Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I take a preliminary call to address the report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and to thank its members again for their work. In particular, I will address the part of the report that is headed “Ngāti Tama opt-out clause”. I particularly want to refer to clause 8(1), where there has been an amendment. Clause 8(1) states: “This section is subject to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement as at the date of the deed of settlement.”

Clause 8 of the bill defines Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika as a collective of iwi who descend from one or more ancestors from Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and other iwi from the Taranaki area, for example Ngāti Mutunga; who also descend from one of the signatories of the 1839 deed of purchase; or who are beneficiaries of the Wellington Tenths Trust. Importantly, as can be seen from clause 8(1), the definition links the bill to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement, which provides that all persons who descend from a Ngāti Tama tupuna fall within the definition of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika unless they choose to have their historical claim settled by another group with a Crown-recognised mandate, and that should a settlement negotiated by that other group with a Crown-recognised mandate become unconditional, those persons will, to the extent that they rely on descent from a Ngāti Tama tupuna, be excluded from this legislation.

The committee expressed some concern about that clause. It described the clause, as was referred to in the second reading last night, as “an unhappy exception to the Crown’s practice of dealing with large natural groupings”, and it did not recommend the use of such opt-out clauses in the future. I agree with that view. The clause is a very unusual measure and it is an exception to the Crown’s policy of settling with large natural groups. The inclusion of the clause was not a decision that was taken lightly and was made after numerous attempts at reconciliation. I am sure Mr Ririnui will be able to provide some of the background, because he was Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time and did a sterling job of trying to achieve that reconciliation. I have to say, if asked whether I would agree to such an approach in future negotiations, which I am responsible for, the answer would have to be in the negative.

I think the committee correctly addressed an important issue in the context of a reasonably innocent-looking clause 8. It is one that I am prepared to live with in this legislation, but I hope we do not see anything like it again.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : I thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson, for his opening comments on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I also highlight to the Committee that we are approaching Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, and pronunciations are very important. I thank the Minister for his understanding of the issues that the select committee had to deal with in terms of the opt-out clause. Although I do not want to give a historical overview of how that situation came about, I say that the Māori Affairs Committee was very strong in pointing out that the opt-out clause should not be seen as setting a precedent for future claims. I know that the Government is now considering regional approaches to Treaty settlements. A continuation of that type of opt-out option would not only delay future negotiations but also may derail future negotiations, particularly where mandates are very difficult to obtain. So I congratulate the Minister.

We are talking about Part 1 of the bill, which is pretty straightforward. As members will probably agree, the previous Government did a considerable amount of work to bring this settlement legislation to the House. Part 1 gives legal effect to the deed of settlement. In saying that, it is important to acknowledge the work of the officials, Darren and Margot, and the difficulties they had in continuously going back to the Taranaki Whānui negotiators, putting a position to them, and returning to the select committee to explain what the claimant community was thinking. The select committee also had difficulty in coming to a conclusion on that particular matter.

It needs to be acknowledged that the Taranaki Whānui negotiators met with the Crown and the former Minister the Hon Margaret Wilson as early as 2000 in order to begin negotiations. Having said that, it is important to acknowledge that prior to that time Taranaki whānau had been dealing with a former National Government in an attempt to get the opportunity to put their claim before the Crown. I think that some of the steps may have been made back then. To be more direct, in 2000, when the Hon Margaret Wilson took up the portfolio, huge strides were made in terms of advancing this particular claim. Her successor, the Hon Mark Burton, also continued the struggle and took on many of the challenges. Real progress was made when the Hon Michael Cullen picked up the Treaty negotiations portfolio—as well as being the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General. It became a much simpler task to make progress on.

As the debate goes on in the Committee stage of this bill, members will find that the Opposition will offer very little resistance to its passage but we will be seeking clarification from the Minister on a wide range of issues concerning this legislation. It is important that the Minister has a thorough understanding of the issues at hand.

Hon Tau Henare: Why didn’t you do it in the select committee?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I hear that little interjection from the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee, the former Minister of Māori Affairs—thrice removed—the Hon Tau Henare, but I will shift from him to his colleague Hekia Parata, who made a tremendous contribution to the Committee stage of this bill. I note that she is no longer with us; I am wondering why, as we miss her contributions. I want the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee to understand the value that his colleagues bring to the table. It is not all about him, although that seems to be his understanding of the difficulties faced at the select committee.

Tau Henare brought into the debate the member for Tauranga, Simon Bridges. Mr Bridges is somebody who is nice and green, somebody whom he can manipulate, somebody who will shut up when he is told to, and someone who will get out of the room when he is told to. Mr Henare tried that on the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. It was a bad move. I cannot describe how that debate ended, but it is important that I respond to his interjections because they are not appreciated after his colleague Hekia Parata made such a valuable contribution.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : The problem is that when people go off their nut like that, there will always be somebody following. First of all, I say that I will not stoop as low as some of the other members in this Chamber have stooped in terms of accusing former members of this Parliament and talking about whether they were good or bad. I ain’t going there. Where I am going—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Of course you’re not!

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, there are easy targets like Burton and Wilson, but I will not go there. Instead, I want to go to today and the process of this bill.

The process of this bill has been a stop-start affair through no fault of the Crown negotiators, the officials, or—I tell my learned colleague Mita Ririnui, the former “Minister of Whatever”—the select committee. Although the Māori Affairs Committee is very robust, I add a note—not a warning or caution, but a note—to Māori: when they come to the table to give effect to a deed of settlement, I think it behoves Māori to step up to the plate and stop arguing about this, that, and the other, and get on with it. This is about the future’s young people. It is not about who signs on the deed or who gets what; it is about the young people of tomorrow. There are only a number of hours in the day and a number of days in the week, and if we do not hurry and get this stuff done then we will be here past 2014, 2020, or 2040 still doing the same old, same old. I do not want my moko, who is 1 year old and is the most beautiful thing on the earth—

Grant Robertson: She must take after her grandmother.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, she takes after both her grandmothers. I do not want her to be 25 and have to come back and work on Treaty settlements that should have been sorted, done, and dusted as soon as possible. This bill gives effect to that whole process. It gives effect to the deed of settlement where Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko i Te Ika and the associated members worked out a deal.

I want to go on record as saying something not against Ngāti Tama as an entity, but against those who consider themselves to be the spokespeople for so many of the Ngāti Tama organisations; there were three or four people. Again, I do not want to cast aspersions on the good name of Ngāti Tama; it could happen in Ngāti Hine: a whole lot of people could stand up and say that they spoke on behalf of Ngāti Hine. I think that the Crown and the Government have to be cognisant of who holds a certain mandate to be able to speak.

Very briefly, before my time runs out, I say that the Māori Affairs Committee is, I believe, one of the best select committees. Yes, members of the committee do the party politics thing, but at the end of the day the committee shows the House where the path is in terms of who we are there for. It is not for us; it is for the people.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill; it has been a long time coming. It has gone through a fairly extraordinary process amongst the iwi concerned, over a long period of time, in its transition to this point. This legislation was introduced by Dr Michael Cullen, who was the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time. I want to echo my colleague’s comment earlier about the kind of speed that was applied to this negotiation by Dr Cullen in order to bring it out of its lethargic phase and into what we now have in front of us: a fine conclusion.

This bill represents a number of iwi who are identified in clause 8, which states that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika includes Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and other iwi from the Taranaki area, such as Ngāti Mutunga. I take some personal delight in speaking on this legislation because these are all iwi with whom I am familiar. I grew up in the Taranaki area, so I know where the people of Ngāti Mutunga come from, and I have swum in the rivers and on the beaches in the areas where those iwi hail from. The fact that we are able to bring this legislation to its second reading has a great deal of personal resonance for me.

