Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTe Urewera-Tūhoe Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 18 June 2014(continued on Thursday 19 June 2014)Te Urewera-Tūhoe BillIn CommitteeHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations):I seek leave for there to be one debate on the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill with questions put separately at the conclusion of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.Parts 1 to 7 schedules 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations):I will say just a few things about the overall structure of the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill and then talk in particular about the longer Supplementary Order Paper because it raises a number of matters that the Māori Affairs Committee was concerned about. The first point is that this bill will divide into two bills: Parts 1 to 4 will be the settlement bill and Parts 5 to 7 will be the bill dealing with the governance and the status of Te Urewera. I will say something about Supplementary Order Paper 468 because that deals with two matters and the first matter needs to be brought to the attention of the Committee and then I want to say something about a recent High Court decision.The first is the issue of the central North Island forest cultural redress sites and two have been added to the list of those sites—Waitehouhī and Korokoro o Te Huatahi. Under the central North Island deed the Crown has the right to vest cultural redress sites in central North Island iwi and in this case Ngāi Tūhoe have followed the same process as Ngāti Manawa Ngāti Whare and Te Arawa in seeking central North Island cultural redress sites as part of their Treaty settlements. The sites that Tūhoe seeks are not in the same location as the sites in which Ngāti Manawa have interests and rentals from the sites—as I understand it—are going to be used by Ngāi Tūhoe to benefit Kaingaroa village communities. The vesting of the sites in Ngāi Tūhoe is obviously without prejudice to the central North Island mana whenua allocation work which is a work in progress as we speak.The second thing I want to say is just something very briefly about a recent decision of Justice Williams in the High Court and that concerned an application for a judicial review of a decision of the Waitangi Tribunal and it involved Ngāti Ruapani and Te Ūpokorehe. The area of interest described in the Ngāi Tūhoe deed of settlement does not represent an area of exclusive interest or tribal boundaries. The deed is very clear that other iwi and hapū may have interests in those areas. Ngāi Tūhoe has customary interests at Ōhiwa Harbour and because of this—quite a long time ago now—in terms of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 they were allocated fishing quota under that legislation. The land to be transferred to the new Te Urewera identity is currently part of the Te Urewera National Park. It will be owned by Te Urewera and not Tūhoe. The tribunal declined the Te Ūpokorehe applications for an urgent hearing on the basis that they would not suffer prejudice from the Tūhoe settlement and the High Court—Justice Williams—recently found that although there was a technical jurisdictional error in the tribunal decision not to grant an urgent hearing of Ngāti Ruapani and the Te Ūpokorehe claims the tribunal was correct in finding there was no substantive prejudice caused by the Crown settlement with Ngāi Tūhoe.The point I want to emphasise is that there is nothing in this settlement that will prevent the Crown from engaging with Whakatōhea or its hapū or Ngāti Ruapani when they get a mandate and achieving a just and a durable settlement of their historic claims. To suggest otherwise is wrong. There are areas of interest and the Crown is able to achieve just and durable settlements in the circumstances that I have described. So they are the key points that I wanted to raise this morning—as I say firstly arising out of the Supplementary Order Paper and secondly because of the recent decision of the High Court I thought it appropriate to bring to the attention of the Committee the decision and its effect.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I want to speak on behalf of Labour in favour of the Supplementary Order Papers as introduced with the clarifications that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has provided and also with some clarification of the discussion that took place in the Māori Affairs Committee so that people following this debate understand why we are actually having a Committee stage for a Treaty settlement bill which is unusual in some respects.In regard in particular to the issues of Te Ūpokorehe and the interests that were being asserted through the submission process and were generally well accepted I as a committee member did not feel that some of the issues raised in relation to the allocation of fisheries interests were matters for this particular bill the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. The allocation of fisheries interests to Tūhoe were allocated under the fisheries settlement legislation. They were determined in a process preceding this and that could not be relitigated.However with regard to the broader land interests and the interests around Ōhiwa Harbour that was a matter that was considered and discussed. It was certainly something that weighed down on committee members—the extent to which Te Ūpokorehe felt that their interests were being prejudiced by the bill. We agreed on the bill proceeding on the basis that in a general sense the assurances that the Tūhoe people gave were that they were sitting down and working through these issues with Te Ūpokorehe. However the Waitangi Tribunal process took its part and made a very clear determination that this bill should proceed because it can proceed without prejudice. It affirms I think the working relationship. It was continually