Little Andrew; O'Connor GregThird ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move That the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be now read a third time.I acknowledge the people of Rangitāne o Wairarapa Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. For those who are watching for those that are here tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.This is a joint redress bill for the benefit principally of iwi whose—for whom I will use the shorthand Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu—two iwi are based in Wairarapa and including Tāmaki nui-a-Rua the area around Dannevirke. I am pleased to stand and to support the third reading of this bill in this House.There is a history behind this joint redress bill that also links to two other pieces of legislation. One has already been enacted in 2015; that was the legislation for Rangitāne. The other is legislation that has yet to complete its journey through the House and that is Ngāti Kahungunu. I want to acknowledge the efforts of those of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne who have made this joint redress this agreement possible—and indeed this legislation possible. I want to particularly acknowledge those who were involved and who have passed on those who lead the charge to return their taonga to their people which is what this bill does. It focuses on the Wairarapa Moana and the lake bed as well as the Ruamāhanga River and a number of other discrete areas that are also part of this joint redress—redress that will be enjoyed by the people of both iwi.I want to acknowledge the efforts of the various negotiators for both iwi. For Rangitāne: John Sproat Jason Kerehi Mavis Mullins Tipene Chrisp and Richard Jones. For Ngāti Kahungunu I want to acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark Ian Perry Robin Potangaroa Hayden Hape Haami Te Whaiti Marama Tuuta and Rawiri Smith. I want to thank them for their hard work; their cooperation; their dedication to their people their whenua and their moana. I want to acknowledge the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā chair Sonya Rimene and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Settlement Trust chair Haami Te Whaiti for their leadership and for getting things this far. I should also acknowledge—because for redress such as contained in this joint redress bill the local government plays an important role. So I want to acknowledge the local authorities that will have a key role to play in the redress in this legislation: the Greater Wellington Regional Council South Wairarapa District Council Carterton District Council Masterton District Council and the Tararua District Council all of whom will be involved. I also want to thank my ministerial colleagues and their agencies for making sure the redress in this bill could come together and therefore could be enacted.This bill as I've said will bring to life provisions in the respective deeds of settlement for Rangitāne and for Ngāti Kahungunu that had been signed in the last seven years. This journey started of course way before then—it started in 1853 with the purchase by the Crown of lands surrounding Wairarapa Moana. The Wairarapa Moana plays an essential role in the life—the wairua—of that area and has been a jewel in the lives of the people of Wairarapa for generations. The annual hinurangi or flooding historically provided kai moana which enabled iwi to trade far outside the Wairarapa region. The purchases of land surrounding Wairarapa Moana hindered the trade and led to years of dispute. Those disputes led to a commission of inquiry and in 1896 the lake was gifted to the Crown by iwi as tuku rangatira with the intention of ending the disputes and to hopefully protect the lakes. But it didn't. The lake continued to be degraded and this led to further alienation of local hapū from the Moana. The various agreements reached with Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu have included in the Crown apology recognition and acknowledgment of the harm that has been done to the Moana and it's hoped that this bill and the redress in it will facilitate a long-overdue return of the Crown-owned lake bed to its rightful kaitiaki.I think what has been important too in the negotiation and the engagement between the Crown and iwi is an acknowledgment and an understanding of the intergenerational suffering that treatment of the lake has inflicted upon Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne—not only for the treatment of the Moana and the awa but also the fact that previous agreements haven't been properly honoured. So both iwi have entered into negotiations on that basis.I now want to turn to some issues that relate to the relationship between Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. The House is entitled to know that even as recently as in the last 10 days there have been engagements between the Crown and Rangitāne the Crown and Ngāti Kahungunu to address an issue that Rangitāne has raised right from the outset when engagement first started over redress in 2013 and has not—in their view—been satisfactorily resolved. That relates to the reference in each of the settlements for Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne particularly to two Wairarapa hapū: Ngāti Hamua and Ngāti Rangiwhakaewa. In Rangitāne's view those hapū are exclusively hapū of Rangitāne. It was first raised when terms of negotiation were being agreed between the Crown and each iwi and an agreement between those two iwi called the Treaty settlement engagement policy process document. It's important to note that when that agreement was reached in 2013 signed by both iwi on 15 March 2013 a particular acknowledgment was made that and I quote: Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu have different narratives about their respective rohe and relationships with various hapū. This is the normal nature of tribal histories. Given that both Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Rangitāne Settlements Negotiation Trust believe it is unhelpful and unreasonable to seek to construct a single global narrative that can be agreed by all Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu people in the rohe. This is because iwi affiliation is a personal whānau matter based on deeply held beliefs." And on the basis of that negotiations were entered into between the Crown and between each iwi.If we just follow through—and I'll go as quickly as I can—these aspects. An Agreement in Principle was signed with Rangitāne in March 2014 although Ngāti Kahungunu continued to raise its concerns about the possible inclusion of these two hapū in the agreement with Ngāti Kahungunu. In any event in June 2015 Rangitāne in communication with the Crown noted that they exclusively claimed Ngāti Hamua and Ngāti Rangiwhakaewa. There were further discussions and workshops ongoing between the parties but on 9 November the then Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Chris Finlayson wrote to Rangitāne advising of his final decisions on overlapping interests and also referred to the hapū issue and had appointed as a pūkenga Tāmati Kruger to deal with the two iwi to try and achieve a resolution. On 1 December 2015 Mr Kruger provided his findings in a report and said the Crown was misplaced as a default arbiter in regard to claimant definition.On 9 December the then Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson wrote to Rangitāne and said and I quote: "In view of Crown policy and advice from Mr Kruger the Crown considers it appropriate to allow both groups to include hapū where there is evidence of whakapapa and reasonable evidence of affiliation over time." He went on to say "I do not propose to enter into discussions with you on the Ngāti Kahungunu claimant definition nor will I enter into discussions with Ngāti Kahungunu on your claimant definition." He pointed out that the claimant definition in a Treaty settlement is not determinative of whakapapa; it is describing who benefits from a Treaty settlement. The upshot is that Rangitāne signed their deed of settlement and so did Ngāti Kahungunu on the basis that both understood that those two hapū would be included in their respective statements as well as in this joint settlement as well.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."