I will make a couple of comments about the history of this legislation and a couple more about the potential that the previous speaker, Tau Henare, alluded to with his lovely reference to his own mokopuna. First of all, I want to recognise that the grievances to which this settlement relate stem largely, but not solely, from the Crown’s role in the sale of land within the Port Nicholson Block going back to September 1839. If people are in any doubt about the importance of justly resolving historical grievances, they need only read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on those series of grievances. If such grievances are not resolved or adequately addressed then we risk the separation and antagonism between Māori and the Crown going on further and further down the generations, and that is something that I take really seriously and that everyone across the Chamber is unified, I am sure, in wishing to avoid. So the resolution of these grievances becomes critically important.

In the first reading of this bill, the member who is now the Minister, Christopher Finlayson, having taken on the portfolio of Treaty negotiations, referred to the injustices and the disgraceful conduct by the Crown. In Mr Finlayson’s speech, in reply to Dr Cullen’s speech, he referred to those injustices in very strong terms. I will not enumerate them now, but I refer people to the Waitangi Tribunal’s report.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Ā, tēnā koe e te Heamana, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E tū ana au ki te tuku mihi ki ngā iwi o Taranaki whānui nō te mea, kāore au i tae i te Whare i taenihi nei, nā reira i tēnei wā, i taku tū tuatahi mō tēnei kaupapa, e mihi ana ki a rātou, otirā, ki a koutou ki a tātou e whakawhāiti nei i runga i tēnei kaupapa i te ahiahi nei.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[And greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and to us throughout our House. Greetings to us all. I rise to extend a greeting to the people of Taranaki at large, because I was not in the House yesterday, and at this point in time, it being my first address on this matter, I acknowledge them this afternoon, and, indeed, you and us drawn together on this matter.]

I am delighted to stand and speak on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill in the Chamber today. When any Treaty settlement bill finally makes it to the House it is an opportunity for celebration, because it reflects the efforts of many people over many years, and suggests a culmination, finally, of the breaches and grievances of the past, allowing us sufficient space to pause before moving on into the future. We are here today to work through the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill.

I am pleased to have been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I acknowledge all of my colleagues on the select committee. At times there were some very robust exchanges about particular elements of the bill, but all along, I think, there was a common understanding and intent that we would reach the best possible outcome we were capable of, in order that this bill could be returned to the House.

Like previous speakers, I acknowledge all of the officials who have worked to get the bill to this point. But I particularly acknowledge the Taranaki whānui iwi themselves, their hapū, individual members, and their negotiators. They had sufficient trust and confidence that they would come together with the Crown to look to resolve the grievances of the past so that they would be able to move into the future, with their confidence strengthened and restored in the knowledge that the breaches that they had defined as part of the Treaty settlement were recognised, acknowledged by the Crown, and apologised for. That is part of the healing process of Treaty settlements.

In the past, we have had some unsympathetic and ill-informed responses from different groups of the public about Treaty settlements. In my view, there has been an unfair, inaccurate, and overweening focus on the actual quantum that informs a particular settlement. In fact, it is much more than that. It is a recognition that our history and herstory must be recognised accurately, we must be able to own the past, and we must be able to see that the Crown had not behaved honourably. So a Treaty settlement is as much about restoring the honour of the Crown as it is about restoring and redressing the breaches of the Treaty that a particular iwi has experienced. It gives us all opportunity and cause for celebration about the bicultural partnership that is often spoken about more in the breach than in the practice. Treaty settlements contribute to cementing that relationship. Today we are here to talk about Taranaki whānui in particular.

I am also delighted to be standing because my particular herstory includes having been the Crown negotiator for the first lot of Taranaki claims back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I am sad to say that I think I remain the only female Crown chief negotiator. With some little showing off, I say that we managed to get those claims done in about 4 months, so I suggest that if we employ a few more female Crown negotiators, we might get closer to our 2014 aspiration.

Paul Quinn: It’s because you’re a Māori woman.

HEKIA PARATA: My colleague is reminding me that it is because I am a Māori woman, but actually it is probably because I am a Ngāti Porou woman, given our modest approach to things.

Let us stay focused on Taranaki whānui. A number of hapū have been encompassed by this particular bill, and they will have the opportunity to go forward from this point with strength and confidence once we finally pass the bill into legislation. As I said earlier, this is an opportunity for celebrating what Treaty settlements are about. The purpose of this bill is to ensure not only that we acknowledge the past and apologise for it, but also that we move on to something practical, and talk about the cultural and commercial redress.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I am happy to rise to talk about the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and particularly Part 1 and the purpose of the bill. I believe that there is only one purpose for this bill. The purpose behind the deed of settlement is to right the wrongs of the past. It is to acknowledge that the Crown had a big hand to play in disenfranchising Taranaki whānui from their lands, resources, and, basically, their livelihoods. That occurred over a number of years.

I also take the strange step of saying that I agree with my whanaunga opposite from Ngāti Hine, Tau Henare, because this bill is not about those who have signed on the dotted line; it is about the future. The reason for the deed of settlement is to heal the hurts of the past, but it is also about launching into the future. I also agree with Hekia Parata that it is not so much about the quantum, but about moving on and allowing Māori to, as I have said a number of times, assume our rightful place in this country by moving into positions of leadership and being examples to the young kids of today. So I agree with my whanaunga Tau Henare. I disagree with him on one point, as far as it is possible for anyone from within Ngāti Hine to disagree with another from Ngāti Hine; in fact, that would never happen.

This bill relates also to a number of hapū of the Taranaki whānui, in particular Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and other Taranaki iwi. It affects a number of people in those tribes. Part 1 talks about the historical account of what went on. It is important that there are acknowledgments from the Crown as to the part it played all those years ago. As I said last night, it is really important that there is an apology. It is all part of healing and moving forward. Last night I read from the deed of settlement a passage about the fact that Taranaki whānui accepted the apology and forgave the Crown. That is a really important part of this settlement because without that forgiveness, all that hurt and mamae, as we say in Māori, would still be there, and it would be really difficult for people to move on and progress.

I again acknowledge the officials who informed us during the course of the debate, as well as the other members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Again, I agree with the Hon Tau Henare that it is—

Hon Tau Henare: That’s twice.

Grant Robertson: Third time and you’ll be out.

KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, three strikes and I will be out if I agree with that member again. It is great that as members of the Māori Affairs Committee we have our party political sides, but we are also looking for some sort of common agreement that it is all about us as Māori moving ahead and finding solutions to our issues. I will not say that I agree with Mr Henare again.

There has been a lot of work put in to get to this stage, as my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui said. Ministers from the previous Government got things rolling, and their names have been mentioned. I also acknowledge this bill coming to this point, where we are almost at the final stages for Taranaki whānui. They have waited long enough. It is time now for them to settle this, and to put it behind them. They have forgiven; they will not forget. Let us move ahead as a country.

PAUL QUINN (National) : It gives me pleasure to take a couple of calls on this part, as is my intention to do. In standing to speak this first time I will firstly say how much pleasure it gives me to be able to speak specifically on this bill that Parliament has before it, because it relates to Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The reason it gives me such pleasure, one of the reasons, as my friend Ross Robertson would say, that I now stand on my hind legs, and the principal reason I came to this House, is that I wanted to see the work of Treaty settlements progressed much more rapidly than was occurring. Although it is not a time to criticise, I think it cannot go unstated, particularly when a previous speaker used terms such as “extraordinary” and said how long it has taken for the bill to get to this stage, that, in fact, it was her own Government that took the time, and two Ministers of the Crown in charge of this work programme who achieved nothing. For 8 years not one original piece of Treaty work came before this House under the previous administration. That is an indictment on the previous Government. I tell Sue Moroney that that is true. It was 8 years before an original piece of work came before the House.