reiterated to the select committee by Tūhoe that to the largest extent possible to the broadest extent possible relationships matter for them within their tribe and also external to their tribe with the other iwi bordering their domain.I really want that to be the pervading thought when people are considering the way in which Tūhoe has tried to pull together its own interests and maintain relationships with neighbouring iwi. Yes there are overlapping interests but around Ōhiwa Harbour in particular it was evident that Tūhoe were quite comfortable with holding off on progressing that part of their customary interests and the overlapping nature of Te Ūpokorehe interests until they were at a time to proceed. So with regard to that Supplementary Order Paper Minister I am certainly pleased that you quickly provided a media release after that determination of the tribunal to give and affirm clarity on behalf of the Crown around this particular issue alongside Ngāti Ruapani.With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 468 and the transfer of the two remaining properties again it took quite a bit of time for the committee to get its head around what was being talking about. We probably got it a little bit wrong at the select committee table. We were certainly under the impression that this was a part of a group of lands where there had to be a higher threshold of consent because it was part of a mana whenua process. We were of a mind at the time when we were receiving information that the preferred mechanism for the transfer of any properties should be by full consent. It was clear that Ngāti Manawa for whatever reason were not participating in some of the discussions and had objected to the transfer of these properties. We erred on the side of caution. We allowed two of the properties to transfer because there was no issue there. We remained I guess vigilant about the way in which these properties should transfer and we were of the belief that they should transfer with the consent of Ngāti Manawa. In fact we went a step further—probably beyond our brief—and tried to suggest to the Minister that the mana whenua process should be utilised to sort this out.We got that wrong. This is where information on the ground really matters. It just so happens Minister that on the weekend that you were visiting these properties I too was in Rotorua—not for the same reason. I was certainly very pleased to hear that you took the time to go and see the area of contention and you sorted it out very quickly—more than you can do on a map or in a select committee. It was absolutely evident that the properties in question were not the same ones being talked about and so there was a little bit of miscommunication.Can I say that what was heartening all the way through this process was that when Tūhoe talked about the transfer of these properties in regard to Kaingaroa they wanted the full benefits from these properties to go back to the village of Kaingaroa. I applaud that level of intent to assure tribal members who have the ability to benefit from Treaty settlements. I applaud Tūhoe’s emphasis that the proceeds from these particular properties the revenue will be reinvested back into Kaingaroa and into the village. This is something that I understand was embraced and long awaited within that particular community.Can I say that although this is an unusual step in terms of debating the context of a Supplementary Order Paper for Treaty settlement legislation these were matters that were considered by the select committee. The Minister legitimately and in good faith with all interests regarding these Supplementary Order Papers I think went through and determined the right outcome in ways that give greater assurance certainly to Te Ūpokorehe and to Ngāti Ruapani and affirmed the agreements as initially expressed in the deed of settlement for Tūhoe. We support this bill. We support its intent. For that reason we do not intend to delay the Committee stage. Kia ora mai tātou.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):New Zealand First reiterates everything it said in the second reading of this Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. This is the judgment from Joe Williams and it is very clear what he has said. He said this: “I understand from Crown counsel it is expected that the bill will receive its third reading in July this year.” He goes on to say: “In those circumstances there is little now to be gained from requiring the tribunal to reconsider the application but perhaps to see the tribunal commence preparations for an inquiry into the effects of the Tūhoe deed on Ngāti Ruapani’s Treaty interests. The Government has signalled that in 2 months the bill will be law.” I noticed that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations rushed out to give an interpretation of that to the media and to hasten to assure Māoridom and the rest of the country who believe in true process that the Government had not made a mistake here.You see when the judge made that statement the Government had signalled that in 2 months the bill would be law. He himself had no confidence that the Government would be deterred from its course and its arranged deed of settlement. But that is not the case because this is the time—the Committee of the whole House stage—and this is the place for this matter to be corrected. It makes no sense surely to try to set right a long historical wrong that has been the fate of Tūhoe and yet create another one.Anyone who knows anything about legal process when it comes to Māori matters knows full well that once the boundaries have been set in a certain way all sorts of assurances of the type that the Minister has given both here and up in Ngāpuhi are not worth the air they pass on. That is the effect of those matters. As someone who has studied Māori Land Court cases going back 100 years I say that once the thing has been set in stone it largely remains