used to believe in one law for New Zealand. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will not go into the platitudes of doing any mihis to anybody because they have been said by better people than me so far. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: That’s your political whanaunga. That’s your cuzzy politically speaking. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Mr Jones should do himself a favour and be quiet—in fact he should do the nation a favour and be quiet. 
On a day when New Zealand endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we are here at the second reading of something that is great something that should unify this nation and something that has never been tried before as Rodney Hide so aptly put it. It is something that has never been put to the nation before: co-governance. I ask why not. I could pick holes through everything that Rodney Hide said. He talked about hocus-pocus even though this Parliament at 2 o’clock every afternoon assembles in this House and does its prayer. We do not call that hocus-pocus. We stand in respect and we stand with a bit of reverence. But I know that it is different for Rodney because when Maori do it it is hocus-pocus. When Scottish people revere the loch and the Loch Ness monster that is called greatness. It is called tourism but when Maori do it it is called hocus-pocus. 
Well I have news for the magician Mr Rodney Hide. If he is so ashamed of this Government for doing something like this bill for being able to see the future of this nation then he knows what he can do and that is to give up some of his goodies if he does not like it. But I know that will not happen. We heard a speech from the pulpit about democracy about elected officials and non-elected officials but this was the Minister who got rid of Environment Canterbury. I am not saying we did not agree with that because it had to happen but for him to get up in this House and pontificate about democracy while being the Minister who sacked some democratically elected people is a bit over the top. 
While I have the time because my whips have told me I have only a short time I will talk about the restoration and protection of the river. At the end of the day that is what this bill is all about. If we do not protect and preserve the river then we are doing ourselves and Tainui an injustice which is to not look after them. We do not protect and preserve Tainui. I have heard it said on many occasions that to Tainui the river is more than just a waterway. I think it is time for this country to believe in such things as the intrinsic link between a people and its waterway. Like I said earlier we acknowledge it overseas; it is about time we acknowledged it here. 
This bill does four things: it sets out a vision and strategy it establishes the Waikato River Authority it instigates for the first time in this country a co-management regime and lastly it establishes a contestable clean-up fund which I am over the moon about. It does not give to one group the responsibility of doing all the cleaning up. If people out in the community put an application in or put a project forward they can do that and there is a contestable fund to help them do it. 
I would be remiss not to say to Rodney Hide that I stand and support this bill not because of my relationship with my brother-in-law but because it is actually a good thing to do. Regardless of whether my brother-in-law was one of the co-negotiators I would still be standing here supporting the legislation. I think it is a bit far from the mark for the Hon Rodney Hide to say that the only reason I am standing here is because my brother-in-law told me to do so. 
I think that what we are doing today is a watershed moment in New Zealand’s history just as I think it was when the House passed Te Aho Matua in I think 1998 or 1999. That was a watershed in terms of a people’s belief system being passed into law and I consider this bill to be on the same par. I do not see this as a Treaty settlement per se; I see it as a far-reaching look into what this country could mean if we only work at it. There are opponents to this bill—and they are entitled to be opposed to it for whatever reasons they have—but my message to everybody is that if we really truly want to be a united and unified nation then it is time we started taking bits and pieces of each other rather than doing what Mr Hide would want us to do. 
I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage and I certainly look forward to the brothers sisters aunties and uncles arriving here for the third reading. Without wanting to disrespect other Treaty settlements including the initial Treaty settlement in Tainui I actually think this is more of a watershed than most people think. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Ki a koe Lady Raiha kia pai te haere. I add to those of speakers before me my tribute to Lady Raiha Mahuta and the inestimable contribution she has made to our arriving at the point we have reached today. With that recognition go my condolences not only to my loved colleague Nanaia Mahuta but to all her whanau to those related to Lady Raiha and those who love her. Tenei te mihi ki a koe Nanaia. 