Sue Moroney: You don’t understand the process.

PAUL QUINN: I do; I have been involved in it for 30 years, let me tell the member. That is why I stand here, because I am passionate about this process and I know it backwards. I know the process a heck of a lot more than that member ever will. It is very important that this nation gets on with settling these Treaty claims. That is why I now stand proud to be able to push through this work, because, as previous speakers have said, it is critical. It reflects well on the Minister that he has brought focus to this work, and this bill is an example of that focus. He has set the target of 2014 to settle Treaty settlements. The select committee has shown the spirit of cooperation and camaraderie that others have mentioned. I say to my cousin over there, Mita Ririnui, that what happens on the bus stays on the bus. We should remember these things. But other than that slight slip-up, the Māori Affairs Committee is an excellent select committee and it has done excellent work on this bill.

In my view the reason that the select committee has done well in its work on this particular bill, and other Treaty settlement bills that it will no doubt address, is that we are there for one purpose and one purpose only, which is to work for the betterment of our people. We are at one in that process; we are at one in that view; we are at one in that belief. It is a very important driver of all members of the select committee that that is what they are focused on. It is a lesson that other select committees that I have had the experience of serving on could learn from. Under the chairmanship of the Hon Tau Henare that work is progressing well.

Some aspects of this bill have been addressed specifically, and we will come to that in other parts, but Part 1 deals specifically with the purpose of the bill. As I said last night during the second reading, the claimant group Port Nicholson Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika is to be congratulated on the commitment and leadership it has shown, particularly the kaumātua and others, in driving this bill through and looking forward to building their iwi’s economic base, which this bill will provide.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : It is a pleasure to follow Paul Quinn, that well-known diplomat. If he were put in charge of the Treaty negotiation process it would be over by 2014, but there would not be many happy people. I think the problem for Mr Quinn is that the Treaty negotiation process has two sides, and it also has to go at a pace that works. It has to go at a pace that brings people along with it and creates an enduring and a lasting settlement. I am proud of the work done by previous Treaty Ministers from my party. Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, and Michael Cullen had a lot to do with bringing this agreement back to the House, and I know the Taranaki whānui appreciate the work they did. When I was at Pipitea Marae to see the deed of settlement signed, there was a great deal of acknowledgment on that occasion of the work of those former Ministers. We know that the diplomacy skills that Mr Quinn has not shown a great deal of in the time I have seen him in this House are what are required in a Treaty settlement process.

Once again, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate as the MP for Wellington Central. A lot of the lands and areas being discussed in this bill are in the electorate that I have the honour to represent, and it is a true privilege to be here. The purpose of Part 1 of this bill is to give effect to the deed of settlement, which as I said was signed at Pipitea Marae last year. I will quote from the deed of settlement because I think sometimes when we are doing these Treaty settlement bills in Parliament, we rush through things a little bit. A lot of us here in this House may know some of this history, but perhaps people listening do not know it and it is skipped past. I read from the conclusion of the historical account that is in the deed of settlement: “From the 1840s, as the result of the actions of the Crown and its agents, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika have been deprived of almost all of their lands in the Port Nicholson Block. They have also suffered the loss of their connection to Wellington Harbour and their forests, waters and natural resources in the Port Nicholson block. The deprivation caused by these losses cannot be measured. These losses have inflicted profound pain and suffering.” As one reads through the full historical account, one can see the specific examples of those losses.

As a Wellingtonian I greatly appreciate Wellington Harbour and the role it plays in our city. To see the importance of the harbour and its islands to the Taranaki whānui was something that made me realise that as a place of rest, growing of food, defence, and protection it has a remarkable role in the history of this city and area, and for the peoples who have been here. When I see the historical accounts, I always feel that if we can get them out and understood by the residents of a particular area then there would be a much greater understanding of the importance of these kinds of settlements.

The other element of the deed of settlement, a key part of Part 1—and my colleague Kelvin Davis has already referred to this—is the apology and statement of forgiveness. Again, I will briefly read from both of those in order to give some notion of the importance of the apology and, in turn, of the unique feature of this particular settlement of a statement of forgiveness to those who are listening. The last couple of paragraphs of the apology state that “The Crown unreservedly apologises to your ancestors, to their descendants, and to the people of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika today for its actions which have hurt and caused prejudice to you. Through this settlement the Crown is seeking to atone for its past wrongs towards you, restore its honour which has been tarnished by its actions, and to begin the process of healing. It is the Crown’s hope that this apology will mark a pivotal point in the rebuilding and enhancement of our relationship with you. We look forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation that can flourish in the future.”

The important element of the apology and, in turn, of the statement of forgiveness is that it is about building for the future, and this picks up what Tau Henare said at the start of this debate. It is about the kind of city and area that Wellington, Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, can be in the future because it is built on a solid basis of understanding past wrongs, redressing those wrongs, and acknowledging them. The statement of forgiveness has already been spoken about by a number of people, and it is a unique element of this particular agreement. The very last bit of the statement of forgiveness, which I may not have the time to complete, states that “Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika have exercised kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga and whanaungatanga over many decades in the Capital City of our nation, …”.

AARON GILMORE (National) : I rise to talk on Part 1. I think we have had some interesting speakers, and I would like to touch firstly on the contribution from my colleague Hekia Parata. I have not met a Ngāti Porou woman who thought she was wrong.

Hon Member: There aren’t any!

AARON GILMORE: That is right. It might be a really good policy initiative to consider bringing in more Ngāti Porou women to be involved in claims negotiations.

Anyway, I want to touch on just a couple of aspects. I spoke on the second reading of this bill last night, and I want to touch on a couple of things that I experienced with the earlier claim, particularly with the Wellington Tenths Trust. It approached me about 12 years ago when I was a lowly policy analyst working in the bowels of—

Grant Robertson: You would have been sacked by now by this Government.

AARON GILMORE: I know. I was working in the bowels of what is known as Treasury these days. I vividly recall the things that came across my desk from a guy called Dr Love. When I first met Dr Love I thought he was something other than what he turned out to be. He turned out to be a man who represented a bunch of people who were wronged a long, long time ago. I think that today is another step in the direction of resolving those wrongs, and it is a good thing.

When we look at what we have here in Part 1, and at some of the issues here, we see that it moves on in terms of what I knew as the Wellington Tenths Trust. I did not know who or what the trust was at that time, but I am pleased to be here now talking on this bill. I think it is interesting, and we all agree that it is a wonderful step in the right direction. It is a step towards self-sufficiency economically and culturally, which is a great thing, as well.

One interesting aspect of Part 1 that no one else has mentioned is the excluded areas. I did not realise or appreciate what were the excluded areas. Clause 9(3) sets out which are the excluded areas, and it includes the South Island. I did not realise that the South Island was considered in any way part of the original claims. It also excludes the Chatham Islands, the Taranaki area, and the Kapiti Coast. Obviously, I am very pleased that it excludes the South Island, being a South Island - based MP from Christchurch, because I think it would cause more problems than people imagine. It is a good example of some of the great work that has been done during the claim negotiation by many people in this process, culminating in the signing of the deed of settlement in August last year.

One of the great aspects of this bill, which has already been touched on, has been the setting up of various iwi groups for the future, to enable their economic position to be not equalised to where they may have been but to be a start for their people to go forward in the future. There has been a recognition by all parties that that is what this bill represents: a full settlement and final claim. The claimants will now be in a position whereby everybody can move on and look forward to the future. That is much more important than looking backwards.