there and it is only with enormous time cost and perseverance that someone can have that wrong corrected. This is the place in the Committee of the whole House stage to set this matter right. I think that lining up behind such an authority as Sir Apirana Ngata is more authoritative than the whole Treaty process and the settlement process and might I say the Minister’s officials and may I say also the Minister. If he is prepared to say now that he knows more about this matter than someone so esteemed in that part of the world—indeed in all of Māoridom—as Sir Apirana Ngata then it shows you just how sad parts of the Waitangi settlement process have become.I know that up north the Minister is now being besieged by fact. It is no use going out and saying “Well all you are doing New Zealand First is holding back these people from getting their rightful grievance settled and their compensation.” That of course is really a red herring. What is more important here is that two tribes recognised long before Ngata’s famous statement in 1929 are now today what they always were—tribes in that area. When I hear someone say to me that Tūhoe had rights to the Ōhiwa Harbour as someone who has lived on the coast in a tribe called Ngāti Wai all my life I know exactly what that means. What you have got is a customary tradition that was allowed to inland tribes and is now to become set in law as an ownership right.That is the fact and we are not falling for it. New Zealand First is not opposed in any way to the settlement to Tūhoe on this matter—not at all—but we are opposed to the boundaries being incorrect. When Justice Williams said the bill was going to be passed and would receive its third reading in July this year he himself with the greatest respect to him missed the point. This is Parliament. This is Parliament’s bill. This in the end will be given the authority and stamp of Parliament and Parliament can set it right.I do not have any desire to challenge those who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee but why did they not ask themselves that fundamental question? Are we doing the right thing here and are we impinging on the possibility of these two important tribes—[Bell rung] Thank you Mr Chair. This is a very important matter. Are we impinging on that possibility of getting their grievance fixed? Yes or no? We are. That is down in the history of Māoridom—the long tragic story of a settlement by a Government and by a court that was based on faulty information and not based on fact. Anyone who knows anything about Māoridom knows this.Of course it might be that Tūhoe got to New Zealand or to the centre of the North Island before the people I am talking about. Well of course they did. They must have come by helicopter or by spaceship because usually—[Interruption] No no. I see that woman from Christchurch over there who knows nothing about this issue frowning. It is appalling that they can be so darn arrogant. Unless they came by spaceship or by helicopter then it could be assumed that people left the coast later than the original settlement and went inland.Te Ururoa Flavell: Where’s your proof Winston?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Where is my proof? My proof is in historical travel. Do you think Ngāti Hine got to our part of the world before Ngāti Wai?Te Ururoa Flavell: I’m talking about Tūhoe. Talk about Tūhoe.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes. Do you think that the tribes at Ōhiwa got there before Tūhoe? Oh so obviously they came by spaceship. Usually people do not go inland from fish and the land of plenty to fewer fish—Te Ururoa Flavell: What about trade?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course there were trading arrangements. That is my very point. But the people on the coast never ever gave up their right. That is my evidence and there are quite a few more court cases in land law going back into the 1970s when this whole issue began. In fact I was there at the time that the Māori Land March started in a meeting up in Ngāti Wai by Whina Cooper when she said: “I know what I’ll do. I’ll start a Māori Land March.” I am talking of 1975 and we should not ignore history in any way shape or form.You see the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mr Finlayson is correct. There has been a misunderstanding about the Tūhoe settlement and he is right that there is confusion. But the Minister is the one who is confused on this issue and with the greatest respect how is he going to confront those other two tribes in the future and say he has done his duty by them? How can you come along and say: “Oh look don’t worry. None of this impinges upon your rights in any way shape or form.”We wrote to the Minister when this bill first came along saying by way of inquiry: “Are you not concerned about this boundary issue?”. Of course we got the usual reply: “There’s nothing for those people to worry about because none of their rights or claims are in any way upset.” Really? Well why do you not go to ask those people how they feel because they do not feel like you do Minister? With the greatest respect to those people who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee why did they not listen to what these people had to say? Why did they not listen to that message that passed down through history from someone as esteemed as Sir Apirana Ngata when he recognised them for what they were? So how can they be now today because of this legislation and because of this Parliament’s attitude a lesser people?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations):I think it may be helpful if I just take the member through the bill because actually the words are quite important. Parts 1 to 4 deal with the settlement of the Ngāi Tūhoe historical claim. Parts 5 through 7 deal with Te Urewera and the establishment of it. It is very important to have a good look at Part 5 Subpart 1 and I take the right honourable member to Part 6 which also deals with the governance and management of Te Urewera and to clause 127 “Decision making affecting relationship of iwi and hapū with Te Urewera”.What the bill does—and Parts 5 to 7 will become a separate bill—is that it acknowledges that other iwi hapū have associations with and customary interests in parts of Te Urewera—Rt Hon Winston Peters: They own it.