Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18910] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. I am grateful to the Maori Affairs Committee for its work in considering the bill for its report on the bill and particularly for the speed with which it achieved that task. I would also like to thank the submitters for taking the time to participate. 
The settlement of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu claims has been the subject of an extraordinary level of external scrutiny right from the beginning of negotiations. No fewer than four Waitangi Tribunal inquiries considered issues of mandate who was included in the settlement and how the interests of overlapping claims are protected. These inquiries in turn considered the results of many hui among the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa. The select committee process is the final point at which members of the public can make submissions. This bill now of course belongs to the House completely. 
Throughout these negotiations the input of the tribunal and others has resulted in significant changes not just to the settlement package that was initially accepted by the affiliates but to the settlement landscape in the central North Island as a whole. Parliament is in the process of considering legislation that implements “on account” settlements of the interests of a number of central North Island iwi in Crown forest land and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu are party to that agreement. This settlement bill completes the resolution of their historical claims and provides redress that is outside the scope of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill which the House will move on to upon the completion of this bill. 
The Maori Affairs Committee recommended that the bill be passed and noted that 18 of the 37 submissions were in support of the bill. It was almost inevitable of course that a number of submissions against the bill would be made. Most of the submissions in opposition raised issues that had been resolved or extensively covered in other forums. 
I want to address three broad aspects of the settlement that the committee raised in its report. Firstly I refer to the inclusion and naming of various iwi and hapu. Some submitters raised the concern that their iwi or hapu was inappropriately named or included within the claimant definition. These issues have been addressed at length by the tribunal Ministers and now the select committee. We are comfortable that Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa has the support of its people for entering into this settlement. Moreover it is inappropriate for the Crown to interfere with the internal workings and structures of an iwi organisation at the call of factions within that organisation. The best the Crown can do is ensure that the processes through which an organisation can make its own decisions are sound. 
The second key aspect is the settlement of Wai claims through a comprehensive settlement. Some submitters raised the concern that this settlement extinguishes a number of Wai claims without the direct involvement of the named claimants. The settlement provides redress to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa that the submitters would seek to have returned to them under their own exclusive Treaty settlements. I can appreciate the sense of ownership that many named claimants feel over their Wai claim but since the inception of the Treaty settlement process it has been clear that if the Crown and iwi want to settle historical grievances within our lifetimes we cannot afford to settle claim by claim. As of a few months ago the tribunal had over 1400 registered claims. In the last month it reportedly received some 2000 more though it will be some time before we know how many of those will actually be registered. Without some kind of deadline these historical claims or more would have trickled in over an indefinite period. 
But even before the recent deluge the need to group claims together for either inquiry or settlement was apparent. The tribunal deals with a number of historical claims by grouping them into district inquiries and issuing a report that covers the entire district or set of issues. Most inquiries are focused on the generic effects of the Crown’s acts or omissions in respect of any group. The Crown deals with a number of historical claims by negotiating comprehensive settlements at an iwi level broadly speaking. These settlements where possible provide redress to recognised particular interests within the broader grouping. Although there is an air of justice to the idea of insisting that every single Wai claimant must approve a settlement that covers his or her claims there are insuperable practical complications not least of which is that it would incentivise the lodging of thousands more Wai claims by individuals seeking veto power over a settlement that they oppose. The mandate and ratification processes ensure that all members of a claimant group whether or not they have a Wai claim have the ability to have their say on settlement. 
The third key issue is that relating to Ruamata Marae. This issue was raised before the select committee and had not been not extensively explored before then through the negotiations process. Very late in the process the marae reservation trust contacted the Crown and sought to have its concerns about low-flying planes on their way to the airport flying directly over the marae addressed through the settlement. It was too late to change the terms of the settlement but there are genuine issues here about noise and disruption to the marae that need to be addressed. It is not clear at this stage whether that disruption constitutes a historical breach of the Treaty or whether the Treaty settlement process can deliver a solution to that problem. Not every matter discussed between Crown and Maori has its roots in a historical breach or its solution in a Treaty settlement. But the Crown is working through Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa with Ruamata Marae the relevant central government agencies and the Rotorua District Council to ensure that these issues are addressed outside of the settlement process. I will be moving an amendment to the bill in the Committee stage that will avoid any doubt that this bill will extinguish any specific Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to the airspace and the flight path. It will not of course remove the current Wai claim from the Treaty settlement which the Ruamata Marae trust does not want to see happen. 
At the Committee of the whole House stage the Government also intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will make the following changes to the bill: to provide for public access consistent with that in the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill; to provide for additional redress as a consequence of facilitative mediation with Ngati Rangiunuora and Ngati Tamakari two hapu of the affiliate Ngati Pikiao; to refine the definition of an affiliate group Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao; and to clarify and ensure consistency with regard to the treatment of redress involving conservation land. 
This is the second reading of this settlement legislation. We will proceed to the Committee stage and the third reading and then we will go on to consider the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. 
I thank once again the leadership of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa for its patience and perseverance with the Crown in the long journey towards this settlement and particularly its generosity in holding back on holding the Crown to its previous commitments to enable the central North Island forests land collective settlement to proceed. At that time I undertook that the final shape of this settlement would be no less and preferably better than what it had already agreed with the Crown. I look forward to being able to congratulate Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa on the completion of this settlement process within the near future. It is my intention to try to manage the proceedings of the House—as best as a Leader of the House can—to arrive at the third readings of these bills and the first readings of other settlement bills on Thursday morning and early afternoon. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.