The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill is very significant legislation and I am pleased that we have got to its second reading. I will talk briefly about some of its history but I will also talk in response to some of the things that the previous two speakers have said to the consequences of this legislation and its implications for the future. The initial settlement with Waikato-Tainui was signed by Michael Cullen on behalf of the Crown in August 2008. The clean-up of the Waikato River instigated by the deed of settlement is one of the most important environmental undertakings in New Zealand history. The Waikato River is of immense importance to Waikato-Tainui and as our longest river running through a region of enormous economic significance the health and well-being of the Waikato River are an issue of national priority. 
I recognise the wairua the sense of connection that Tainui have with the river. I recognise the ontology and the world view that give rise to the connection that Waikato-Tainui have with the river. Saying that I recognise that ontology and that world view does not mean that I share that ontology or that world view. I am a Pakeha. I do not—as of right as of birth as of upbringing—share that ontology; I have my own. But I will not be offensive as Rodney Hide was and call those spiritual connections hocus-pocus. The fact that I do not share that religious tradition does not mean that I despise it that I will make fun of it that I will belittle it or that I will try to ignore it in legislation. If we are to live together in this country in a peaceful and productive way into the future then my responsibility as a citizen let alone as a member of Parliament is to recognise the values of others to recognise other world views to recognise other ontologies and to respect them. I cannot expect the same to be given to me if I do not give it out. 
Therefore I label that comment from Rodney Hide despicable. It is not the kind of comment that will advance progressive and peaceful aspirations of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand whatever ethnicity we derive from. It was an unworthy comment to be heard in this House and not fitting of somebody who not only sets himself up as a leader of a political party but also holds a ministerial warrant. I lay on the table and place on the record that the view that Rodney Hide articulated is not shared by other Pakeha in this House. It is not worthy of somebody holding his position to be so derogatory about others’ religious traditions and world views. 
Moving on from there I will make a comment that relates not only to what Rodney Hide said but also to what Tau Henare said and that is that I welcome this new co-management model. The deed of settlement allows for an unprecedented model for something that has never been tried before. Whether as Tau Henare said it becomes a benchmark or model for the future remains to be seen. Quite frankly it does not matter whether it becomes a model way of doing things for the future; it is unique and it is new. If it paves the way for repetition then that is fine; I am happy with that. But even if it does not it has allowed for innovative ways of settling Treaty claims. 
At this point I depart from what Tau Henare said. He said he did not see this matter as a Treaty settlement per se. Well I do. I see this as a settlement of an issue of extreme importance for the country—that is the cleaning up of the Waikato River—and I see this as an issue that comes out of Treaty partnerships and comes out of resolution of historical grievances that are contained in and can be resolved through Treaty matters. This is part of the Treaty partnership so it must be seen as being part of Treaty settlements per se. The fact that the settlement is innovative and has not been done before must be welcomed by this House because our approach to Treaty settlements and negotiations must constantly evolve. It must be an evolutionary process and a progressive process. We cannot pretend that the way we did things yesterday will be the way we do things tomorrow. We cannot pretend that the decision we made 140 or 160 years ago cannot be revisited cannot be expressed in a different way in the future. 
So I want to say that this piece of legislation is how we do things in New Zealand. This legislation I say to the Government is not aspirational or non-binding. It is not aspirational or non-binding; it is the way we do things. We do not sign up to declarations because we think they do not mean anything as this Government has just done on this very day. It has signed up to a declaration only because it is non-binding and aspirational. That is how this Government will try to wriggle off the hook when people from the Maori Party who are expecting more from that declaration come to the Government’s door and say that this Government signed up to that declaration. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: More than you were prepared to do. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: We signed it— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have sat here now for about 40 seconds listening to the speaker going completely away from this bill and I think that is absolutely inappropriate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the member is responding to some comments; I ask her to continue. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: When people who support the Maori Party come to this Government looking for some practical application of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples they will get nothing. There will be tears because that Government has signed up to that declaration only because it is non-binding. The previous Labour Government did not sign it because it was non-binding. We would sign something only if it were binding and real and apposite for New Zealand’s law legal institutions and constitutional practice. This legislation is the way we do it; we do it with legislation and that is the difference. This is what happens: there have to be words on the page and the agreement has to be binding. That is why we support this legislation. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I firstly join with other speakers who have extended their good wishes and recognitions to those who have been responsible for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill from the Waikato—particularly Lady Mahuta and Tuku Morgan but also the others who have been responsible for getting this major milestone before us. It is in fact a new and exciting way forward both for Waikato iwi and in my view for New Zealand. I will also add my support for most of the speeches that have been delivered today including that of the previous speaker up until the last 2 minutes of her speech when she seemed to be joining Rodney Hide’s level of debate—unfortunately. 