Another interesting aspect that arises from this bill is that a number of parts of it talk about particular areas of Wellington. I lived in Wellington for about 8 or 9 years, and when the Wellington Tenths Trust first wrote to the Minister and some of the documents came across my desk, I did not know where these places were. I did not know where Point Dorset was, or where Pipitea Marae was, or where some of the other sites were. So I made an effort to go and see them. I was a mad mountain biker, and I would go and check and look. I was quite lucky, because I ended up ringing one of the members of the Wellington Tenths Trust and asking him to show me what these places were and what they meant to him. I must admit that I enjoyed that, and I heard some good stories. It built on some of the good history that exists in this bill, and I look forward to the settlement of these claims. There are many other people who are eminently better qualified than I am and who went through the select committee process on this bill. They can talk at length more meaningfully on some of the good and bad aspects and how we got here.

The best thing is that this is a bill that I think everyone in this House supports. I have not seen many bills of that type in my short time in the House. I think it is really good and healthy to see a few bills like this; bills everyone agrees with because of the good work of the select committee and the good work of the current Government and the previous Government. Maybe my colleague Hekia Parata would say that it is because a Ngāti Porou woman has been involved with it again! But it is a good aspect, and I would like to see more of that sort of action across the House. I would like to see more bills like this one, where the work is done in the select committee and the bill comes from the select committee to the House, and we are all in agreement.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : It is a pleasure to follow the speech made by Aaron Gilmore, who gave us his understanding of the history of this matter from his perspective, particularly in relation to his earlier contact with the reputable, the honourable, and the most feared Dr Ngātata Love. He is one of the nicest gentlemen one could ever meet—until one gets to the difficult issues amidst the negotiations! As we are still on Part 1, I think it is important to mention Dr Love and all those who accompanied him throughout the negotiations. They were represented in the House last evening during the second reading of the settlement legislation, and I am sure they will continue to be mentioned during the remaining passage of this bill.

Earlier I referred to the steps undertaken by the former National Government throughout the 1990s. As I read through the bill I was reminded again of the contribution it made, in particular the release of the Taranaki report in 1996, and how important that was to the iwi of Taranaki, who went into negotiations with the Crown, having rewritten their history—having told their story from their perspective and no one else’s. As I listened to Hekia Parata I recalled that in a former life both of us were bureaucrats down the road and were involved in this process. I think that is why we find that there is no dissension between myself and former colleagues, because we saw the difficulties faced by a range of bureaucrats, in particular those of Te Puni Kōkiri who were charged with the responsibility of accompanying Sir Douglas Graham in the promotion of his Treaty settlements policy. In other words, we were the sacrificial troops. We took the bullets. But that is OK. One does not mind stepping up front when one knows that at the end of it the benefit is for one’s people. So I need to acknowledge that part of this bill.

Something else I need to acknowledge is that the Taranaki report included a whole list of acknowledgments. As I recall, one of the people who was acknowledged was an uncle of mine from Tauranga, a former Eastern Maori Labour MP, the late Brown Reweti, who had an incredible wisdom about him. As Tau Henare said, this is about settling the grievances of the past, accepting the apology, and, in this case, forgiveness and moving on. My uncle, whilst heavily criticised, as politicians are, made a tremendous contribution in terms of his advice to the iwi of Taranaki, which he has a connection to, as do many of us. His advice was along the lines of this being the opportunity for the iwi of Taranaki to tell their story, to tell the people of New Zealand what happened to them, what the Crown did to them, and the impact of the Crown’s actions on them.

I take the opportunity, while I am acknowledging a whole lot of other people—the officials, the previous Government, the Ministers, the Associate Ministers, and members of this House—to also acknowledge the contribution that my uncle made. He adopted the same approach to his own people in Tauranga Moana. Unfortunately I am not sure we heard, because we are still working our way to the starting-line to get our historical grievances settled, but I am sure we will get there. We did give Te Arawa the priority, and rightly so. They were ahead of us in the line. Many of us in Tauranga Moana are of Te Arawa descent. All of our negotiators in Te Arawa are male. As to why that is, one needs to understand who we are as a people, and the role of males and females. It is a complementary role. As I say, the roles are complementary, but I think that in Ngāti Porou Hekia Parata broke the mould. She actually stepped up front and said “I can do this.”, and now she has proven herself to be very good at it. Finally, I want to thank all those who made a contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have given the member a further call because he was still on his feet.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Thank you very much. I thank you for your generosity and for the manner in which you are conducting the Committee stage of this Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I know that it disappoints my colleague the Hon Tau Henare, who was seeking the call, but I am sure he will rise to his feet soon enough.

As we said earlier on in our contributions to the Committee stage of this bill, it is about moving on. It is about acknowledging the tremendous sacrifice of the people of Taranaki Whānui, and it is also about future collaboration and future partnerships between the Crown and the iwi of Taranaki Whānui, so that they, in their endeavours to improve the lives of their people as a result of this legislation—and this is not a silver bullet towards that, I will concede—will have an ongoing relationship. I am sure, and it is only my view at this point in time, that Taranaki Whānui have said “We accept your apology and we go further: we forgive you.”, because it means a sense of brotherhood, a sense of comradeship, and a sense of moving forward together. I know that Taranaki Whānui will live up to their end of the arrangement; I am sure that the Māori members, and all the members, in this House will do their best to ensure that the Crown does likewise. In saying that, I extend my congratulations once again to all those involved in bringing this settlement legislation through the deed of settlement, and all the difficulties they have faced over the past, to the Committee stage, and, hopefully, on to the third reading very soon, so that Taranaki Whānui can move on with all that baggage, all that weight, off their shoulders. Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I do not want to upset the apple cart in any sort of way, but let us stop slapping each other on the back. I know that the settlement was a job well done, but for goodness’ sake! Speakers are all being far too nice for my liking, quite frankly. I will add to the debate in this way—by saying that the purpose of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement, which is the deed that settles the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Essentially, that is what this legislation does. Hopefully, those people who are named in clause 7 of the bill, in paragraph (a)(ii) under the heading “deed of settlement and deed”—the likes of Professor Ralph Heberley Ngātata Love, Kevin Amohia, Neville Baker, Spencer Carr, June Jackson, Dr Catherine Maarie Amohia Love, Hinekehu Ngāki Dawn McConnell, Rebecca Elizabeth Mellish, Dr Īhakara Pōrutu Puketapu, Sir Paul Alfred Reeves, and Mark Te One—and their descendants will be able to use the proceeds and the investments they get out of this agreement to maybe enhance their uri, their mokopuna, and protect them from some of the claptrap that is spoken by Lindsay Mitchell in Māori and Welfare.

You see, the thing is that these settlements are clearly for the future, and I absolutely, totally, agree with my whanaunga from Ngāti Hine and Kāretu that people—

Kelvin Davis: I thought you were going to get hard in this speech.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, I am going to get hard. I am going to say we should stop slapping each other on the back for a start, because, for goodness’ sake, the issue is about the destiny of the people. And that destiny does not lie in this place; the destiny of those people lies in the hands of themselves. With a little bit of help, when we do these things—and it is a little bit of help—we can make sure that at least some of the tools will be left to the next generation and the next generation after that, so that they do not end up becoming part of the many publications about our poor health, our poor education, and our poor welfare statistics. You can bet your bottom dollar that all that most Māori outside this place want to do is to make sure they have shelter, food on the table, clothes for their children, a good education, and a good opportunity. Quite frankly, I believe that what we are doing now is building the road towards Māori being the masters of their own destiny, so I am absolutely over the moon about it.

