GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : We do not wish to spend a great deal of time on the preamble to the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. It sets out very clearly the process that led to this settlement. Further to that, the preamble deals with matters relating to the time from which the settlement itself will become effective. We wish to reserve the speaking opportunities we get in this debate to the more substantive clauses that we will see in the future. In particular, I point the Committee to a proposed new Part 4, which will be introduced by Mr Finlayson and seconded by Mr Tau Henare. We are of the view that the time of the Committee would be best spent discussing that particular matter this afternoon.

• Preamble agreed to.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I reiterate what my colleague Gerry Brownlee said. The Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill is pretty straightforward in terms of settlement legislation. We do not want to hold up the process, but we do want to make clear our intentions of bringing forward to the Committee a new Part 4, which hopefully the Government will take a look at—we hope the Minister of Māori Affairs will push play and get a copy of it. The amendment is an honest attempt to make sure that this process runs as smoothly as possible. I will not take up too much more of the Committee’s time, other than to say that the National Party is totally supportive of this legislation.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. In this part I want to talk specifically to references that are made to the word “principles” as it relates to the Treaty of Waitangi. I say from the outset that I have proposed a number of amendments and hope that this Committee might give some due regard to them. The stance that New Zealand First is taking on this issue should not come as any surprise to this Committee. Again I just want to take the opportunity of reiterating our concern, and that is the fact that first, there is no reference to principles stated in the Treaty, and second, while they appear in a number of pieces of legislation, none of those references actually define what those principles are. Again, that has been a concern to New Zealand First, and also the fact that it has been left up to people outside of this House and to institutions outside of this House to define what those principles are. It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to express our concern and also to seek their deletion from this bill.

I also reiterate a comment I made during the second reading when reporting back on comments made by claimants themselves in regard to this bill and during the course of hearing submissions from claimants. When asked about the importance of the principles of the Treaty in relation to this settlement, they did not have a view as to their importance for inclusion in this bill. But what they did say was that for them it was more important that recognition was given to the fact that a breach of the Treaty itself had taken place. So I reiterate the stance of New Zealand First and say that if this bill is passed it will be added to the list of legislation that includes those principles, when my colleague’s bill for the removal of those references from legislation comes up.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I have a few brief comments to make, and I foreshadow that I will be moving a number of amendments to the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill by way of introducing a new Part 4. That part will introduce a number of transitional provisions to deal with the dissolution of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority and changes consequent upon that, including the transfer of assets and liabilities, the position with taxes and duties, the requirement that the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority prepare a final report, and other miscellaneous matters such as registers, the status of contracts, and other instruments and matters that would not be affected by the transfer.

It is perhaps important that I state briefly now why I am seeking to introduce those amendments. It seems to me that the Māori Affairs Committee has got it wrong on page 23 of the commentary on the bill. Mention of the transfer of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority Board to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga begins on page 22, and sets out the arguments as to why Ngāti Mutunga wanted provisions to deal with the transfer of assets from the old board to the new governance arrangement. Page 23 of the commentary states: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” But that is not what is being proposed; in fact, that statement is simply wrong, because in July 2005 Ngāti Mutunga ratified a new governance arrangement to succeed the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority. It was never seeking, by legislation, to establish the new tribal arrangement; it was seeking to do what has been done in numerous pieces of settlement legislation—to effect a transfer from the old body to the new body and to effect the dissolution of the old body.

I am trying to make the point that the new entity, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga, was established on 21 December 2005. The establishment of that entity followed a Crown-approved ratification process that involved Ngāti Mutunga members over the age of 18. That structure was reviewed by the Crown prior to the ratification process, and was accepted as a suitable structure to replace the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority and to receive settlement assets.

In proposing these amendments I am seeking not to create a new entity but to recognise that there is this new entity that has been in existence for some months, that it is the appropriate body to take part in the settlement, and that the old body—the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority—could be appropriately dissolved. That is what I am seeking to do by proposing to insert a new Part 4. Although the proposed new Part 4 seems to have quite a few clauses in it, when the discussion is reduced to simple terms that is what is happening, and it is not different from the procedures that were adopted by this Committee in the Committee stage of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. If members look at Subpart 2 of Part 4 of that bill, which deals with various miscellaneous provisions, they will see that the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board was dissolved, and that all assets and liabilities were transferred to the new body. That process is no different from what happened with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in the 1996 Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act.

