Ririnui Mita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5038] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 A kia ora kei te Kaihautu. E tika ana kia whakamihi atu ki te heamana o te poari a Te Arawa e noho nei i roto i tenei Whare. I haere tawhiti mai i te hau kainga ki te tautoko ake i tana pire. No reira kai te rangatira tena koe. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that I should acknowledge the presence of the Te Arawa board chairman seated in this House. He has come some distance from home to support his bill. And so greetings to you. 
] 
Naturally I stand in support of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. If I ever had to describe the previous member’s speech I would describe it as something that came out of the mouth of a terrible bigot. 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All members are honourable members. The member on his feet cannot accuse another member of being a bigot—plain and simple. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence at being called a bigot? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Deputy Speaker. This bill is not about the religious beliefs of Maori; it is about the settlement of a historic claim over the Te Arawa lakes. If Mr Finlayson who was on his feet prior to leaving the Chamber could identify only the lack of input— 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One cannot refer to the absence of a member from this Chamber. 
Darren Hughes 
: I take the point that Mr Roy makes and my colleague may have erred in that regard. But I suspect he was referring to the convention in Parliament that when members have concluded their speeches they stay to listen to the person who follows them. That is an important tikanga of the Parliament and I suspect that that was what he was meaning. But it would be helpful maybe if he just withdrew and apologised—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are hearing a point of order. If members want the benches to be cleared they are going the right way about it. When we have disposed of the point of order other members can come back in. I just ask for a withdrawal of that remark please Mr Ririnui. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I withdraw. The member referred to the lack of work undertaken by the select committee during the consideration and deliberation aspect of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. I can say that as far as the National members on the select committee were concerned he is absolutely right. Not only did those members turn up late some of them did not turn up at all. They did not participate in the hearing of submissions at all. The strongest criticism they made was about the length of time it was taking for submitters to get their points across. So if there was a lack of input at the select committee I am sure the member would like to talk to National members who were represented on the committee and to make sure they work a lot harder in future. 
The religious beliefs of the people of Te Arawa is not the issue here. They do have a spiritual association and ancestral connection with the lakes of Te Arawa and it is well known within the Rotorua district that that particular issue is acknowledged. That is why this Government is determined to return the Te Arawa lake beds to the iwi of Te Arawa. 
I want to make reference to some of the points that were made during the submissions process. I did touch on this point at the first reading stage and I thought I had said enough in regard to that matter. We have to acknowledge that the lakes that will be returned to Te Arawa are ill sick and polluted. But there is a misunderstanding that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will be solely responsible for the clean-up work. Well that is not the case. In fact the board chairperson of Te Arawa Lakes Trust has been in Wellington for a couple of days negotiating those matters with the Minister for the Environment and other Cabinet Ministers. So to make that reference is misleading. It also raises concerns when it does not necessarily have to. 
I also refer to the number of submissions that came through from the various Te Arawa iwi. Unfortunately those representations were made on the basis of having been deliberately misinformed about the Treaty settlements process; about the package; about the compensation; about the ongoing relationships between Te Arawa Lakes Trust and the Rotorua District Council between Te Arawa Lakes Trust and Environment Bay of Plenty and indeed a lot of groups that use the lake area on a day-to-day basis. I want to make this point clear in the House: public access has not been prohibited. The old owners of the lake who now become reconnected with the lake beds are determined that the people of New Zealand will enjoy the pristine areas around those lakes. 
Brian Connell 
: For now. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: There is quite a bit of cynicism across the other side of the House but I do not think that the member can justify that claim when he knows that under previous settlements public access to public areas has never been prohibited. 
David Bennett 
: Yeah right! 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Is that not the member who spoke on the 90-day bill and made a stuff-up of it? As I said the condition of the lakes has been an issue particularly for two submitters—Ngati Whakaue which has quite a significant interest in Lake Rotorua and in a number of other lakes around the area Ngati Pikiao Ngati Makino and a few others. 
As the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations highlighted earlier on the settlement will contain a Crown apology and I do hope that Te Arawa as a people will accept the apology. The previous speaker touched on the fact that the principles in this case are not clearly defined. In that respect the Crown did fail to protect the Te Arawa people in relation to those interests and rights. It is the principle of protection we are talking about here. We are also talking about the principle of redress. 
I wonder what principles Chris Finlayson signed up to when he represented Ngai Tahu in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. I suggest there is no difference in terms of the approach in relation to the principles. I suggest there is no difference in terms of the relationship Ngai Tahu had with the taonga in particular to pounamu to the high country areas to the maunga to the awa and to the coastline. So what is the difference? Is it a case of having one view when one is a lawyer and having a different view when one is here as a paid member of Parliament? I think there is a name for that but I am not allowed to use it in this House. 
My colleague the Hon Mark Burton outlined the structure of the Te Arawa lakes following the enactment of the settlement legislation. The fact is that the lake beds will be returned to Te Arawa. We are dealing in this case with the historical aspect of Te Arawa lakes claim; we are not talking about the contemporary issues. We are not talking about the water and we are not talking about the air column above the lakes. That is something I have no doubt Te Arawa will want to address in the future. 
Also on the management committee—which has been termed a two-by-two-by-two—Te Arawa will have two seats on the committee that manages the day-to-day affairs of the lakes. I have no doubt the representation from Te Arawa on that body will be quite significant and have a very powerful voice. I am sure the people of Te Arawa will make sure that is the case. This will mean that for the first time in decades Te Arawa will in fact have a legal voice at the table. The leverage relating to lake bed ownership and the property rights that flow from that mean Te Arawa will have a very significant voice going forward. There have been issues around the mandate. I note that Chris Finlayson did touch on mandate. I am not sure what his point was in relation to the process we have used. In this case it is no different from the one his party in Government signed up to with the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Once again it is another flip-flop another U-turn. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Hugely embarrassing. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes I think he embarrassed himself when he made those statements. We heard from a number of submitters in Rotorua who expressed concern about that process but going through it and speaking to Office of Treaty Settlements officials and also to representatives of Te Arawa Maori Trust Board certainly every endeavour to ensure that the communication and consultation with iwi interested in the lakes was undertaken in a very thorough manner. But of course it is very hard to please all the people all the time. We are more than happy that Te Arawa Maori Trust Board has represented the views of more than 10000 of its registered members in a very robust manner. It is with their support that I am happy to join them in progressing the claim to this stage today. 
There are some issues that I am sure other parties will want to raise about the specifics of the settlement. We can address those matters during the Committee stage of the bill. I join my colleague Mark Burton in commending the Te Arawa negotiators whose commitment and passion has enabled them to reach this stage of the settlement process. It has been a very very longstanding matter. 
I will be sorry to see the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board fade into history but the Te Arawa Lakes Trust will be enacted at the time of settlement and I am sure it will represent the views of Te Arawa people in relation to the lakes in a very robust manner. I feel sad about the trust board fading into history. My great-great-grandfather Teuara Timi Waata Horne was a founding member of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. So was my grandfather and three of his sons. I will not get that opportunity because it will not be there any more—not that I was ever likely to be asked. 
But the commitment shown by the negotiators and by the representatives of the various iwi with interests in the lakes is certainly something we can appreciate and commend them for. So without having too much more to say I commend this bill to the House.