I will comment on a couple of minor aspects about this bill and the first is about the vision and the strategy. A number of comments and concerns have been expressed by some parties in relation to the vision and strategy and the implications of those for the planning process particularly in the Waikato; I believe that those fears are misplaced. In schedule 2 the bill sets out the vision and strategy to the extent that the vision statement sets out a goal for the restoration and protection of the health and well-being of the Waikato River. I think that that is laudable and I do not think that anyone should oppose it at all. To have a long-term goal of that sort of magnitude and to have the other sorts of things set out in the vision creates a sense of combined purpose for all involved to strive for. 
The strategy is the process by which one might go about implementing a vision. Again it does not actually lock in things for ever and a day which I think is very important to understand and comprehend because there seems to be a view that the strategy will be locked in once and for all and will drive absolutely everything. But that is not the case. It just sets out some guidelines for achieving the vision. Then over and above that in schedule 3 there is a process for review and revision. The process has to be agreed on before the strategy and vision can be moved forward should there be some concern about that review. So that is the first point about the strategy and the vision. 
The second aspect is about the change in this particular deed and the bill as opposed to the 2008 deed and bill in respect of representation. Under the previous arrangement or the previous deed five different statutory bodies were proposed to be set up. So if ever there was going to be a bureaucratic nightmare in my view it was that. Instead as part of the process of review that has occurred in terms of the new deed one of the big changes is that we will go from five different statutory bodies to the one statutory authority that will be responsible and the Waikato River Authority will be the body servicing the administration and delivering on the strategy. That is a significant and major step forward. 
The only other comment I will make is in respect of Mr Hide’s speech. I make no personal comment about my views in respect of democracy. I do not claim to be an expert but for someone to give me a lecture about local authority democracy and then behave in completely the opposite direction I think is galling—to be kind about it. With those few words I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
:  
Kia ora ano tatou. Ko te kupu tuatahi me tuku ki te whaea o tenei hoa o tatou katoa e noho nei i roto i to tatou Whare ara a Kahurangi Raiha Mahuta ko tana kohine tenei a Nanaia. He tika tonu me mihi tatou ki nga wahine pera rawa te ikeike i roto i te ao Maori ta te mea ka paupau haere tena reanga ki te matemate katahi tatou ka whakaaro mo nga tangata kua riro na ratou nga kaupapa penei i poipoi i to ratou wa na ratou i whakapau i to ratou kaha kia whakapumautia tetahi kaupapa e pai ai te ata noho o te Pakeha me te Maori i roto i te taiao i runga i te papa o te whenua. Na reira kia tau nga manaakitanga ki roto i tana whanau. Na reira e te tuahine tena koe. Tatou katoa i roto i tenei rangi i te wa i haere atu to tatou Minita mo nga Take Maori ki tawahi tamoko ai whakatairanga ai i tera o nga kirimana e ’hakapaohongia ana e ia ma te wa e titiro a tona wa nga kehua o tena kaupapa ka puta. Na reira ka nui tenei korero mo tenei wa ki to tatou reo Maori. Tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to all of us. Firstly I acknowledge the mother of this colleague of all of us seated about our House: namely Lady Raiha Mahuta. This is her girl Nanaia. It is appropriate that we acknowledge women of that stature in Maoridom because it is not until that generation begin to die and diminish that we ponder the ones we have lost; the ones who nurtured matters like this one who expended their efforts and time on an enduring policy that will ensure that Pakeha and Maori co-exist harmoniously in the environment and on the land. Blessings upon her family and to you sister colleague. So to us all on the day when our Minister of Maori Affairs departed overseas to sign promote and proclaim the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the media time alone will tell what ghosts will emerge from that document. Enough for now in our Maori language and greetings to us all 
.] 