They are a simple set of amendments that reflect what Ngāti Mutunga wants, and I hope members of the Committee will reflect on them. It is not a question of playing party political games but of trying to achieve for Ngāti Mutunga a settlement that is appropriate and durable, and of making sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. I particularly refer Minister Burton to the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, because it seems to me that a mistake has been made in the report back. I am not seeking to do anything other than what happened in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I endorse what my colleague Christopher Finlayson said and set out to the Committee—that it is pretty obvious that we have the ability to help Ngāti Mutunga, in terms of the old entity, to move seamlessly into the new entity, with basically a stroke of the pen. In fact, I do not think it will cost the Government at all in financial terms. My colleague Mr Finlayson put it succinctly when he mentioned what had happened in the Te Arawa lakes settlement—moving from the Te Arawa Māori Trust Board through to the new entity, Te Arawa Lakes Trust. So I do not think that it is too hard an ask for the Government to support the amendment put forward by my colleague Mr Finlayson. I do have some misgivings about the amendments from my whanaunga, my tuakana, over there from New Zealand First about the removal of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. As I said in the second reading, I was not too sure that it would be good politics at all to try to remove references to the Treaty principles from what is—

Pita Paraone: What are they? The member might be able to tell me.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, basically—I am not really here to help New Zealand First out. If the member really wants to know what they are, then maybe he should go home and do some homework.

However, I think it is a bit strange that we would remove references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from a Treaty settlement bill. I certainly agree with my colleague from New Zealand First that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi should not be in every bill, but I certainly think that references to the Treaty of Waitangi should be in what is, essentially, a Treaty of Waitangi settlement bill.

Darren Hughes: Except that’s not National Party policy.

Hon TAU HENARE: That member has just come out of school, he had his first drink in the pub not so long ago, and now he knows what National Party policy is.

Darren Hughes: Yes, I do—better than the member does.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, I see. This is where we get the spin from the biggest spinners out. They are such big spinners, they should be on the end of a fishing pole, for goodness’ sake! But I digress.

National Party policy is not to remove the Treaty of Waitangi principles from all legislation—unlike New Zealand First’s policy. I know that it is hard to differentiate between New Zealand First and National—

Pita Paraone: Which legislation, then, does it apply to?

Hon TAU HENARE: This legislation is a Treaty of Waitangi settlement, where we have, basically, bipartisan support for a settlement of a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Pita Paraone: That’s right.

Hon TAU HENARE: Right? OK! So why would we not have a mention of the thing that has been breached in the settlement bill.

Pita Paraone: It is mentioned—the Treaty.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is all the member wants. He does not even want the principles of the Treaty—

Pita Paraone: No. You don’t know what they are.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, I ask the member what they are.

Pita Paraone: I just want to know.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, come on! It is too easy, because it does not have any effect, whatsoever, on what we are talking about. It is just a play on the old superannuitants, who are New Zealand First’s support base, and whose numbers are dwindling ever so quickly.

Pita Paraone: Is that the same support base that put you in here?

Hon TAU HENARE: No, no. You see, in those days Māori did not get to be the age of a superannuitant, so all the people who voted for me from 1993 to 1999 were actually young people. But I digress again. All we are saying is that we think it is appropriate that we use this legislation for Ngāti Mutunga to move from the old to the new.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I thank the members for their contributions in terms of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. I also appreciate the amendments in the name of Chris Finlayson. Those amendments pertain to a proposed new Part 4 of the settlement bill, so I will acknowledge those points when we come to that stage of the debate. But I thank the member for his contribution.

Of course, the Government values the relationship it has established with Ngāti Mutunga, its negotiators, and its people. In saying that, I point out that we have advised Ngāti Mutunga that this is an inappropriate use of settlement legislation. It is not something we have done in the past, and it is not something we want to do in the future. Previous examples of such legislation have related to statutory bodies—for instance, trust boards—or have been introduced by way of private legislation, which we have seen in a number of cases such as with the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. But Chris Finlayson’s amendments have some merit. We value the relationship we have developed with Ngāti Mutunga, and, as I said, when the Committee comes to that stage of the debate I will speak to the matter in more detail. I thank the member for his contribution.

