NEW ZEALAND


1 pm to deal with some of the legislation. The remaining Bills were


debated during ordinary sitting hours in the afternoon. Speaking to the third


readings of the Ngati Manawa Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill, which were debated as cognate Bills, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mr Finlayson welcomed the representatives of both iwi [tribes] sitting in the gallery: “From the inception of the push towards settling central North Island claims back in 2002…you have been at the forefront of settlement negotiations. I…acknowledge the leadership, the pragmatism, and the hard work of both negotiating teams. It is through their diligent labour that we are here today. “Both iwi were part of the


Central North Island Iwi Collective, whose forestry claims were addressed as part of [a 2004 settlement]. In 2009 the Crown and [the runanga or assemblies of the two tribes] signed separate deeds of settlement to settle all their outstanding historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Ngati Whare package sets an example for current and future settlements, with unique arrangements that have been developed for the forest within the Whirinaki Valley. Co- governance of the forest park centres on development of a conservation management plan approved jointly by the Crown and Ngati Whare. This is the first such arrangement in the history of Treaty settlements.” Speaking of the Ngati


Manawa settlement, Mr Finlayson said that it was “intended to meet the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual needs of the iwi. They were loyal to the Crown during the New Zealand Wars,


but this did not protect them. Like iwi throughout the country they suffered from the effects of the native land laws and the Crown’s purchasing techniques…Twentieth century land, river, and forestry development by the Crown added to their misfortune. The key aspects of Ngati Manawa’s cultural redress package aim to reinvigorate the relationship between Ngati Manawa and sites of significance in their area of interest”. He concluded: “the Crown is


acutely aware when it enters into negotiations that full restitution is impossible. We cannot turn back the clock. We cannot return all that was taken.” He also paid tribute to “the generosity of Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare in accepting this”. Hon. Nanaia Mahuta, MP,


(Labour) said: “Treaty settlements are a living recognition that, despite the hurt and the historical actions that took place between iwi and the Crown, this is a real attempt to try to restore some of that hurt and seek redress, albeit insufficient, I think, in the living memories of the descendants today. But it is a start, and it is an important start to ensure that future generations can move forward”. In the third reading of the


Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, Mr Finlayson commented that “one noteworthy feature of the Bills we debate today is that they all involve rivers. “There are slightly different


co-governance mechanisms. They have been carefully constructed to reflect the needs and the realities of the particular river systems”. Ms Denise Roche (Green)


was “heartened by the fact that Maniapoto have been returned to their role as kaitiaki [guardians], and that they will


be able to work in a co- governance and co- management relationship with the Crown and with councils to clean and nurture the Waipa and return her to health”. Two further Treaty


settlement Bills received their third readings later in the day, during ordinary afternoon sitting hours of the House. As he did for all five Treaty


settlement Bills, Hon. Dr Pita Sharples, MP, the Minister of Maori Affairs and Maori Party co-leader, moved the third reading of the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill, on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations, saying that he believed that the settlement would “support the healing of the relationship between Ngati Pahauwera and the Crown”. Mr Finlayson explained that


The last of the Treaty


settlement Bills to have its third reading on 29 March was the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. Like the previous Bill, this one contained an acknowledgment of the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty, and provided “cultural, financial, and commercial redress”, as Mr Finlayson explained. Ms Roche described the


settlement as “worth $110 million and 6,000 acres, plus cultural redress and recognition across Ngati Porou rohe [territory]. It is the second- largest single deal in the history of Treaty settlements”. Ms Mahuta pointed out that


“we are having a very different conversation here with Ngati Porou because this settlement is, in part, a continuation of a conversation and a relationship that has been well established. This is a sophisticated, smart, and strategic settlement in that not all the issues for Ngati Porou have been resolved. So it will lock future governments into a continued relationship of having to work with Ngati Porou to achieve the best outcomes in that area”. Ms Moana Mackey


Ms Moana Mackey


“in this Bill the Crown acknowledged its breaches of the Treaty, offers an apology to Ngati Pahauwera, and provides for cultural, financial, and commercial redress. During the process of land alienation that began in the 1850s the Crown failed to make sure that Ngati Pahauwera had sufficient lands for its future needs. By the mid 20th century Ngati Pahauwera was virtually landless, and ever since they have suffered economic, social, and cultural impoverishment”.


(Labour) attributed the historical grievances of Ngati Porou to “the direct result of the Crown’s failure to respect Ngati Porou’s rangatiratanga [sovereignty]. The Crown- imposed significant land- tenure reform on Ngati Porou has meant that the East Coast does remain one of the most socio-economically deprived regions of New Zealand, despite the significant efforts and achievements of the people and the runanga [assembly] of Ngati Porou thus far”.


Mr Finlayson said “the


settlement given effect by this Bill will provide Ngati Porou with a platform for future growth”.


The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Two | 137


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72