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —read the clause—so the board will have to consider and provide opportunities for the relationship of iwi and hapū and their culture and traditions with Te Urewera when making decisions.There are also specific provisions that have been designed in response for example to the interests of Ngāti Manawa and I refer the right honourable member to clauses 236 to 241. What they do is amend redress over Tāwhiuau to vest the summit in Ngāti Manawa. There is a specific interest given to Ngāti Whare and I refer the right honourable member to clauses 243 and 242 about the inclusion of Te Whāiti in Whirinaki Te Pua-ā-Tāne Conservation Park and the requirement of relationship between Te Urewera Board and Ngāti Whare over western parts of Te Urewera. Then there is also Ngāti Ruapani ki Waikaremoana. I refer the right honourable member to clauses 234 and 243 and in particular the exclusion of Onepoto from the Tūhoe settlement and the development of a memorandum of understanding in relation to the Waikaremoana area.So the point I have been at pains to make is that the bill does not preclude any redress options that may be negotiated and agreed with other iwi hapū who have interests in Te Urewera. The other point I would make directly to the right honourable member in relation to Ūpokorehe and also Ngāti Ruapani is that there is nothing here that prevents the conclusion of just and durable settlements with those groups when they have a mandate and when they are ready to negotiate. I can give the member that assurance.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Kia ora tātau katoa i tēnei ata. Kua tū ake tuatahi mō te Pāti Māori tuarua mō te wāhi ki a au te mema Pāremata mō tērā rohe mō te Waiariki. Ka mihi rā ki te Minita mō tana whakamārama i tana tū i te tuatahi i tēnei ata. Mārama tonu tana whakatakoto i ngā kōrero katoa te taenga atu ki te kōti ērā āhuatanga katoa. I rongo ake ano hoki au i te kōrero o te Hōnore Nanaia Mahuta me tana kōrero anō hoki e tautoko ana ko tāku e mōhio nei. Ka mihi rā ki te āhuatanga o ēnei kōrero ēngari taihoa ake nei ka hoki mai ki ērā kōrero.E areare ake aku taringa ki te āhuatanga o te kōrero o te Hōnore Winitana Pita me tana kī mai ā mēnā ka noho iwi ki uta ka kore e whai pānga ki tai. Kātahi te pōhēhē ko tērā. Mēnā ka whai ake tonu tātau i te āhuatanga o te kōrero ko tōku ake iwi. E kī ana te kōrero mai i Maketū ki Tongariro. Nā kai hea a Maketū? Kei te tai. Kei hea a Tongariro? Kei uta. Ka taea e te tangata hīkoi haere i te mata o te whenua ki uta ki tai. E pērā ano hoki a Tainui ka whai pānga ki uta ka whai pānga ki tai. Nō reira ka noho pōhēhē te tangata mēnā ka whakaaro ake ā kotahi tonu tana nohonga. E kāo. E pērā anō hoki ngā iwi katoa o te motu. I haere i te mata o te whenua ki reira kimikimi haere whenua ai taunaha whenua au i a rātou e hīkoi haere ana.Nō reira me hoki rā anō ki te pūtake o taku whāinga i te Minita i te ata nei. Tuatahi ko tana kōrero mai mō te āhuatanga o ngā kōti. Āe he take anō hoki tā Ūpokorehe he take anō rā tā Ruapani. Āe. Mēnā he raruraru me haere ki hea? Me haere ki te kōti. I haere ngā iwi ki te kōti. Ka tae atu ki Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi he aha tā rātou whakatau? Kai te pai e kore te pire e whakapōrearea whakararuraru rānei i te hiahia o Ūpokorehe rāua ko Ruapani. Ka mutu haere ki te kōti teitei. E pērā anō te whakatau. Kāre he pānga kāre he raruraru o te kerēme a Ruapani rāua ko Ūpokorehe. Ka mutu i tēnei rā. Kua puta te kōrero i te waha o te minita e kore e whakararuraru i te kerēme o ngā iwi e rua. Nō reira mēnā he raruraru ka puta ka hoki mai ki runga i tana upoko māna anō rā tērā e kawe mō ake nei i te mea i puta tērā kōrero i roto i tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata. Nō reira kai te whakaae atu au ki tērā kōrero ka nui te mihi ki te Minita.Ka rua mō te āhuatanga o ngā pānga whenua i tohetohengia ai e Tuhoe rāua ko Ngāti Manawa ngā wāhanga e whā o roto i te pire. Ki tā te titiro o te Komiti Māori e rua ngā pānga whenua ēhara i te mea kai mua tonu i a au i tēnei wā ēngari e rua ngā pānga whenua i noho āhua tārewa nei. Ka mihi ki te Minita. Tere tonu tana taenga atu ki Murupara i mua i a au te mema Pāremata. Koi nei te painga o te noho hei Minita māmā noa iho he huarahi arā kua tūwherahia ngā kuaha katoa ki te minita. Nō reira koia i haere ki roto i ngā kōrero i waenganui i a Ngāi Tūhoe rāua ko Ngāti Manawa. Nā i puta te kōrero e ai ki a Ngāti Manawa anei ngā pānga whenua hā! He rerekē te titiro o Ngāi Tūhoe ki tērā āhuatanga. Ēngari i tōna mutunga kua puta te whakatau kāre au i rongo i tētahi kōrero mai a Ngāti Manawa mō ngā uauatanga ka pā mai ki a rātou nā runga i tēnei whakatau.Nā reira ki tāku titiro kua ea kua tau waiho ki reira. Ko te Pāti Māori tēnei e tū ake nei ki te tautoko i ngā paku whakapanonitanga ki te pire me te kī atu ka tautoko te Pāti Māori i tā te Minita e whakatakoto nei. Ka mihi ki a ia me te āhuatanga o tana pai i tēnei kaupapa tukuna te pire kia haere.