But there are some things that we need to remember. Yes, the terrible things the Crown perpetrated years ago will be apologised for, through the passage of the bill. But let us not forget that the settlement is only a pittance—a pittance—in relation to what really might have made up the payment—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Give us a figure.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, I could not give a figure, and that is the thing. No one in this Committee can give a figure on the recompense that should be given. But we can say that this settlement is a start, and we can hope that those who have been mentioned in our speeches today will remember full well that it is not for them but for the next generation.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā nō koe e te Heamana. I wanted to take a second call on this part, because my first contribution was generally about the purpose of the bill. But before I get started, I will clarify a point made by my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui. In fact, I was never a bureaucrat—although he might have been—except for operational expediency. The rest of the time I was a public servant.

Anyway, I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 8 and 9 in Part 1, which define who is in and who is out, in terms of this settlement. I will talk about an issue of particular importance to me, and I think to all of us. This Treaty settlement bill specifically reflects—and Treaty settlement bills in general reflect—an attempt to restore a productive and positive relationship based on the Treaty of Waitangi. As a result of that, it brings into play the concepts both of kāwanatanga, exercised by the Crown, and tino rangatiratanga, exercised by iwi. In terms of kāwanatanga, I think that the Crown’s responsibility in the context of Treaty settlements is to ensure that there is a policy framework, that there are resources available, and that there is political and professional commitment to the resolution of Treaty settlements. Specifically within the Treaty settlement framework, it is about accepting breaches, acknowledging error, and genuinely offering an apology. It is about providing redress, committing to an ongoing relationship, and continually evolving policy to ensure that the Crown’s contribution to Treaty settlements does not stop at the signing of the Act. It moves on, and that is really the start of the Treaty relationship. In my view, those are the kinds of elements that constitute kāwanatanga in practice.

The other side of the relationship is the contribution of tino rangatiratanga as executed by iwi. In my view, that includes being able to secure the mandate from the people—the collectivity of hapū that together constitute the iwi—and not only securing that mandate but being able to maintain it through the many ups and downs and the volatility of negotiating a Treaty settlement, and, more important, on managing the relationship at the conclusion of the particular Treaty settlement. There is a responsibility to be able to negotiate well, bearing in mind all the points that have been made by my colleague, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, and our colleagues opposite. Treaty settlements are about the future. They are about those generations that are coming through now and will continue to come through. Negotiators of Treaty settlements bear a very significant responsibility when they are engaged in the process, because they have to make judgment calls all the time while also ensuring that they maintain relationships within and between their own collectives of hapū as well as between themselves and the Crown. They need to be able to ensure that their people continue to feel included in this process. They need to be mutually respectful, and they need to be able to recognise that one has to be resilient, because some things will be accepted and other things will not.

I will talk in terms of the points that the select committee made that inform the amendments that it made to the bill, and in particular in respect of clauses 8 and 9. We find, if we turn our attention to the well-written select committee report, that the issues of the Pipitea Marae, the Ngāti Tama opt-out clause, the Ngāti Toa Rangatira request for statement of non-challenge, and Waiwhetū have a common underlying theme, in my view. It is about the difficulty of practising everyday rangatiratanga, of being able to exercise discipline within and between iwi without their resorting to the external adjudicatory powers of the Crown, without their throwing those difficulties outside and saying they cannot resolve the problem among themselves without someone feeling like a loser, so they would rather the Crown made the decision. That may sound really harsh, but what I am saying is that part of the practical exercise of rangatiratanga means dealing with the difficult things as well as the good things.

One of the difficult disciplines that iwi face is that, yes, they will not always get agreement within their own collectivity—just as the Crown does not. So the Crown is no more always right than are iwi. My view is that we cannot constantly talk about tino rangatiratanga and think about it in terms of flags, slogans, or T-shirts, without understanding that it is about living a good-quality life every day and accepting that there are disciplines associated with that as well as, of course, rewards and benefits. My concern, arising out of this, in going forward—and I am sad about this—is that, for instance, there has been a need for a Ngāti Tama opt-out clause. I am sad that the iwi were not able to find ways of resolving those differences among themselves. This is not exclusive to Ngāti Tama or to Taranaki whānui. Every iwi faces these issues, and my view is that every iwi has to go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the cohesion of their collectivity without requiring the Crown to intervene and adjudicate. I consider that to be no less a failure of rangatiratanga than when the Crown is unable to honourably exercise its governance. That, too, would be a failure of kāwanatanga.

All of us are interested in a complementary relationship that is based on the Treaty of Waitangi, and is about the dynamism and the resilience of kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga, operating such that Treaty settlements merely become a milestone or a signpost in an ongoing, forward-looking relationship that serves not only iwi but all people of New Zealand who are part of the bicultural platform of this great nation. Kia ora.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. He mihi nui ki a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and a huge one to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.]

As I did yesterday in the second reading, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the people who brought this process to its completion, and the huge nature of the task. I would also like to speak about the need for Pākehā in particular to embrace our obligations to the healing of the damage of colonisation. One point that the Green Party makes today is that that process is not about just the settlements, important and vital as they are. As the previous speaker said, they are ongoing relationships supported by and built on the foundation that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I use the te reo version because that is the one our nation is based upon. I sometimes fear that Pākehā think that if we settle all the claims we have settled te Tiriti, and we can go on pretending that the history has never happened and that we are a Pākehā nation. I think we are moving away from that understanding, but there is still a great need for us to recognise the absolute foundation te Tiriti offers us, and that the claims, important as they are, are a part of the process but will never be the process in itself. The relationship is for ever. From the moment that my ancestors came to this country, the relationship they had legitimacy through was Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that is why te Tiriti lives for ever and should live for ever.

I would also like to acknowledge the importance of the transformative process of the claims, not only for the economic value to people rebuilding their communities but to the power of the story itself. I participated in and listened to some of the Tūranga claim, and I heard mostly from whānau in the areas where I have lived about the painful process of transformation that comes when we pass on to our young people the stories of what we have experienced in our ancestry. There is no point in trying to look at the future unless we understand the past. One of the things I have learnt from working with tangata whenua people is that the past is in front of us for a reason. It is not just about moving forward, which is one of the greatest and most boring cliches we hear all the time; it is about acknowledging the past in order to understand how to create a future. That is why the stories of what has happened to people, and what our relationships to each other have been in this country, are so important.

The first time I did a tour of this House I looked around the walls and saw acknowledgments of many battles. But the battle that is not on this wall is the battle of the Land Wars, whereby Māori sought to maintain the right to live on their own land as well as to embrace the manuhiri. That battle is not on the walls but it should be, because it is actually being resolved through the upholding and settlement of Treaty issues. So it is very, very important that we do not focus just on the foreign battles. We must also acknowledge the battle that has formed our nation, and if we work correctly through the process we can come to a good place. That is what the claim is part of; it is by no means the whole.

I also think it is important to acknowledge the processes of looking at the damage. I talked a little bit yesterday about the pollution of the harbour here. The front page of the Dominion Post today talks yet again about the pollution of the harbour—how yet again the tangata whenua’s resource and relationship is being sullied by the bad management of sewage pouring into the harbour through stormwater. In the 21st century, although we pride ourselves on being a modern nation, we still cannot keep our waste out of water, and we still cannot hear the voices of those kaitiaki who have upheld that as an abuse, year after year.