As for the amendments in the name of Pita Paraone, which seem to be part of a continuing saga, the member is well aware of Labour’s position in terms of the retention of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, particularly in settlement legislation. The member asked the previous speaker, the Hon Tau Henare, what those principles were. Well, I can offer some help to the member. It is pretty obvious that the Crown acknowledges in its apology that it failed to protect the property rights of Ngāti Mutunga. As a result of that failure, Ngāti Mutunga have not participated in the development of the local economy and in opportunities at the local level. In fact, they have been observers. They have been bystanders. Those two principles alone should satisfy us that the Crown was wrong in its actions and that it seeks to rectify that wrong—not in full, only in part, but it is certainly making a genuine attempt.

At the same time, I admire the member’s tenacity in continuing to promote the removal of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We have been generous in allowing New Zealand First’s legislation on this matter to go to a select committee, but I have to tell the member that after that—sayonara, ka kite anō. I needed to respond to that particular matter raised by the member, though I mean it when I say again that I admire his tenacity. I am sure that Ngāti Mutunga are listening carefully to his arguments and do not agree with any of them. Kia ora.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : First, I apologise to the Committee. I missed the boat. I thought we were still on the title, so the Minister was very generous in not boxing my ears for being slow. But I do want to say something about clause 7, because the member for Otaki raised an interesting question about the National Party’s policy on the principles of the Treaty. I thought I had articulated them reasonably clearly when we debated the New Zealand First bill to deal with deleting references to the principles of the Treaty and, essentially, my friend Mr Henare has outlined them very well this afternoon.

The position is this. We say that there are some pieces of legislation—for example, the Conservation Act—that are of general application, where sections that state that the Act is to be interpreted in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi can be deleted, because we say that they are statutes of general application and those sorts of vague references do not necessarily help in the interpretation of the Act. I drew a distinction, however, between general legislation and settlement legislation. I think that it is very dangerous and unnecessary, in the context of settlement legislation, to delete references to the principles of the Treaty. Particularly, clause 7 of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, has, in English, the text of the various acknowledgments entered into between Ngāti Mutunga and the Crown in the deed of settlement, and the Crown acknowledges certain things.

I do not think that it is very clever, in the context of a debate in Committee or in the House, for Parliament to be deleting references in the context of a deed that has already been agreed between the settling party, in this case Ngāti Mutunga, and the Crown.

And that is why the National Party’s position, which I outlined in the first reading debate on the member’s very own Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, was that we would not interfere with those clauses; nor would we interfere with clauses in legislation like Te Rununga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996. But, as I said earlier, we would interfere and delete provisions that are of general application. Further, I said that if there were clauses in legislation where we thought there ought to be some kind of Treaty clause, we would draft that clause with some precision and detail, and not rely upon the generalist phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

So there we have it; it is not an unprincipled approach, at all. That is the National Party policy as articulated most recently in the context of the debate on that member’s bill, and that is the approach we will adopt when the bill comes before the Justice and Electoral Committee. I know that we have had quite a number of submissions, and I am very much looking forward to the debate on that issue. But I thought for the benefit of the member for Otaki I should make it quite clear that everything Mr Henare said this afternoon—as we would expect—was completely and utterly correct.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I want to have a crack, have a lick, at the text of the acknowledgments in English contained in clause 7: “The text of the acknowledgements in English as set out in the deed of settlement is as follows: (1) The Crown acknowledges that—(a) the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions in purchasing land in Taranaki created tensions that led to the outbreak of war;”. Just that particular paragraph, that part of the English acknowledgment, rather downplays what actually happened. I suppose that it should really be saying the “out and out theft and confiscation”, particularly in that part of New Zealand.

When the text talks about “the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions in purchasing land in Taranaki”, I agree that, OK, some land in Taranaki was purchased—through the back door, and after confiscation and all sorts of skulduggery. As I said in my speech to the House during the second reading, the particular issues we are dealing with today, in terms of Taranaki, have to be, I suppose, the results of the worst confiscation this country has ever seen. I do not want to belittle the settlements of Tainui, Ngāi Tahu, and so on, and so forth, but I am of the opinion that the acknowledgments in this bill, although acknowledging the Crown’s position, and although acknowledging that things that happened in Taranaki were dire, do not go far enough in terms of actually acknowledging what happened. I think it is important for us in Parliament that we do acknowledge exactly what happened. Yes, they were not in rebellion, but what does that really mean? Crikey, if someone came on to my property I would be in rebellion, and I would not care who knew it.