[Thank you Mr Chair. Salutations to us all collectively this morning. I stand firstly on behalf of the Māori party and secondly as the member of Parliament for that electorate of Waiariki. I truly acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for explaining why he was first to rise this morning. He outlined everything clearly up to the arrival at court and every aspect of it. I also heard what the Hon Nanaia Mahuta said and her supporting statement according to my understanding. I acknowledge the perspective of these sentiment indeed but wait I will come back to those comments.My ears pricked up at the line that the address by the Rt Hon WinstonPeters was taking when he stated that if a tribe is an inland oneit has no coastline interests. What an assumption that isindeed. Let us follow that throughand in the case of own tribe particularly. There is a statement that says“From Maketū to Tongariro”. Now where is Maketū? On the coast. Where is Tongariro? Inland. It is possible for a person to traverse the face of the land from the hinterland to the coastline.It is the same with Tainui too;they have inland and shoreline interests. So there could bedoubt as to whether a person has only one place. Not at all. The situation is the same for all tribes of the land. Tribes traversed the face of the land and explored the land thereclaiming it as they travelled.So letusgo all the way back to the reason of my following on from the Minister this morning. Firstly inrespect ofthishe commented to us onthefunctionalityof the courts. YesŪpokorehehad an issue as well and so did Ruapani—yesindeed. If there is a problem where does one go? One goes to the court. The people went to the court. When they got to the Waitangi Tribunal what wasits decision? It is fine. The billwill notinterferewithnor encumber the wishes ofŪpokoreheand Ruapani. Furthermore they went to the High Court and the decision was the same. There was no relevance and problems with the Ruapani andŪpokoreheclaim. It endshere today. The Minister stated thatitwill notundermine the claim of the two people. Therefore should a problem ariseit will come back on his headand he will suffer the consequences of it for all time because he said it here in thisHouseof Parliament. And soI agree with that statement and commend the Minister greatly.Secondly in regard to land interests that Tūhoe and Ngāti Manawa disputed in Part4of the bill the Māori AffairsCommittee noted that there are two land interests that appear to be inconclusive still. Ido nothave any details in front of me at the moment. I applaud the Minister forarriving in Murupara before methemember of Parliament. An advantage of being a Minister is the ease with which a way forward can be found. A mere snap of the fingersand doors open up to the Minister. So that was why I went to participate in the discussions between Ngāi Tūhoe and Ngāti Manawa. And it was there that the statement emerged: here are the land interests according to Ngāti Manawa. Excuse me! Ngāi Tūhoe had a different view on that. Eventually a ruling was made. I have notheard a comment from Ngāti Manawa about the difficulties and effect placed upon them by this ruling.Therefore in my viewit is settled andaccounted forso leave it there. This is the Māori Party standing here in support of the minor amendments to the bill andfurthermoretoendorse what the Minister has outlined. I acknowledge him and the amicable manner in which he handled this matter. Let the bill proceed.]RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution at this Committee stage on the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. I do note that it is sort of unusual that we have a Committee stage for Treaty bills but I do understand the nature of the important amendments that have been put through in Supplementary Order Papers 467 and 468.I would just like to start off with the very simple one Supplementary Order Paper 467. When this bill initially made its journey through the House it was obviously an omnibus bill a combined bill. That Supplementary Order Paper is now splitting out the two bills that are contained in there. The first bill obviously is the Tūhoe Claims Settlement Bill which deals specifically with the Crown’s apologies and the historical context for Tūhoe and then also the separate bill of the Te Urewera Bill. I think it is important that we do mention that because that is a real innovation in the evolution of Treaty settlements—the fact that we are giving legal recognition to Te Urewera through its own bill. I can only think that had my relations down south had the imagination back in the day we would have loved to have an “Aoraki Maunga Bill” to complement our Ngāi Tahu settlement. I congratulate Tūhoe and the negotiators on this innovation which is a landmark for Te Urewera for Tūhoe and for all the iwi with associations with and interests in Te Urewera.I guess that leads me on to the second Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 468. It is relatively straightforward I guess. Two Central North Island Iwi Holdings cultural redress properties were originally included but there were concerns from Ngāti Manawa. I am pleased that there was productive kōrero that went on that led to a resolution of whatever the concerns were which has allowed the transfer of Waitehouhi and Korokoro o Te Huatahi as cultural redress properties for Tūhoe.So the purpose I guess of these Supplementary Order Papers is important. We want to make sure that for any technical matters or matters that are unresolved—that we could not get resolved through the select committee consideration—we now have the opportunity to resolve them. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and all of his team for working on these outstanding matters.I guess the final matter that we have been discussing is around this issue of Te Ūpokorehe and the shared interests—or not—of neighbouring iwi. This is prevalent right across all Treaty settlements as we know especially for those hapū and iwi that are on boundaries. There is a lot of intermarriage and some hapū can fall on both sides of the divide. So we see these issues right across the motu. In fact I do not think there is one Treaty settlement that does not have these sorts of tricky boundary relationship issues or assertions of rights and interests that overlap or intersect between neighbours.I think that is just the nature of our people how we roamed and marauded around these lands and how we made peace—how we takawaenga-ed—and how we came together. The issue around Te Ūpokorehe is I believe no different from the many others. If I could use an example even one that is very dear to our chief the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Ngāti Wai—I am thinking of Hauturu when we did Ngāti Manuhiri. For Hauturu or Little Barrier Island obviously the sequencing or the progress that Ngāti Manuhiri made—obviously they were ahead of the queue and so they were able to pen their settlement a lot earlier than their relations who were coming behind them. But there was a great concern from Ngāti Wai around the rights that Ngāti Manuhiri purported to have to Hauturu which they believed was pretty much to the exclusion of Ngāti Wai. We were pleased to work through that issue very constructively with all sides and in particular at the Māori Affairs Committee to make sure that it was non-exclusive that there was recognition and that there was room to accommodate Ngāti Wai and other interests that were yet to come through. I think that situation is no different from this situation.The Minister has made it very clear and it has been provided for in the legislation that there is room to accommodate the rights that are recognised through subsequent settlements that may come through in the future. I am thinking of another example quite close to home which would be Kāpiti Island. Kāpiti Island is obviously Ngati Toa Rangatira and the headquarters for Te Rauparaha back in the day but there is accommodation on Kāpiti for Ngāti Raukawa and Te Ātiawa. Once those regions or areas of inquiry and settlements are concluded their rights and interests can be recognised through their respective settlements. So it is not about exclusivity. I think that as much as iwi like to assert their exclusive rights to certain things the nature of these Treaty settlements is complex in particular when you have many different close whakapapa arrangements neighbours and history which is part of us as Māori people across the motu.So I just want to acknowledge the Minister for clarifying that there is the ability to include Te Ūpokorehe Ngāti Ruapani or other rights that can be affirmed through subsequent settlements that may come through the settlement process. I do not want to prejudge anything obviously. It is not my place to do that but it is this Parliament’s place to make sure that this piece of legislation is given due proper attention. Obviously this Parliament is the ultimate authority in terms of authorising and giving mandate to this piece of legislation and I think we have covered some very important areas here and I am very comfortable with the explanations that have been provided. Hopefully that will give comfort to those other iwi who are further back in the pipeline of advancing their settlements with the Crown. Thank you very much.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I wish to make some comments about process at this point that might be helpful to the Committee. I think what is developing here is a dialogue situation. When leave was sought to have one debate there was no instruction or change to the process of four calls per member. Because this is a lesser court to the House—we are in the Committee of the whole House—the normal process for that the precedent for that and the convention for that is that it be an instruction from the House to the Committee that there be unlimited calls and that course has not been taken. I do not believe there was any intention to curtail but I just want to inform those who are participating that that is kind of the structure under which we are operating as long as members are comfortable with that. It is just a little pre-emptive process.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I take the leave? I do not think anyone thinks this is not a positive way of doing things. It is a much better way if people can go back and forth and therefore I take the leave—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You seek the leave?Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek the leave of the Committee for the four-call limit not to be used for this debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): OK we will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. So what we have just done is we have taken away that four-call limit if the member wishes to participate more than that although he looked quite content. Now I will recognise the Minister who was seeking the call.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations):I just wanted to reaffirm what Mr Tirikatene has said because he is absolutely spot on in his reference to Kāpiti Island. The fact that Ngāti Toa have received relief out there does not mean to say that when one concludes settlements with Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga Muaūpoko and Te Ātiawa Ki Whakarongotai that there cannot be recognition of their interests in Kāpiti. It happens all the time. I am currently in the course of negotiating with Rangitāne in the Wairarapa and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. They have overlapping claims. There is no magic. We are not talking about delineated boundaries that you cannot go over. Of course there was that decision of the Waitangi Tribunal some years ago about the boundaries between Te Tau Ihu iwi and Ngāi Tahu and the tribunal had views about trying to hermetically seal off one part of the country from other iwi. It cannot be done. So I simply reaffirm that point that notwithstanding that we are settling here with Ngāi Tūhoe and we are establishing Te Urewera it is still possible I say to Mr Peters to have just and durable settlements with Te Ūpokorehe and with Ruapani.The only other point I would make is—and it is worth just mentioning because of the novelty of what we are talking about and Mr Tirikatene raised it—the importance of clause 118 which declares Te Urewera to be a legal entity with all the rights powers duties and liabilities of a legal person. That all looks a bit strange on the face of it but then last night I had an email from overseas from someone who said that actually in Ecuador a river was given a legal identity so that it had all the rights of taking action under the Ecuadorian constitution. So it was an interesting piece of information. There is probably nothing new under the sun. What we are doing here as a means of achieving a just and durable Treaty settlement is a perfectly sensible and logical way of dealing with what has been a vexed historical issue.