On Sunday I went to see a kuia up north in Ngāti Whanaunga, Betty Williams, and she said to me that the value of kaitiakitanga, and the value of these issues, is that we all have an obligation in this country—Māori, tauiwi, katoa—to manage the mana and mauri of our whakapapa in relation to the Earth. If we break those things, and if we cannot sustain the vital fundamental relationship of ourselves to the natural resources of the world, it does not matter how clever we are or how many economic projects we have. These concepts are not something I was brought up with; these concepts are embedded in the understanding of people like Betty Williams, and they offer this country a vision that is so much more than just talking about the economic gain of the settlement. They are about the deep thing—about what it is to actually be alive and be an animal trying to live with other life forms on planet Earth. So if we cannot talk about the understanding that we are all connected throughout all of our whakapapa to those things, we are never going to get it, and we will end up as a sick population.

I would like to briefly acknowledge the Treaty claim, which has done something powerful in allowing us to have this conversation, but also to acknowledge that te Tiriti is about more than this conversation or a claim. I wish all power to Taranaki Whānau ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, and may Te Upoko o Te Ika truly be the brilliant head of the fish. The Green Party is happy to support the Committee stage of this bill. Kia ora.

PAUL QUINN (National) : It gives me pleasure to take a second and final call on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranakai Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I will canvass a couple of issues in a bit more detail, but before doing so I admit to my friend and colleague Grant Robertson from the Opposition benches that perhaps I do not have the extraordinary diplomatic skills that he may have—I do have some—but I do have patience. I have patience, and let me tell you, Grant—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Full name.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The honourable member has been here long enough to know that he must refer to a member by his or her full name or title rather than by his or her Christian name.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I am sure that the member will observe that rule in the continuation of his speech.

PAUL QUINN: I am pleased to be able to get on to my hind legs and accept the member’s correction. I say to my friend and colleague Mr Robertson that I have patience. I have been involved in a Treaty settlement much longer than you have, and it took over 20 years—

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know what the member is going to say—

H V Ross Robertson: I have not said it yet, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I can anticipate what the member will say. I will let the member have his say first, and I think we will probably agree.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member again, but he needs to learn the rules of debate in this Chamber. All of us here know that one cannot refer to someone as “you”, because that refers to the Chairperson or the Speaker at the time and not to a member on the other side. I urge the member to read the Standing Orders and to get to know what the Speakers’ rulings are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure that the member, for the second time, will recognise the importance of maintaining decorum in the Chamber and of observing which words are to be used and which are not to be used.

PAUL QUINN: It is with great humility that I again rise on to my hind legs. All I can say is that after more than 20 years and four court cases—all of which were won, I might say—the settlement was finally settled on 30 June this year in order for the final transaction to occur. But I want to—

Grant Robertson: A lot of work done by Michael Cullen.

PAUL QUINN: No it was not, actually; it was not. It was done by the wonderful new Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the wonderful new Minister of Finance.

I will turn specifically in Part 1 to clause 9(1)(b), which refers to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement. The Minister in his opening remarks referred to it, and this is commonly what has become known as the opt-out clause. Let me read it to members. It is, notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous administration, an example of Labour members’ desire in the rush to try to win, in my view, some of the Māori sympathy vote towards the end of their tenure, having turned Māori off when they rushed through with a number of settlements. The previous Labour Government ended up with some sloppy drafting in various places, and my colleague has spoken about this sloppy drafting in relation to Ngāti Tama and the opt-out clause. As a consequence, one of the difficulties we had in dealing with this bill when it landed on the desk of the Māori Affairs Committee has been in working our way through the sloppy drafting around the purposes. If Labour had put more effort into it, then we would not have reached the position of having an opt-out clause for Ngāti Tama. Under this clause they can opt out and choose to run their own historical process if they do not like the fundamental outcome.

I assure members of this Committee that, under the direction of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Prime Minister, this Government will ensure that such sloppy drafting will not occur. It will be up to the people and the iwi to resolve their differences before we finalise a mandate. It is with pleasure that I support this part.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : I rise to speak as a former public servant—

Hon Darren Hughes: Another one—yay!

RAHUI KATENE:—another one, yes—who was working for the Treaty of Waitangi policy unit right back at the time before the Taranaki Whānui claim went to the Waitangi Tribunal. There was a great deal of difficulty getting the claim on to the Waitangi Tribunal’s programme, so the claimants went to speak with then Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Douglas Graham and tried to get into direct negotiations with him. At that time the Crown did not have a policy for direct negotiations but was working on one.

At that first meeting between the claimants and the then Minister I remember how the claimants were so incensed at the time it was taking to get their claim to the tribunal and the time it was taking the Government to get the claim into negotiations. The claimants said to the then Minister that if they did not see any action being taken then they would take part in a series of civil disobedience actions. They claimed that they were going to sit on the Wellington motorway and stop all traffic coming into and going out of Wellington. They said that if they did not get any reaction from that approach then they would look at further action. It was a real threat and something that they were quite prepared to do because they were so tired of how long it was taking for them to be able to get their claim heard. Thankfully, they managed to finally get their claim to the tribunal.

I remember also attending some of those tribunal hearings, as a public servant, particularly at Te Tatau o te Po Marae in Pētone, and sitting there listening to evidence given by Dr Ngātata Love’s father, Sir Ralph Love. He was a man whom one did not trifle with. He had been working as a civil servant for a very, very long time. He had a very, very long memory. He knew what the Crown had done, and he knew what the iwi had been doing to try to make sure that the Crown did not take away all of their land and to try to prevent the Crown from what it was doing, which was resulting in Treaty breaches. This was before we had a Waitangi Tribunal that the claimants could take their claims along to.

The hearings that the Taranaki Whānui went through were very fraught. A lot of mamae, a lot of pain, was expressed during those hearings. It really did appear that sometimes the Crown was not prepared to listen. Finally, after what felt like decades—and was actually more than a decade—the Taranaki Whānui received their report and were able to go into negotiations with the Crown.

As I said yesterday, my husband was one of the Ngāti Tama claimants who had so much difficulty with the rest of the claimants and with being able to get their negotiators on to the board to be taken seriously by the others. It was a problem. The opt-out clause was the only way they could go, because they could not get the rest of the claimants to listen to them, to take them seriously, and to put forward the claims that Ngāti Tama wanted to put forward. I agree that it is not a good way around the situation, but neither is it a good way for the rest of the group to absolutely ignore Ngāti Tama and not deal with their concerns.

There was a very long process of Ngāti Tama going to the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Margaret Wilson and having her say to them that she would listen to them separately from the others. Then 6 weeks later Ngāti Tama got a letter stating that the officials had said it could not be done that way, so they would have to do it another way. All of that inaction and contradiction was really itself a Treaty breach, because what the officials were doing was going back on their word. This happened continually over 3 or 4 years of the negotiations. It is not a good idea to have an opt-out clause, but sometimes that is the only way that one can go. So in this case I have to agree that an opt-clause is necessary. I congratulate Ngāti Tama on being able to get their mandates through last weekend. Kia ora.

• Part 1 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on this part includes schedules 2 and 3.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I will speak for just a couple of minutes about clauses 21, 22, 23, 24, and so on, about the Department of Conservation and the fisheries protocols. I think it is absolutely necessary to focus on clauses 21 and 22, at least, about some of the protocols that have to be put in place. I suppose it goes to the heart of how a Treaty settlement is more complex than Joe Public and Mrs Joe Public think it is. Throughout Part 2 members will see protocols for this, protocols for that, protocols for the Department of Conservation, and protocols between the fisheries and the signatories, who are the other half in the settlement. It raises one issue—for me, anyway. With all the resources parked up on the Crown side, it is quite easy for the Crown to figure out what protocols may or may not be in the bill and agreed with. But the other side does not have all those resources. It is not a complaint, but it is an issue that I think is necessary to be raised when we are talking about Part 2.