When we look at the effects on the remnants of Ngāti Mutunga of the so-called purchasing of land in Taranaki by the Crown, then I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves whether the language used in the acknowledgment is for the wider public consumption, or is it there to tell a story. I think that an acknowledgment of what has gone on should contain the whole story—the story should be told, warts and all—so that people in years to come can refer to the written acknowledgments of what happened, and why there was a settlement. It may not be the best settlement that could have happened, but there was a settlement, and somewhere along the line there should be some acknowledgment of what actually happened.

I will not comment on the text in Māori. I will leave that to better scholars than myself. We also move on to the text of the apology. There is nothing wrong with the text of the apology, but I do not think we can put into words an apology for what has happened. I always think that the people who produce such things have a far better time of it in looking for particular words and what they mean, because no apology could compensate for the seriousness of all that, and for the series of confiscations meted out on Ngāti Mutunga and on Taranaki.

Although I commend the Government, the Crown, and the officials who have done the job in getting this legislation to Parliament, I think there are still a number of holes in such pieces of legislation. Maybe one day we will do the job right, in terms of giving an apology, and of acknowledging the people and what actually went on. Maybe one day we will even have a list of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi inserted in a settlement bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The amendments in the name of Pita Paraone to clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10, to omit references to the principles of Treaty of Waitangi, are ruled out of order because they purport to amend the text of the deed of settlement. The clauses quote directly from the deed; I advise members to look at Speakers’ ruling 110/2.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause 1(a)(i)(A), the words “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi)”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is a new Part 4 proposed by Christopher Finlayson. I need to rule on this matter. The purpose of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill is to implement the terms of the deed of settlement. An amendment to transfer the assets of an iwi authority to a new entity is outside the scope of the bill and, therefore, out of order. It is a matter for the entities concerned how they regulate their business and transfer assets. If legislation were needed it would be by means of a private bill; it would not be for inclusion in a Government bill, as per Speaker’s ruling 110/1. So there will be no debate on this matter; the amendment is out of order.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I actually have to disagree with your ruling, with all due respect to the office of the Speaker and the Chair. How can the new entity be outside the scope of the bill, when the bill itself actually talks about moving from the old to the new? It is the express wish of the Crown to move from the old entity to the new entity. In fact, it was part of the negotiations that the Crown had to be satisfied that the new entity was going to meet the obligations of what the Crown wanted in terms of mandate and the whole structure of the new structure. I cannot see how this amendment is outside the scope of the legislation, when moving from the old organisation to the new organisation goes to the heart of the settlement.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you, but the point is that the amendment cannot be made within this bill; it still has to be made within a private bill. It is a well-established principle in this Parliament that matters of iwi administration are matters for private legislation. The Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill illustrated that point clearly. The bill establishing that rūnanga and providing for the conduct of its business required private legislation at the time, and the Standing Orders, by leave of the House, were suspended to allow what was intended as a public Act to proceed as a private bill.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not want to go on all day, but I have two options open to me. I do not think that this amendment does what you think it does. It does not establish all the administrative duties of the new entity; all it does is transfer everything from yesterday to today and give the entity a new name. The amendment does not establish by statute everything that the new entity will do. That is my first point. The second option open to me is to maybe get the big guns—the Speaker—back down here. That is no reflection on you, Madam Chairperson; please do not take it in that way. It is an important point. Here we have a Treaty settlement. We have been in contact with one side of the negotiated settlement, and, obviously, we have had a very, very short talk with the Government. I am not sure what the Government’s position is on the matter yet, but I think it is important that we come to some sort of resolution here. So the options are either to come to a resolution or to call the Speaker back and get into it again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I appreciate the member’s point, but the point is that the Committee cannot give itself permission to do something outside the scope of the bill—it cannot give itself leave. But I respect the member’s position, and if the member would like to recall the Speaker at this point, then he should do so.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Under Standing Order 179 a motion may be moved. I move, That the Chair obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a matter of procedure.

• Motion agreed to.
• House resumed.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I seek leave to have proposed new Part 4 in the name of Christopher Finlayson inserted into the bill we are debating.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Committee does not have that power.

Hon TAU HENARE: I can seek leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, it is only the House that could give that power.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I am not going to argue with you, Madam Chairperson, or the Speaker, and I thank you very much for your wise comments. But I think it is an absolute and abject crying shame that the Crown never saw this situation coming. The Crown must have known somewhere along the line that such an amendment was going to come up.

