Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. There are just two issues that I want to raise. I agree very much with a number of the sentiments that have already been raised by other members that it is appropriate that iwi deal with internal issues themselves and I touched on that point in the second reading. I am pleased about the approach of internal conflict resolution; I think it is a good idea. 
The two points that I want to raise in particular are in respect of the notion of mana whenua and they have been highlighted by way of two groupings in particular. One is to do with Ngati Whaoa under the mantle of the Te Arawa affiliates and the other one is best exemplified by the Ngati Manawa example. 
The first issue in respect of Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa is in two parts. One is the point that Ngati Whaoa’s claim has been included and we have touched on that in debate on previous bills. How is it that a person in a sense puts forward a claim on behalf of others then finds that in the process of settlements the claim has been put to be settled yet there has been no formal notification there has been no consultation and basically the claim is taken out of that person’s hands and put smack dead in the middle of this particular bill? I refer in particular to the claim led by Mr Peter Staite. That is the first issue. 
The second issue is in respect of this whole question of mandate. I know we did broach some of it in the debate on the Te Arawa affiliates bill but it is an important issue in this case in particular. According to what I have heard at least Ngati Whaoa might be relatively small in numbers but from their perspective they believe that they have not insignificant interests. We know firstly that their interests have been included in the settlement under the Te Arawa affiliate bill and that they have tried to get out of it in one form or another. I attempted to basically pull them out of the settlement last night but my attempt was ruled out of order. They have tried to get out of it in a number of venues. There have been three Waitangi Tribunal reports. The Waitangi Tribunal through Judge Carrie Wainwright pulled the parties together and attempted to facilitate a process. It did not happen. I am told that the group they have a grievance with did not want to continue the facilitation process so that was basically the end of the story. On top of that they have been to the Office of the Ombudsmen. 
In terms of this particular bill the question is to raise issues about Ngati Whaoa’s interest in all of this. The Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui talked about mana whenua and I suppose the question is that their mana whenua interests have basically now been pulled into the big Te Arawa affiliate collective. My role as an MP is to represent their interests and all I can do is put on the record that from their perspective at least their tamariki may well be back here at some point in time to reflect on this whole matter. Although we might say that those are internal issues when the two parties do not want to come together or do not come together then of course the matter will not move forward. As I said in the second reading I would like the approach to be rangatira ki te rangatira with facilitators to move the discussion along. 
The second issue which other speakers have taken up concerns the divvy-up of the resources. I accept that the divvy-up of the resources is an internal issue and from what I understand of the collective one representative from each of the iwi is sitting at the table and they make the decisions. It is a great approach for iwi to be empowered to make decisions about their own futures; that is fine. All we can conclude is that in particular around the rentals and the divvy-up of the land later on on the face of it iwi have driven it but the key thing is that some of the submitters told us that they had certain concerns about the divvy-up. It is not for me to say yay or nay or which is the best way. As I say I support the notion of iwi doing their own thing. But we have to wonder. 
I will choose Ngati Manawa as an example because of their large number of submitters at the Maori Affairs Committee hearing. They say that they have far and away more than 6 percent of mana whenua interests. Some might say that in comparison with the other iwi they are a small player in numbers but nevertheless in terms of their land interests they are very significant in the bigger picture. The concerns that were expressed by some of Ngati Manawa—certainly not all—were about the weighting and the allocation of the rentals. That was a key issue and I would not mind if the Minister could elaborate on it. I know that that question was put by the Hon Tau Henare. The second issue was the weighting of ahi mataotao ahi tahutahu and so on and how they might play out. It might be said that that is an iwi issue. Sure but again some of the submitters at the select committee suggested that they might lose their interest because the bigger blocks might gang up on them. And we can understand that because this settlement is probably the most significant settlement that they will ever see in their lives. 
It is about simply trying to get to grips with understanding the issues if the Minister is able to provide an explanation. The decisions might have been made behind closed doors. If it is all about those iwi making decisions for themselves then in the end I suppose their representatives have to stand and fall on those decisions made at the table. All I am doing is representing the interests of those who have made representations to me to seek some clarification. I suppose in the end they are simply protecting their interests—making sure their interests are looked after. I am talking for some of Ngati Manawa—certainly not the runanga because it is in there. Some of the submitters presented the case that they are quite significant in mana whenua issues yet they get a very small piece of the cake in terms of the rentals. They do not even know what their percentage of the bigger picture is and they have some time ahead of them to debate whether they will get their fair share of mana whenua. They ask “What is the story? How do we protect our interests?”. 
All I am doing is raising those issues and perhaps the Minister might be able to respond so that it will be on the record and I can tell some people back home. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.