Turia Tariana: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turia Tariana: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8049. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Maori Party—Te Tai Hauauru) 
: 
 I rise to respond to the specific clause clause 5(2)(a) in Part 2 of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill that deals with the process for obtaining authorisation to proceed with the transfer. This is an important part in that it states that the council will have complied with due process if it has “consulted on the proposed transfer with ... every iwi authority in relation to each iwi whose rohe comes wholly or in part within the scheme distribution area.” As the local member I am obliged to inform the Committee that the local iwi are absolutely opposed to this bill. 
There are two very strong statements of objection that I wish the Committee to consider before I even proceed with the range of arguments iwi have eloquently and consistently put before the Local Government and Environment Committee and therefore the wider Parliament. Nga Parinui Te Tumu Whakarae o Te Runanga o Ngati Ruanui Trust forcefully put the case saying “Water is a fundamental cornerstone for iwi and one that must be worked through together with iwi. There has been no meaningful engagement about this Bill with iwi and for that reason the Bill should be rejected.” 
This lack of meaningful engagement is a key theme that has been reiterated through other submissions including those from Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine and the Taranaki Iwi Trust. A particular objection is the fact that Taranaki iwi were not consulted engaged or involved in the development of this bill The submissions describe the process as unacceptable that mana w’enua were not involved in the decision that led to the development of the bill or in the crafting of the bill itself. The offence taken is blatantly apparent. As a supposed Treaty partner—and we talk a great deal about Treaty partnerships here in this Chamber—they should have been informed and given an opportunity to fully understand the decision before the introduction of the bill to the Parliament given the significance that we understand of iwi in terms of their relationship with water. 
I want to expand on this point: how the Treaty applies to this bill which affects a rural water supply scheme. It is all about location. This scheme is located right within the Taranaki iwi area of interest. This is a consortium of eight iwi in Taranaki who exercise mana w’enua and mana moana within that rohe. These iwi have been kaitiaki of the w’enua and the moana for generations and with that comes inherent responsibilities to preserve and protect their w’enua moana and taonga. This is an inherited responsibility a relationship that will endure for generations to come. Notwithstanding the cultural and spiritual association with water that the iwi throughout this tribal territory carry we are also talking about iwi who are engaged right now in settlement negotiations and who therefore rightfully expect to be involved in the decision-making process around the transfer of Crown assets out of Crown ownership. I want to put before the Committee the unparalleled experience that Taranaki iwi have had with the Crown. The submission from Liana Poutu the General Manager of Taranaki Iwi Trust says it all. It states: “Taranaki Iwi suffered some of the most serious breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi at the hands of the Crown. It is unconscionable that while the Crown are engaging in a process to redress these serious grievances on the other hand they continue to perpetuate the unfair and unjust treatment of our people.” 
Turning to Part 2 and clause 8(1)(e) there is another part of the bill in clause 8 that requires the company to “prepare a protocol that provides for appropriate consultation by the company with every iwi authority in relation to each iwi whose rohe wholly or in part comes within the scheme distribution area.” Under usual circumstances we would support any protocol that sets out to provide for consultation with iwi but as I have already explained these were not usual circumstances. On 13 March 2012 representatives of Taranaki iwi Nga Ruahine Rangi Ngati Ruanui and Nga Rauru met with the Hon Chester Borrows and the company to reinforce their concerns. The four South Taranaki iwi— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s not that honourable on this one. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: —told the company that they were opposed—sorry? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s not that honourable in this case. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: The four South Taranaki iwi told the company that they were opposed to the bill and that the transfer of land from the South Taranaki District Council—[ 
Bell rung 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! If the member wishes to continue she needs to call. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call the Hon Tariana Turia. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: —while the trust is in Treaty settlement negotiations with the Crown is unacceptable yet still the bill progressed to its first reading. 
For my own part I took up this issue with the district council and the local member some 6 months prior in September 2011. I urged the council to initiate adequate and comprehensive consultation and engagement with the affected w’anau hapu and iwi. I explained further that although the iwi would acknowledge particular impacts for Orimupiko Marae and Oeo Marae the wider iwi interests also would impact on the proposed infrastructural developments. I asked the question of whether these impacts result in the diminution of tangata w’enua rights. In February 2012 after sustained advocacy from the Maori Party and from iwi the bill was deferred. I was assured this was to allow the company time to resolve issues with the iwi yet still the bill came back to the Parliament in March last year. I said at that point that I was standing by the iwi and I was voting against this bill which works against our principles of rangatiratanga. Nothing has changed to give the Maori Party any confidence that the concerns iwi have raised regarding the lack of proper consultation the privatisation of water infrastructure or future impacts on land value and access to water have been taken into account. 
There is a word that begins with “r” that could describe the situation. It is at the very least institutionalised discrimination that seemingly means that Taranaki iwi have no say about what happens in their rohe. Ngati Ruanui outlined in their submission that there has been over 10 years of missed opportunity where meaningful discussion could have been had with the iwi of South Taranaki and the council failed in this duty to consult with the iwi. It is too easy to dismiss this bill as being about a single water scheme in a rural location affecting a few but I remind the Committee that in 1865 some 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land was proclaimed and confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act. The Crown redress to Ngati Ruanui accounts to a few cents in the dollar for each acre that has been taken. It was a gesture of enormous good faith that this sum was accepted by that iwi to move forward for the betterment of the nation as a whole. This bill in creating an opportunity to allow private ownership and remove the Treaty partnership between the Crown and iwi does not exist in a vacuum. 
For those who uphold the responsibilities of kaitiakitanga the water at the centre of this bill requires careful protection and guardianship. Lest we forget as in the Supreme Court case happening just across the road the management of water resources is fundamental to iwi. Parliament must not act today in a way that undermines the Treaty relationship and adversely impacts on the water legislative landscape before the collective tribal discussions can be held at Maunga Taranaki and the precious water resource that flows from it. The Maori Party wishes to register its objection to this bill and will continue to stand alongside the iwi of Taranaki in opposing this legislation.