Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa i raro i te mana o Ngāti Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua.[Greetings Mr Speaker. Greetings to all of you representing Ngāti Kahungungu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua.]I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this bill the compendium bill for the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill that we considered last week. It gives effect to the final settlement for the historical Treaty claims of Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Crown. Thank you to all the whānau hapū and iwi organisations who submitted in person and in writing. We saw strength and passion. We felt their mamae and the anger in the room. We held the hearings for this bill in August here in Parliament. It's a very different feel when you hold it here and not in a marae. We've also met with and had contact with many members of the whānau who are involved in this. I acknowledge our chair Tāmati Coffey in the Māori Affairs Committee. That is not my usual committee so I thank them for having me join them for these two bills. I really appreciate hearing our chair acknowledge the fault of the Government in this and the very real grievances that have arisen from it. In the hearings we heard from the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua how those successive Crown actions over nearly 180 years have impacted on them leaving them virtually landless. A fulsome apology is the absolute minimum that they need to hear along with the appropriate redress. I'm pleased that they've been able to come to this settlement. I think it's not nearly enough. They could at a minimum double or triple that amount and it still wouldn't make up for it but I'm glad that we've got somewhere—we've got to this point. It just enables them to keep moving to do the things they want to do for themselves. We also heard from the settlement trust how long and how hard they've worked on this. You know that work started many many moons ago and it shouldn't take over two decades to get to this point but we know how common it is. We heard the impact the settlement would have though once that money's in the bank and that land is there to ensure that our—not our but their; I do have connections to te Kahungunu—tamaki and mokopuna can flourish that their whānau flourish to grow businesses develop their whenua build houses strengthen their papa kāinga and develop a better relationship with the Crown one on a much more even footing. And we definitely want that for them too. As with every settlement bill others have talked about some of the tensions and some of the issues that arise because of it. But we heard of the efforts the trust went to to try and resolve those themselves over again several years. We heard how they were aiming for equitable outcomes for everybody and just trying to make sure that they had those conversations. What we heard in the hearings is that those many issues are still not resolved. We particularly heard about the concerns about the resumption applications how that would hold up this bill potentially for years and that was not something that they were prepared to put up with—not something that they wanted at all. So one of the areas of contention was around whakapapa with the links to Rangitāne. I think it's impressive that of a list of 110 hapū that is in the schedule of this bill only two were really in contention: Ngāti Hāmua and Ngāti Rangiwhakaewa. I'm just noting that I'm aware that Rangitāne spoke very eloquently that their preferred pronunciation is Te Rangiwhaka-ewa in terms of how they prefer to name their tupuna. We note that both of these hapū are already listed in the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017. And we understand that Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua did not dispute the inclusion at the time because the agreement was made back then that those hapū would appear in both. And it is absolutely the prerogative of members of Rangitāne to not agree with that original decision that they be shared or to change their minds because they've gotten more information since. We did raise this in select committee. However this bill will go through with them listed—as originally agreed. Now I spoke about this last week in the joint redress bill and actually I have to issue an apology to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua because I misspoke when I was in this House. I said that one of the things that people at the hearings were in agreement with was that te Rangiwhakaewa was a Rangitāne tupuna but that was incorrect—I mixed up the names. I'm really really sorry—because that is disputed. I meant to say that there was general agreement that Hāmua was a Rangitāne tupuna as stated by Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust. I apologise for the upset that this has caused and I thank those who brought it to my attention. This perfectly illustrates my point that it is not the job of MPs or this Parliament to determine whakapapa. We will never catch up with the years and decades and centuries of whakapapa that has been handed down to those who are now the experts and who are feeding into this process. It also illustrates that the Crown could have done more to help resolve those issues at that level before it came here so that those disputes had to be aired in front of all of us—because they're recordings which will last for a long time—in front of everybody. I know that some things though are absolutely worth fighting for. And as submitters said the kōrero around whakapapa is not about money; it's about identity; it's about mana. We heard how successive Crown errors and misjudgment continue to rebound on Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. In particular the Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc. spoke about their Wai 85 claim and how they wished that it would be withdrawn from the bill—removed from the bill. We heard from Ngāi Tūmapuhia-a-Rangi about their Wai 429 claim related to Ngāumu Forest and how that should be withdrawn from the bill. Regardless of the content of those particular claims by proceeding to settlement the Crown will extinguish the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims as part of this bill. And so there are implications of such actions on the constitutional arrangements for other hapū and iwi and we're really worried about that. To our knowledge it is unprecedented for the Crown to introduce legislation that once passed will extinguish the rights of any party with a case in front of the Supreme Court. We must remember that the Crown is not neutral here; they have a clear conflict of interest because they have a financial interest in the outcome. In terms of Wai 85 we acknowledge it is also a grievance for Ngāti Raukawa who lost land at Pouākani because the Crown decided to transfer it to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa many years ago. We note that the Government—and the Minister said it in his first kōrero tonight—issued an apology to Ngāti Raukawa for that at the time but they've decided to deal with it in this bill. We've often spoken against the practice of large natural groupings and we feel it stretches it well beyond reason to include whenua from a completely different iwi. As we do every time we speak on a settlement bill we acknowledge that the claims settlement process is deeply deeply flawed because it enforces Crown control at every stage it often undermines whakapapa and mātauranga Māori and it's designed to pit iwi and hapū against each other—often invisiblising them. So we do not consider the settlements to be at all fair full or final. But during these hearings one submitter Mr Potehoki showed us a photo of his dad and his dad's siblings. He asked How many more must die?" Hopefully no more. No more. We all want this for Ngāti Kahungunu. This bill is going ahead so Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua is another step closer to settling. We continue to have major concerns with the actions of the Crown so we must continue to abstain for now but we wish only the best—only the best—for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. Tēnā koutou katoa."