There are issues about the statutory acknowledgments, and issues about jurisdictions having regard to statutory acknowledgments, so it is quite an involved part of the bill. I quietly say, not in a rant and not in a rave, that in future more recognition should go to the fact that the other side, iwi, does not have at its disposal all of the skills and tools—I hate to say “resources”—that the Crown has at its disposal. Just off the bat, we have a couple of officials here in the Chamber today who are very, very expert in what they do. But the other side has to call on whomever is around, whomever is part of the negotiating team, and whomever the other side may think has skills. Maybe in future, there might be a better use of the Crown’s resources for the other side as well.

This is not a litigation. This is not one side versus the other; this is really about the two sides trying to come to some agreement. I suggest that, in future, the working out of any protocols and any statutory acknowledgments be done in a more bipartisan way, trying to get to a deal rather than one side trying to get the up on the other; I say that regardless of who is trying to get above the other. I just make that point for future reference.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) : With the leave of the Committee I would like to make a few comments. Part 2 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill deals with cultural redress, as my colleague the Hon Tau Henare has already indicated. As members will know, cultural redress is a very important part of any settlement, the protocols around which, and the format of which, were developed quite some time ago, a decade ago, when Treaty settlements got under way, particularly in respect of the Ngāi Tahu settlement and the Tainui settlement. We have followed protocols for cultural redress in each settlement since.

I will not pre-empt colleagues in this Committee in terms of what they wish to say about this part, other than to refer to the issue of the Pipitea Marae. I will come to the reason why this is an important provision for me personally, as well. I also want to make a comment about the great privilege it is to be in this House when these settlements come through, and members have all referred to that privilege. I had the privilege of sitting on this claim back in the early 1990s. I left the claim to come into Parliament in 1996, so the report that was issued in the end was without my input. But I have to say that, also at an earlier time, I sat on the Commission of Inquiry into Māori Reserved Land under Matiu Rata, which was quite some time ago. That also looked at the issue of reserved land, and the leases, which the Wellington Tenths had some involvement in, as well. It is a great privilege for me to have a wee opportunity to be in the chair, standing in for my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and to have a little bit of an input at this point.

The other thing I will say, and I know that my colleagues have all referred to it, is that Treaty settlements are not an end; they are a beginning. I have to say, watching those who have had their Treaty settlements over the past 15-odd years, they are a very challenging beginning. If any of the iwi who have settled thought that they could have a big sigh and sit down and think “We got there. We are here now.”, then clearly, immediately, they find they have reached a certain phase in this process, but the real challenges are still to come. I think Hekia Parata touched upon the issue of working out tino rangatiratanga on the ground, every day, with our families around us, and with the whānau, hapū, and iwi, and that is the real challenge. In making these assets work, making the cultural redress, the protocols around those, making all of those things work, the challenge comes now. I know that Taranaki Whānui will be very aware of that and, clearly, they already have some clear plans in place as to how they will manage the settlement.

If I can just come to the issue of Pipitea Marae, part of the reason it is of interest to me is that in my earlier days—and I will not say how long ago—when I came to Wellington to study at Victoria University, Pipitea Marae was a bit of a haven for young, or youngish, Māori like myself, who had basically come from the sticks, the bush, our isolated community areas, wherever we came from. That was already on the back of the urban drift of Māori people from their rural areas. Pipitea Marae provided a haven for those of us who oftentimes felt lost in the city in the 1960s and 1970s. We knew that there would be not only Māori from this region at the marae but also other Māori who had also come from the homes that we had all come from—our whanaunga with whom we would most likely be connected.

It is pleasing to me to see that the parties involved here were able to work out an accommodation that basically recognises the role that the Ngati Poneke Maori Association has played in the Wellington City area for a long, long time. It also recognises the interests of Taranaki Whānui, who are the traditional owners in this area, and clearly would be looking for a marae base within the city itself. Clause 45A accommodates those wishes and recognises the longstanding role that the Ngati Poneke Maori Association has played, and the support it has given to Māori people from all around the country over a long period of time, while also paying proper respect to, and recognising the role of, the tangata whenua.

The settlement bill provides for the land under the Pipitea Marae and the improvements to be transferred to the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust, as requested by the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, which is the trust that will now take over the settlement. This is an exciting accommodation between the two. I understand, particularly from looking at the commentary from the Māori Affairs Committee, that there was quite a bit of to-ing and fro-ing around this issue. Eventually, the accommodation has been found, and no less through the support and the work put in by the select committee. The Crown has agreed to gift the land only under Pipitea Marae to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in recognition of their historical ties, and the Ngati Poneke Maori Association, which had a perpetually renewable lease over the marae, basically gets to maintain an interest here, as well.

From the Minister’s point of view, the Hon Chris Finlayson, he was at pains to make clear that the association should not be disadvantaged by the vesting of the marae land in the settlement trust, and that the current lease arrangements should be protected. The Crown has provided an ex gratia payment to the Ngati Poneke Maori Association for any loss of right the association suffered as a result of the inclusion of Pipitea Marae in the settlement, and that association subsequently requested that the ex gratia payment be provided to the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust, which it has established with the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust to jointly own and manage the marae.

Like a lot of other aspects of this settlement, hard work and good work has been put in by all involved, but particularly by the iwi. We have come to an arrangement that obviously suits both sides, and I congratulate them, particularly on the accommodation of Taranaki Whānui, and also the select committee on the work it has put into this, as well. Thank you.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : I begin by thanking the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, Georgina Te Heuheu, for her contribution to Part 2 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and in particular her recollections in terms of the history of Pipitea Marae and how that particular taonga accommodated the many Māori who decided to come to Wellington—an unknown city—from far away places, usually rural areas, to have the opportunity to work here. The role that Pipitea Marae and its whānau played in making those people feel at home is really important.

We have come to an area of the bill that speaks about the substance of the settlement. Part 1 was about giving effect to the deed of settlement, the interpretation, and miscellaneous matters, and it is important that we have a robust discussion around that. But when we talk about what cultural redress means to Taranaki Whānui, it becomes very difficult to speak about their emotional attachments to those particular areas. I heard it mentioned last evening in the House by the Minister, during the second reading, that there are particular areas in the cultural redress that are of cultural or important significance to Taranaki Whānui. But I am of the view that the whole 271,000 hectares of the lands that were confiscated from them is of importance as well—more so. Earlier on the Hon Tau Henare rightly mentioned the difficulty in trying to put a figure around the level of loss. No one in this House would be foolish enough to even attempt to do that. But Taranaki Whānui, through the negotiations, have identified a number of areas that they wish to have returned as part of cultural redress. Certain protocols over those reserved areas also needed to be included in the bill.

It is important at this point in time to acknowledge the expertise of the officials. When they put the bill together they were very, very thorough in ensuring that the protocols could be enforced and that Taranaki Whānui, having faced considerable difficulty in getting those areas included in the settlement, should not be in the position where their interests in those reserved areas are nothing but words on paper. In fact, the bill ensures that the Crown complies with the protocols, and if that does not happen then there is action for the trustees of the settlement to take to ensure that the Crown does comply.