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):Now we have got that well-known jurisdiction called Ecuador as a precedent for what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is thinking about. This is what is being said here and by the Māori Party: the Minister said that these two tribes have customary association. Frankly that is an insult. That is a massive insult to two tribes or iwi in that part of the world. He said they have “customary association” as though somehow they are there at the behest of someone else. If I was from those tribes I would be absolutely affronted.Then the Minister said that the deed affected other iwi and hapū who may have interests. What on earth is he talking about? Those two iwi are what they are historically and nothing that he or the Māori Party or anybody else says is going to change the facts of history. The idea that they were sort of wandering around there at the behest or with the permission of someone else like Tūhoe is an outrage. That is my point. Tūhoe would say the same if they were treated that way.Let us not have this idea that somehow we are going to rewrite history in this Parliament in 2014 and have no regard to the facts. The member for the Māori Party Te Ururoa Flavell said: “and the Minister will take responsibility if there is anything wrong with the settlement.” Do you not feel good about that? A Minister not long to be here and who has not been here long for a start is now taking all the responsibility should something go wrong. If I was up there in the areas of the two iwi that I am talking about and I heard that would I be comforted or would I be beset with anxiety? Because it means with respect to my friend Mr Flavell utter nonsense. Let us be very clear. The Māori Party used the example of Tainui but there is no relativity with Tainui on the coast and the way that this issue is being put in this bill. Make no bones about it Minister—this is the time and this is the place. If it is the wish of this Parliament to ignore that then New Zealand First will not support this bill.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):This debate actually shows how difficult it is to deal with some of the very complex issues that confront the whole Treaty settlement space. The Māori Affairs Committee has been very clear all the way through that the thing we cannot arbitrate on is whakapapa and we also cannot determine the way in which history has affected the peculiarities of settlements for distinct iwi who come to the direct negotiation process. On the point around inland interests on the coastal area in fact my own hapū is a very good example. Far be it from me to speak on the history and nature of relationships within the Tūhoe area but this is what happens for my particular hapū domiciled in Huntly which is a river iwi and why we have coastal interests out in Hauraki in Ngāti Paoa. It is because of a gift. So we have a customary interest in an area where my ancestors have traditionally always gone to harvest kai moana and that was because of whakapapa relationships. How that was expressed was a gift of land. Was it an exclusive gift of land? No it was an opportunity to seasonally harvest kai moana to feed our people. Quid pro quo if need be—we would give tuna back to the people out on the coast if they needed it. That is the nature of the type of relationship that can exist for an inland tribe out on the coast and there are pockets of these types of situations within iwi and across various iwi because of the nature of whakapapa connections.Now can I come back to the particular. With regards to their customary interest that has been expressed in the Ōhiwa Harbour it is a non-exclusive interest which is why when the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked whether or not the Māori Affairs Committee had asked questions I can say that we certainly did. We were very clear at the time that the customary interest was an expression of a connection that it was non-exclusive and that there were other interests to be determined that were outstanding before the full I guess expression of what was happening around that particular part of the harbour. We were really clear in our minds that that was the case. However the assertions of Te Ūpokorehe put into question the extent of the overlapping interests and the need for that to be further defined. They were challenging the select committee to say that they needed to have assurance that their overlapping interest—their ability to preserve their distinct interests in their area—could be pursued after this settlement progressed. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has given an explanation on that. There is a clarification and we certainly accept it.The other question that the select committee was at pains to ask was: does this settlement prejudicially affect anybody who chooses to express their interest with Tūhoe? No it does not. There are whakapapa overlaps or intermarriages that create I guess connections for people who can whakapapa to both Ngāi Tūhoe and Ngāti Ruapani. Are they excluded from this settlement? No they are not. That is a really important point to raise because people participating in this debate who with respect might not have been privy to the explanations that the Māori Affairs Committee was privy to would not understand this. If we believe that this Treaty settlement is so exclusive that it starts to push out people who can whakapapa both ways then we are severely misled. This is not the case. This is an inclusive settlement. It provides opportunities for people who whakapapa through Ruapani and Ngāi Tūhoe to derive a benefit should they so desire. If not and if they want to preserve their interests exclusively within the Ngāti Ruapani aspirations of proceeding with their claims interest there is another path to follow. They will not be stopped. That can go ahead.There are other aspects of the debate that have arisen that are a larger challenge and can be dealt with within the context of this settlement. Can I say that there are ways in which overlapping claims have been dealt with through the Treaty settlement process. Distinctly within this one there has been the establishment of pou rāhui for example recognised by Ngāi Tūhoe and sought by Ngāti Manawa. You know there are statements of associations and statements of statutory acknowledgments. They are all different layers of ways of recognising overlapping interests. It is really important I believe if we are to progress with durable settlements that the way in which we speak about settlements in the House and the way in which they actually apply out there within tribal domains and on the ground require relationships to work which is why I preceded my whole contribution with a very clear statement that was given to the Māori Affairs Committee by Ngāi Tūhoe.This has not been a settlement that has been arrived at as easily as some might assert because there has been toil and rigour around preserving relationships—not cutting off relationships but preserving them—and if people cared to dive deeper into how difficult it has been go and ask people but do not come to the Chamber and perpetuate a myth that relationships on the ground do not matter for Ngāi Tūhoe. They have worked very hard there were some ups and downs within their tribe to get to this point but they are still maintaining that actually at the end of the day we have to live in our rohe we have to live alongside other people and we have to work with them because we want this to work for us.That has to be the pervading point that people walk away from this debate with—that notwithstanding some of the difficulties around proceeding with the interests of Te Ūpokorehe Ngāti Ruapani Ngāti Manawa and others the relationship to make this settlement all that is can be is absolutely at the core of why Ngāi Tūhoe want to proceed in a way that is inclusive not exclusive that looks forward not backwards and that determines to ensure that this promotes I think the greatest opportunities of what can happen and that is actually in the second part of the settlement. You know it is a very important debate to be had. Again I was the one who said we were not going to take up time in this debate but those were some very important issues to respond to and people with no knowledge of the discussions that took place at the Māori Affairs Committee might care to listen to this particular contribution. Kia ora.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 468 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know it is sort of unusual at this point but the tradition of the House and I think it is built into the Speakers’ rulings is that it is a requirement for votes to follow voice. So when an individual—or in this case a party—votes in a particular way then on the voices it is required when the vote is recorded to vote the same way. I am not arguing with any of the decisions that have been made but I think it might be good if you advised the parties that are abstaining that they should say “Abstain” or something similar rather than “No” because they are obligated to vote the way they call.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It is an interesting point the member makes. I guess it is a somewhat semantic one. It is not unusual that someone records the requirement of a party vote. The only mechanism in the way that we actually do it is to vote against. Particularly when we have had split calls within a party a party will—Hon Trevor Mallard: I understand.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes so I think there is a bit of tolerance around that. I think it is probably something the Standing Orders Committee should have a look at but at the moment I am prepared to continue with the way in which we are operating. [Interruption] No I have dealt with the matter. The member is fine.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 468 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Part 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 3 be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Part 3 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Part 4 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 5 be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Part 5 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 468 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat theamendment be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 6 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Part 6 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 7 be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Part 7 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Schedule 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 468 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5 agreed to.Schedule 6 agreed to.Schedule 7 agreed to.Schedule 8 agreed to.Schedule 9 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations):I move That the Committee divide the bill into the Tūhoe Claims Settlement Bill and the Te Urewera Billpursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 467.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes 112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Abstentions 7New Zealand First 7.Motion agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.