We were led to believe at the Māori Affairs Committee—and I refer to page 23 of the commentary on the bill—that “amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” I think that was a bit of bum information. The Office of Treaty Settlements and the Government representatives must have known that the new entity was established in the year 2005, on 21 December. So we got some wrong information, and that is why we are standing here.

One of the crucial points of this settlement bill is that the whole of Parliament is in support of it. We are not trying to squeeze any more money out of the Crown. We are not trying to diddle the Crown out of whatever. We are not trying to get one over the Crown. Because some of us have been approached by the people who make up half of the settlement, I ask members to please support us in moving the assets from one entity to another, which has already been established. We did not know that the entity had already been established when we were in the select committee; otherwise, it would not have been in the commentary.

The question that has to be asked is whether the officials told members of Parliament the truth. The officials can shake their heads, but I intend to try to find out, at the next Māori Affairs Committee meeting, whether we were told the truth or whether we were led up the garden path. I am quite disappointed. We agree with the ruling given by the Chairperson and the Speaker that a new entity cannot be set up, as it states in the commentary. That is fine; we cop that—it is not a problem. But I have serious doubts as to whether we were given all the information about this issue, as it is stated on page 23 of the commentary on the bill.

The bill’s title is the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, but maybe it should be called the “Ngāti Mutunga Confiscation Settlement Bill”. I refer back to my comments earlier about the text of the acknowledgments and apology, and I say we should call the bill what it is, not what we are comfortable with so as not to offend anybody. We are talking about the history of a people. This is a people’s story concerning both the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga. It is about something that has happened, and it has taken many years to reach an agreement between the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga. So let us call the bill the “Ngāti Mutunga Confiscation Settlement Bill”. As the bill reads now, Ngāti Mutunga claim there was a breach. Everybody knows there was a breach and a negotiated settlement, so let us call it the “Ngāti Mutunga Confiscation Settlement Bill”. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Although I do not normally speak in support of the previous speaker, he did raise some valid points. It just goes to show how important settlement legislation is and also the way the text of an apology is recorded. The debate over the last 40 minutes is testament to the need to have more clarity in trying to meet the wishes of any claimant group in terms of the position the Crown takes in such matters. The fact that one party to this legislation approached some people in this Chamber—and I ought to place on the record that I do not know why they approached that particular group—quite clearly is something of concern to that claimant group. Although I accept that, in terms of the processes of the House, the Supplementary Order Paper submitted by the National Party was ruled out of order, I think all of us cannot disagree with the intent of it and that on a mere technicality we are being denied the opportunity to help to fulfil the request of a claimant group—I need to repeat, a claimant group—and that of all those who have suffered breaches of the Treaty, I suggest that this particular claimant has suffered the most. The Committee had the opportunity to provide the sort of redress that it felt would be appropriate. Sadly, I have to accept the ruling of the Chairperson, and, indeed, the Speaker.

But before I sit down, I reiterate the issues regarding the references to the principles of the Treaty. The commentary on the bill refers to a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, yet most members of the House would agree that any reference to such principles is vague, unclear, or non-existent. Those adjectives have been used by some members in the Chamber. On behalf of New Zealand First, I am saddened that our Supplementary Order Paper has not been supported. I understand the comments of the honourable member Chris Finlayson that that part of the Act where it refers to another document, has led to this legislation. We accept that. I think that is valid, but where it helps to define the claimant group, as it does in clause 14, we think its exclusion would not remove the durability or the intent of the legislation. I just wanted to reiterate that point. Kia ora.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : This is a very sad day for this Parliament. I think we should have gone the extra mile to see what we, as a Parliament, could do for Ngāti Mutunga, particularly bearing in mind the history of the Taranaki wars. As Mr Paraone said, the incident at Parihaka is one of the real blots on New Zealand’s history, and I refer to recitals (8) and (9) of the preamble. I think it is worth reading out recital (9): “On 5 November 1881, more than 1,500 Crown troops invaded and occupied Parihaka. Over the following days, some 1,600 Māori were forcibly expelled from the settlement and made to return to their previous homes. Houses and cultivations were systematically destroyed, and stock was driven away or killed. Taranaki Māori assert that women were raped and otherwise molested by the soldiers:”, and two of the leaders were arrested and held until 1883. This House had no difficulty passing special legislation to provide for their imprisonment without trial.

