Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19610] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 Ka tu au ki te korero ki tenei purongo a te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Maori. I am rising to speak to the report back of the Maori Affairs Committee. Kua tirohia e te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Maori tenei pire ana Te Pire Whakataunga i nga Kereme a Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi. I am rising to speak to the report that the Maori Affairs Committee has examined with regard to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Ki o matou nei whakaaro me whakamanatia nga whakatikatika. It is our view that the amendments recommended in this report be agreed to. Kei roto i te pire nga pukenga korero ana te putake i timata ai tenei kereme. In this bill are most of the historical stories and evidence as to the origins of this claim. E tika ana nga korero ki a Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi o ratou nei korero tuturu. And it is right to say and reaffirm that the stories as set by Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are theirs and theirs alone. 
Tokorima nga tino wahanga ina i puta ai o matou nei whakaaro me nga whakawhitiwhiti korero i roto i te pire nei. Tuatahi ko te whakamaramatia mo Ngati Tuwharetoa. Tuarua ko te tikanga mo whangai o Ngati Tuwharetoa ana mo whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa. Tuatoru ko te whakinga o te ngawha i raro i te ture. Tuawha ko te whakaurunga o te tauaki whakaroputanga ngawha kei te motiningia. Tuarima te tika o te whakakorenga tuatahi ki nga hua ngawha a te Karauna.  
[ 
In our deliberations and considerations in respect of this bill five essential elements emerged—the first one in relation to the definition of Ngati Tuwharetoa the second concerning the meaning of whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa the third about geothermal statutory acknowledgment the fourth regarding the proposed inclusion of geothermal statutory acknowledgment and fifthly the right of first refusal over Crown geothermal assets. 
] 
Because it is a protocol of the Maori Affairs Committee to preface the report in te reo Maori we may as well refer to it. There are five issues that are summarised in the report back that I want to speak to and I will speak to each of them separately. Firstly I will deal with the definition of Ngati Tuwharetoa. The committee spent some time discussing overall how best to encapsulate the intention of this settlement. Now lots of comments have been raised in the House about this but I simply want to say that the committee resolved and thought that it was important to make clear that this settlement was specific to Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty. So we recommended that the report throughout its whole reference to Ngati Tuwharetoa be changed accordingly to make clear that that is who the settlement is for and notwithstanding other interests throughout Ngati Tuwharetoa they would not be affected by this particular bill. I think in terms of points of clarity that that was very helpful. 
The second point that I refer to is the meaning of “whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa”. We had again a lot of discussion around this. We noticed a trend in a lot of legislation—there was some onus being put on claimant groups to actually specify or provide for whangai in a way that encountered issues to do with the Adoption Act. So we asked whether this was the case of the claimant group and whether it had been given the whole range of examples to which we received advice that it was something that the Office of Treaty Settlements had kind of suggested—it was an example or reference that had been suggested by the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
The committee was not very comfortable with that. In fact we said that surely on issues of whangai—on issues of adoption—the expressions in the bill should be closely aligned to what that iwi wanted. So after some discussion we basically came to what the intention of the deed was to try to align the definition of whangai in the bill as closely as possible to the intent of the claimant groups. I think that what we have suggested is more in line with their intention than that of the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
The other part of the report back the third part is on the issue of the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. I do acknowledge that this is the first time that a geothermal statutory acknowledgment has been made in any settlement legislation. We spent a good deal of our deliberations and considerations on this matter alone because a lot of members wondered what it meant. Now I am sure—and I am sure it is the intention of Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty that there will be a tangible benefit from this provision. However it was not evident in terms of the advice that we received from officials. In fact I think we probably spent far too much time on this issue. But the point here is that this geothermal statutory acknowledgment emanates from an association that Ngati Tuwharetoa has towards geothermal energy and that has been referred to by a number of members who have spoken before me. 
The statutory acknowledgment in particular—and we sought clarification on this—is around the bores. It is not about the water or the geothermal energy above the ground or under the ground; it is just the bores through which that energy passes. So to some extent we are still scratching our heads as to what the tangible benefit will be but we expect there must be some for it to be in here. And really it is not for us to say whether or not. I have heard some parochial comments in the House along the lines of: “Here’s a generation of people who are settling and they really do not know what they are getting.” I beg to differ about that. I think that every group of negotiators who has sat opposite the Crown to negotiate its claim certainly know what they are getting out of it. We might not be clear about it but it is an agreement that the Crown is upholding and one that I am sure even though there has been a lot of debate around this has tangible benefits that will go back to Ngati Tuwharetoa. As I said the committee all hopes and I am sure that the expectation is that they do realise a tangible benefit from this statutory acknowledgment. 
Again there was a great deal of discussion about the next part—and I regret that so much time was spent on this particular part—which is about whether to include the exact reasons why Tuwharetoa had such a close association to the geothermal resource. The reason quite simply was that when the bill was introduced it did not include the statutory acknowledgment. So when we were going through the submissions we could not actually ask the claimant group or people making submissions about their stories. That did present difficulties because the committee was then faced after the fact with having to consider stories and there was a level of discomfort as to whether we should be asking Parliament to uphold what many in this Parliament would probably attack as being purely myths and legends and we could not afford that. So with the ability to discuss this with Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and also their discussions with the Minister there was a change and the statutory acknowledgment was left in the deed unharmed and protected in the way in which it was introduced. 
The final part of the report back concerns the first right of refusal. Again many members may argue about that particular issue but I simply want to say that the way in which the first right of refusal has been treated is consistent with other settlements in that it is not provided for in the bill per se. It is actually in the deed and that is consistent with every other first right of refusal that has been provided for. 
My final comment is about the use of Maori within bills. We need to get better at it. Certainly in terms of the experience of the committee over the last two settlement bills I do want to say that we should urge the Office of Treaty Settlements to have a good look at its processes when it is working with claimant groups in te reo Maori in legislation because it is simply not good enough. However the recommendations of the committee are clearly here in the report back bilingually. We recommend them to the House and support them. Tena koutou.