Street Maryan: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Street Maryan: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10264] 
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.