That is a real blot on New Zealand’s history. It is something so many New Zealanders know something about, and in the first reading of this bill it was the subject of a number of emotional speeches by various members of Parliament. I would have thought that the very House that could pass that kind of odious special legislation could go the extra mile for Ngāti Mutunga in the settlement legislation, especially when the settlement report from the Māori Affairs Committee, in reporting back to the House, got it wrong. Once again, I have to say the report simply is incorrect, because it proceeds on a faulty premise. What I am seeking to do is to amend the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of a post-settlement governance entity. The report says that is not feasible, but that is not what I am seeking to do. So there we have it.

There was a humble attempt by me to try to go the extra mile for Ngāti Mutunga; and not for party political purposes. I was interested in the comments of Mr Paraone who said it was perhaps a bit odd or surprising that they were dealing with the National Party on this. The background to the matter was that last Monday I was sitting at Rotorua airport, and I am sure Mr Flavell will confirm this, and Mr Tuuta from Ngāti Mutunga came and sat down and we were speaking about the settlement legislation. He mentioned there was a bit of a problem with the transfer of assets, and I said for him to send me a note and I would see what we could do. That was not for party political purposes but simply because I feel very strongly that this settlement legislation is extremely important for the good of the country. I particularly recognise the serious events that occurred in Taranaki and wanted to do something for Ngāti Mutunga and for Mr Tuuta, for whom I have the highest regard.

It is interesting that the rūnunga wrote to the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee on 13 November setting out the various points that I have tried to make in the course of the Committee stage. I do not know whether they have received a reply, and I wonder whether the chair of the select committee will take a call and address some of those matters. It simply addresses the point that Ngāti Mutunga does not seek any parliamentary involvement in the establishment of the new governance entity Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga. This was done on 21 December 2005. But they did ask whether Parliament could assist by way of the transfer of iwi assets from the old entity to the new entity. Legislation recognising the change of ownership of assets to the new entity would simplify and expedite the task for Ngāti Mutunga in making this transition. So I was simply seeking to pick up precedent provided in the Te Arawa lakes settlement legislation, and other settlement legislation. Procedural difficulties appear to have got in the way, and that is a great tragedy because I think, in the light of that odious 1883 legislation, we as a Parliament owe it to Ngāti Mutunga to go that extra mile. I am disappointed that pettifogging procedural niceties have got in the way.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I take the opportunity to respond in some way to the concerns raised by the previous speaker, Christopher Finlayson. I note that during the debate parts of the commentary on the bill have been shared with the Committee. I think it is important that we read the whole extract from the commentary in order to give an overall picture of the issue. It particularly concerns me that there has been a claim that the Māori Affairs Committee has been given faulty advice and has set up a faulty premise in relation to the commentary, so I will attempt to rectify that issue and confirm whether that is indeed correct.

Page 23 of the commentary states: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” Page 23 of the commentary also states: “The Parliamentary Counsel Office advised us that amending the bill to disestablish or establish private trusts would be very unusual and could have implications for previous settlements. They told us that establishing a new governance entity is a private matter. Settlement legislation addresses matters necessary to achieve the settlement which cannot be achieved with certainty under normal (non-legislative) processes. Although settlement legislation has been used in association with private trusts to the extent that the trusts are made perpetual instead of being subject to the rules that limit the life of a trust, the Crown will not use government legislation to establish a legal entity to receive and manage settlement assets.”

In reading that entire part of the commentary, I find that it lines up with the rulings provided by Madam Chairperson and, subsequently, by Madam Speaker. So I find it very difficult to accept that the committee had been given wrong advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements or the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I actually think that the advice was correct, and it is in line with the rulings that have been provided this evening.

The previous speaker mentioned that the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee was to receive a letter from Ngāti Mutunga on—if I heard it right—13 November. I make a point of ensuring that I respond to those who write to us, and I can confirm to the member that although I have not yet sighted that letter I will indeed be prepared to respond accordingly. I refer now to comments made by the Hon Tau Henare and say that the committee is meeting on Wednesday, and obviously there will be some debate and discussion on that matter.

• Clause 1 agreed to.
• Clause 2 agreed to.
• Bill to be reported without amendment presently.