It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I have attended in our Maori language to some ceremonial words that carry the weight of affection that so many of us in this House have not only for Lady Raiha but for Sir Bob Mahuta who along with the Hon Matiu Rata Sir Graham Latimer and Sir Tipene O’Regan in the late 1980s took up the challenge and in very many important ways changed the course of our socio-political history. When someone of their ilk passes it brings lustre to us as parliamentarians to note their passing. It is not until decades have passed that we begin to study critically the contribution that different personalities make. Indeed on that side of the House was Mr Bolger and on this side of the House were Mr Lange and Mr Palmer so I think it is a fitting part of a parliamentary speech that we should acknowledge the contribution of those who are no longer with us. 
I cannot say the same about the leader of the ACT Party. The ACT Party today has disgraced itself in the very venal and ugly way that its leader in a fit of desperation sought to explain the reasons why his party do not like this bill. In a democratic House such as ours we are entitled to bring our differences forward but for him to demean the plume of Maoridom the Tainui people and describe their heritage their aspirations as hocus-pocus will come back to haunt that man when he stands for election in 2011. 
The fact that he has swept away the elected regional councillors in Canterbury is now a matter of history but he stands and continually lambastes this bill because it undermines accountability it undermines transparency whilst at the same time he has handed over 80 percent of $30 billion of assets to the shadowy stewardship of a group of people who will not be accountable to the public. They will be accountable to these largely unknown predominantly vague but vigorously profit-driven entities called council-controlled organisations. The gulf of credibility between what he says about this bill and what he is actually doing lays bare his approach to the most sensitive issues confronting us as society. 
This bill has legitimacy and the institution it is creating will be a creature of statute. The statute will enjoy legitimacy because it will command a majority of the support of this House the highest court in the land and the largest form of public domain institutional expression. To then go on and attack the structure as lacking legitimacy is not only shallow but a very destructive approach to take to these issues. But as I said Mr Hide has sown those seeds venal though they may be and they will come back to haunt him without a doubt. 
The farming community has raised an area of concern but the farming community is on shaky ground in relation to water quality. It has asked us as a society to buy into its approach that without regulation it is willing to mitigate or diminish the negative effects of farming on the water-based environment and by and large we have gone along with that. But the most recent report which caused embarrassment to Fonterra our largest single commercial entity in the country shows that any farmer attacking this model because of its focus and accent on cleaning up the Waikato River needs to go back and stick to the udder. The farmers have an enormously long way to go before they can regain credibility in my view as stewards of the water-based environment. 
It might be said that this bill could be an impost on the farming community. The farming community derived economic benefit from the use of the water—either the ability of the river and the water to absorb the waste that comes off farmland or the application of water on to their farmland. It is not really a free good because expenses and costs are associated with the interaction of the commercial activity called farming and the use of that water resource. I encourage those who have influence over the farming community to advise them that they should get in and support something like this because it is not designed to strip anyone’s rights. It is actually designed to future-proof the ability of the local community local firms and the broader Auckland and Waikato public to enjoy the benefits reflected in the Waikato River. 
The law as a consequence of this bill being passed will give status to concepts that we are familiar with on the marae and concepts that may very well test the analytical powers of the Environment Court or other consent agencies. But they are no different from concepts such as intrinsic value. They are no different from expressions such as inherent value. Environmentalism as reflected in the statute law of New Zealand today already gives standing to notions of aesthetic value intrinsic value and existence value. These are matters that already enjoy standing in the country’s jurisprudence. 
