Paraone Pita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5043] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker tena tatou o te Whare. Engari he wahi poto tenei mihi atu ki a koutou mai i te waka o Te Arawa koutou nga kaikawe o te kaupapa nei. Na reira tena koutou tena ano tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us of this House. This is but a brief moment to acknowledge you the canoe of Te Arawa the bearers of this bill. Therefore greetings to you and to us as well. 
] 
First of all although I may not agree with what they have said I acknowledge those fine Maori speakers from the National Party. I find it very interesting that its two speakers thus far were not members of the Maori Affairs Committee yet those of their colleagues who are members are not taking a call. I find that rather astounding. 
Secondly those National speakers criticised the rules under which this Te Arawa lakes settlement process is taking place yet a former National Minister actually set the format for the process that we are now enjoying and he was responsible for this format. On top of that the previous National Government gave him a knighthood—and here we are tonight hearing those people criticising the process! I find that rather amazing. 
I also note that reference was made to a law lecturer from Canterbury but Mr Finlayson omitted to tell this House that he referred to that particular law professor because he was a National Party candidate. So I can understand why Mr Finlayson was supporting the comments the professor made. However I do acknowledge those two fine Maori speakers and no doubt they will be ably supported by the Maori Party. 
This is the eighth Treaty of Waitangi settlement since 2000. It is an indication of the contribution being made towards seeing the issue of Treaty settlements through to a suitable conclusion. The Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed in December 2004 in order to settle all of the historical claims of the Te Arawa in relation to 14 lakes in the Rotorua district. In the select committee process we heard that one or two lakes were not included. The reason was that they were not part of the original agreement between the Crown and Te Arawa. 
The lakes are those subject to the agreement made between Te Arawa and the Crown that was given effect by the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1922. I will name those 14 lakes: Ngahewa; Ngapouri also known as Opouri; Okareka; Okaro also known as Ngakaro; Okataina; Rerewhakaaitu; Rotoehu; Rotoiti; Rotoma; Rotomahana; Rotorua; Tarawera; Tikitapu; and Tutaeinanga. Along with the ownership of those 14 lakes the iwi will receive $2.7 million and an apology plus $7.3 million to buy out the annuity paid to the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. 
For me this settlement clarifies Te Arawa’s rights and limits its liabilities. It is important that we should be aware for example that the iwi will not be liable for weed control or contamination unless it has caused the problem. Existing structures on the lake beds can be maintained or removed without their owners having to seek the trust’s permission and without charge. The rights of public use existing commercial activities and public utilities are enshrined in this bill. 
The select committee hearing into the bill revealed a “rift” in Te Arawa which New Zealand First found quite disturbing. This “rift” was manifested by the fact that of the 20 submissions received 18 opposed the bill notwithstanding a comment made by the second speaker from the Government that many of those who objected did so as a result of misinformation. Several hapu told the committee they wanted the bill suspended or mention of their names removed from the legislation which mentions only three Te Arawa ancestors. 
The Te Arawa Maori Trust Board which negotiated the settlement claimed to have the support of a large majority of its members. Te Arawa is the confederation of iwi and hapu with about 40000 members. It is important that they are all represented in this claim and that they all feel included in the process. New Zealand First was concerned that the consultation process was compromised by the fact that some participants felt that the process was dominated by the trust board’s recommendations and were therefore predetermined to a large degree. 
Some also disputed the mandate of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board and its right to represent them. Amongst these were Ngati Whaoa Ngati Makino and Ngati Rangitihi. In the case of Ngati Whaoa the inclusion of Lake Opouri in this claim without their mandate ran counter to their own claim to this lake. Unfortunately for Ngati Whaoa the application for an early hearing of their claim was declined by the Waitangi Tribunal on 23 June 2006—a decision based on the review of evidence relevant minutes and judgments of the Maori Land Court and a tribunal-commissioned report known as the Melvin report. The presiding judge was convinced that the trust board’s mandate to represent Te Arawa had been collectively determined and well maintained. I am obliged to say at this juncture that the issue of mandate is a common feature of the settlements that have come to this House thus far. 
New Zealand First was also concerned that the discussions about a post-settlement governance and entity were limited in that it was confined to one model. We feel that this issue could have been more comprehensively dealt with which would have allayed the concerns of many submitters. The committee was advised by the Office of Treaty Settlements that the 2-year review process of the intended governance structure and operations will provide an avenue for further discussion on the structure of and representation on the trust. I am led to understand that the post-settlement group intends to allow for local management—that is hapu management—of the respective lakes so as to allow for local involvement. The 2-year review would also present an opportunity to address issues expressed by members of Ngati Whaoa with regard to the ownership of Lake Opouri. 
The high percentage of submissions opposed to the bill illustrates the fact that this settlement has not been without some concerns. However I am hopeful that the processes put in place for a review will see a willingness by all parties to make a concerted effort to see this settlement as a successful one. For getting to this point represents a historic milestone and it acknowledges that the lakes are inextricably bound with Te Arawa while also allowing for continued public access. It also resolves outstanding annuity issues. 
I support the previous speaker who said that any settlement notwithstanding this one should be just and durable. New Zealand First believes that this will be a just and durable one. For those reasons I am happy to support this legislation on behalf of New Zealand First. Kia ora.