Mahuta Nanaia: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18694. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I want to speak on behalf of Labour in favour of the Supplementary Order Papers as introduced with the clarifications that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has provided and also with some clarification of the discussion that took place in the Māori Affairs Committee so that people following this debate understand why we are actually having a Committee stage for a Treaty settlement bill which is unusual in some respects.In regard in particular to the issues of Te Ūpokorehe and the interests that were being asserted through the submission process and were generally well accepted I as a committee member did not feel that some of the issues raised in relation to the allocation of fisheries interests were matters for this particular bill the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. The allocation of fisheries interests to Tūhoe were allocated under the fisheries settlement legislation. They were determined in a process preceding this and that could not be relitigated.However with regard to the broader land interests and the interests around Ōhiwa Harbour that was a matter that was considered and discussed. It was certainly something that weighed down on committee members—the extent to which Te Ūpokorehe felt that their interests were being prejudiced by the bill. We agreed on the bill proceeding on the basis that in a general sense the assurances that the Tūhoe people gave were that they were sitting down and working through these issues with Te Ūpokorehe. However the Waitangi Tribunal process took its part and made a very clear determination that this bill should proceed because it can proceed without prejudice. It affirms I think the working relationship. It was continually reiterated to the select committee by Tūhoe that to the largest extent possible to the broadest extent possible relationships matter for them within their tribe and also external to their tribe with the other iwi bordering their domain.I really want that to be the pervading thought when people are considering the way in which Tūhoe has tried to pull together its own interests and maintain relationships with neighbouring iwi. Yes there are overlapping interests but around Ōhiwa Harbour in particular it was evident that Tūhoe were quite comfortable with holding off on progressing that part of their customary interests and the overlapping nature of Te Ūpokorehe interests until they were at a time to proceed. So with regard to that Supplementary Order Paper Minister I am certainly pleased that you quickly provided a media release after that determination of the tribunal to give and affirm clarity on behalf of the Crown around this particular issue alongside Ngāti Ruapani.With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 468 and the transfer of the two remaining properties again it took quite a bit of time for the committee to get its head around what was being talking about. We probably got it a little bit wrong at the select committee table. We were certainly under the impression that this was a part of a group of lands where there had to be a higher threshold of consent because it was part of a mana whenua process. We were of a mind at the time when we were receiving information that the preferred mechanism for the transfer of any properties should be by full consent. It was clear that Ngāti Manawa for whatever reason were not participating in some of the discussions and had objected to the transfer of these properties. We erred on the side of caution. We allowed two of the properties to transfer because there was no issue there. We remained I guess vigilant about the way in which these properties should transfer and we were of the belief that they should transfer with the consent of Ngāti Manawa. In fact we went a step further—probably beyond our brief—and tried to suggest to the Minister that the mana whenua process should be utilised to sort this out.We got that wrong. This is where information on the ground really matters. It just so happens Minister that on the weekend that you were visiting these properties I too was in Rotorua—not for the same reason. I was certainly very pleased to hear that you took the time to go and see the area of contention and you sorted it out very quickly—more than you can do on a map or in a select committee. It was absolutely evident that the properties in question were not the same ones being talked about and so there was a little bit of miscommunication.Can I say that what was heartening all the way through this process was that when Tūhoe talked about the transfer of these properties in regard to Kaingaroa they wanted the full benefits from these properties to go back to the village of Kaingaroa. I applaud that level of intent to assure tribal members who have the ability to benefit from Treaty settlements. I applaud Tūhoe’s emphasis that the proceeds from these particular properties the revenue will be reinvested back into Kaingaroa and into the village. This is something that I understand was embraced and long awaited within that particular community.Can I say that although this is an unusual step in terms of debating the context of a Supplementary Order Paper for Treaty settlement legislation these were matters that were considered by the select committee. The Minister legitimately and in good faith with all interests regarding these Supplementary Order Papers I think went through and determined the right outcome in ways that give greater assurance certainly to Te Ūpokorehe and to Ngāti Ruapani and affirmed the agreements as initially expressed in the deed of settlement for Tūhoe. We support this bill. We support its intent. For that reason we do not intend to delay the Committee stage. Kia ora mai tātou.