The fact that that jurisprudence might one day be augmented as a consequence of introducing notions of kaitiakitanga mauri mana awa and manu whenua ought to scare no one. All it shows is that the cultural mix that the law has to account for is alive and well. That cultural mix is not going to cause from our perspective of the House any detrimental impact on the daily lives of the people other than remind them that as we use resources future generations are calling on us not to destroy the carrying capacity of the resource to also meet their needs their interests and to enable them to live full and meaningful lives by having a rich interaction with the environment. 
That is what this bill does and it does it in such a way that it uplifts a group of New Zealanders the tangata whenua of Waikato-Tainui who have been marginalised for so long as a consequence of colonialism in the 1800s and 1900s and it gives them a place of status and standing. For it to be described as hocus-pocus or unbearable or as a burdensome attack on the economy is short-sighted and we look forward to supporting this bill. Kia ora tatou. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I rise in this House to congratulate most of the speakers who have spoken earlier on the words they have said about this legislation its impact and what they see as the future of the Waikato region. I pay tribute to Lady Mahuta and especially to Nanaia for the very strong advocacy that Lady Mahuta made towards getting a solution; to Tuku Morgan who was here earlier; to members of the negotiating team whom we have seen in the building today; and to Brian Roche who did a great job in negotiating this settlement. 
First of all I acknowledge the previous Labour Government for presenting the first stage of this settlement. We were fortunate to be on the Waikato River at the time when Dr Cullen did that settlement. Basically that settlement was the impetus for what we see in this legislation now. The goodwill of Tainui shone through in the way that they and other iwi were willing to renegotiate the settlement in order to find a more practical and enduring solution that would actually achieve the goals the settlement sought to achieve. The goodwill that Tainui showed through the last year or so in that negotiation is something that New Zealanders and Waikato people should take a lot of inspiration from because it shows the intent of the parties to work together for the best interests of the river and the region. 
We also need to take into account the fact that it is not just Tainui involved in this settlement. Other iwi—Maniapoto Tuwharetoa Te Arawa and Raukawa—will also have a very big interest in the solution proposed in this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill as will the Waikato Regional Council—Environment Waikato—and all the other councils in the area that were also part of this process. 
This has the credibility of the Waikato people. It is a democratic process. Those councils have supported these negotiations and they support this result. I like to see this not as a settlement but as an agreement for how we go forward. This shows a new way in which we can deliver a solution for the issues that our region faces. I say that as a Waikato dairy farmer who understands that we need a new approach and that we can work in one body to achieve one result for one river. That is the future of our region. 
Going by the comments of some members in this House those members may not understand the development of the cultural aspect of the Waikato region the importance that Tainui plays as an economic power base for our region and the importance of people in that region being able to work together for common solutions. There has been a maturity in that region which this legislation sets some benchmarks for and the region through that maturity will be able to deliver the results. I think we need to give credit to the people of Tainui and the people of the Waikato region for coming together and being part of this enduring settlement. 
We look forward to the results this legislation will have for river quality. It will have some effects. Some step-up in attitudes and approaches will be needed to achieve those effects but that is life. That will happen anyway and this is the way to do it. I have full faith in this legislation and in the people involved. 
I would also like to congratulate the flexibility of the negotiators in coming to this arrangement. We have some challenges going forward in making that vision a reality and I think that setting up the first governance board so that we have the right people on it will be a crucial aspect of that. We then have to make sure that there is public awareness and acceptance of this settlement and agreement. It is up to all parties to be part of that process and to encourage people to take on board the opportunity that this legislation gives us to provide that enduring solution. 
In the end I believe that we have here a result where it is possible for all the people of the Waikato to achieve the very serious and strategic goal for our region of increasing the water quality and also the environmental aspects of our region. I thank all those political parties that have supported this legislation—especially Labour which started the negotiations—Minister Chris Finlayson and the Maori Affairs Committee who have taken it to the next level in order to provide that solution; and I would like to thank Tainui and all the other iwi for the way in which they have approached the negotiations in an inspirational way that I believe shows that we have a strong future and that we can work together as a region to achieve our goals. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time.