I noted the contributions from the Minister when talking about the rohe of Taranaki Whānui. It is interesting when walking down Lambton Quay to look down on the footpath. From time to time we can see bronze plaques that describe where the water level was when Taranaki Whānui occupied that entire area. That was the beginning of the foreshore and seabed line, and when they occupied that area they enjoyed many customary rights, particularly over their fisheries. I am glad to see in the protocols that there are also protections of their customary fishing interests. As we all know, Wellington is a popular place for the gathering of mātaitai, or kai moana, or seafood. I know that it is of concern to Taranaki Whānui here in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara that often those resources are pillaged and plundered, even for commercial gain. From time to time we see a number of illegal poachers—I am sad to say that many of them are Māori—prosecuted for breaches of the law. Quite often we see a breach of the law as a crime against the State, but Taranaki Whānui have a different opinion.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koe. Firstly, I want to elaborate on a point that was raised by my colleague Rahui Katene when we talked about the opt-out clause of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I reiterate that I think the behaviour of rangatiratanga requires mutual respect within the collective, behaving collectively, and keeping its people included. Those were the points I was making. It works both ways.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 concerning cultural redress because—as the previous speaker, Mita Ririnui, indicated—this is the substantive part of the bill. This is the part of the bill where we talk about properties, places, place names—all the icons and indicators of a people who have lived, walked, breathed, and buried their people in this whenua. The opportunity for cultural redress to be a significant component of a Treaty settlement performs more than the function of returning an asset; it returns the basis of the stories that people tell about themselves.

We have said a number of times in the Chamber tonight that Treaty settlements are about the future. They are about our children. I am delighted that my daughter Rākaitemānia is in the gallery tonight, because her generation and the generations after hers want to see evidence of their ancestors as part of the norm of their lives. If they can see names on street signs or on buildings, and if they can see wāhi tapu that tell the story of who they are and where they come from, and establish the link and the connection between themselves and that whenua and ongoing development, then they stand tall in their own time.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

HEKIA PARATA: I want to round off my remarks about Part 2 by agreeing with my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui that this part is, in fact, the substantive part of the bill, because it is about all the lands, icons, and evidence of being of the Taranaki Whānui people. Not only does this part vest the named properties and place names—which are themselves, as I said earlier, the evidence chain in the narrative of the story of who Taranaki Whānui are—but it also, just as importantly, articulates the protocols and statutory acknowledgments in deeds of recognition. Together, these form the tikanga of how those places and place names are to be managed.

Even more optimistically, this bill demonstrates the potential for an evolving relationship. There is nothing static about the practices being put in place by these protocols and statutory acknowledgments. They provide an opportunity for Taranaki Whānui to demonstrate how their direct, hands-on kaitiakitanga and management can contribute to the growing narrative of who they are as a people, and they start to model the kind of real interaction we need with our tūrangawaewae, Aotearoa New Zealand, not only in the Port Nicholson area but all around Aotearoa New Zealand.

I am delighted that cultural redress forms such a significant part of the Treaty settlement process. As I have said earlier, there tends to be a focus on the quantum. The quantum is not incidental, but it is merely a dollar figure—well, it is not merely a dollar figure and I do not want to diminish the importance of it, but in my view the acknowledgment by the Crown of the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that provide the platform for this arrangement, followed by an apology and its acceptance, is part of how we begin to heal the relationship. The cultural and commercial redress allows for that relationship to grow in some real and substantial way.

I am delighted that Taranaki Whānui will be able to restart their relationship with the Crown and—through these territories, places, place names, and wāhi tapu all around the Port Nicholson area—continue to tell their stories to themselves, their children, their grandchildren, and all other Wellingtonians and New Zealanders. This bill is a very important contribution to our development as a maturing nation. Nā reira, e te Whare tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I am happy to address Part 2 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. This part is about the cultural redress, in particular, and our colleague across the Chamber Hekia Parata was most eloquent in describing what this cultural redress means. It is about helping to restore the mana and prestige of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika after the injustices that have occurred.

In particular, I take up Hekia Parata’s point about the restoration of place names around Wellington. The Māori name for Wellington is Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, which in itself has a whole story behind it. One place name that has been restored in the deed of settlement is that of Mount Wai-ariki. When I hear the word “waiariki”, it conjures up an image in my mind—it is almost magical, mystical, spiritual. Unfortunately, Mount Wai-ariki became Mount Misery; that is the English name. That is a crime; it is a disgrace. It is the antithesis of what “waiariki” means. Another name is Whiorau. In my mind—and I am not trying to rewrite the history of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika—a whio is a type of bird, and rau means “multitude”. The name conjures up an image in my mind of birds fluttering around. Imagery is really important to us as Māori. Whiorau is known as Lowry Bay. I do not know Lowry Bay; I am not from Wellington. I do not know who the Mr or Mrs Lowry was of a few hundred years ago. But it is a crime that that name was deemed to be more important than Whiorau.

Another name is Te Aroaro-o-Kupe. I raise this because Kupe is a famous ancestor of all Māori. He navigated his way from Hawaiki and circumnavigated New Zealand. As he went around he named many places, and many places are named after him. He got to Wellington and named a rock Te Aroaro-o-Kupe, meaning “the face of Kupe”. I bring this up because the injustices that happened to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika occurred to all of us. When the name “Te Aroaro-o-Kupe” was changed to Steeple Rock, we all, as Māori, lost a part of our heritage and history. So it is really important that the return of those place names is part of the cultural redress in the deed of settlement.

I will also touch on the protocols relating to Government entities such as the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. It is important that the needs and aspirations of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika are addressed when they are dealing with Government entities. It is really important that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika are dealt with in a way that maintains their mana, dignity, and integrity. I recall an instance at the Māori Affairs Committee just a couple of weeks ago, when we were dealing with another issue, not the one before us. The Government officials who were addressing us said Māori had said this and that. One of the members of the select committee asked which Māori had said those things and which iwi the officials were talking about. When push came to shove, the officials admitted that the Māori they had consulted with was a colleague in their office. We have to do away with this sort of Clayton’s consultation, whereby the first brown face one runs into becomes the spokesperson for all of Māoridom. It is really important that the bill sets out these protocols that mean that Māori will be respected.

Finally, I will talk about the whole-of-Government relationship set out in the deed of settlement. It addresses the revitalisation and protection of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. It is about the Government coming together with them and developing programmes and services that relate to their social, economic, and cultural development. This is really, really important. The second aspect of the whole-of-Government relationship is the establishment of annual hui between Ministers of the Crown and iwi representatives to review the progress towards fulfilling the social, economic, and cultural development goals. With that, e te iwi whānui hurinoa, tēnā koutou katoa.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I will take a brief call on Part 2, and in particular—

Paul Quinn: Not to get back at me?

GRANT ROBERTSON: —no, no, I am over that; the member would be surprised—to talk about Pipitea Marae. I know that earlier on in the debate the Minister who was in the chair at the time, the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu, mentioned this, but I want to come back to it particularly because it is something that the Māori Affairs Committee obviously did some work on. The Minister made the point that Pipitea Marae has a special place in the hearts of many Wellingtonians. It is the place where many of us, when we first came to Wellington, had our first interaction with local iwi and the tangata whenua of the area. Obviously, it has a much greater meaning for the Taranaki Whānui; it is the site of waka landings and the place to which many people from Taranaki came down and felt a strong spiritual connection. So it is important that the management and ongoing administration of Pipitea Marae have been dealt with by the select committee.

I will recap on that: the marae is currently leased from the Māori Trustee by the Ngati Poneke Maori Association. Again, many people in Wellington would be very familiar with the activities of Ngati Poneke over a long period of time, in the cultural life of Wellington and of all Māori in this area. The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the Ngati Poneke Maori Association will now form a new joint legal entity, the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust, and that trust will comprise equal representation of both parties. After the settlement date, once we have gone through that process, the land and its improvements will be vested in the new entity. I think that that is a fantastic outcome for both Taranaki Whānui and the people of Wellington. The marae will continue to play an important part in the cultural life of the wider city, but we will also be recognising the connection of Taranaki Whānui to that. For me, an important part of cultural redress is that in the marae we have a facility that is used by a wide range of Wellingtonians, but at the same time we are able to recognise the connection that Taranaki Whānui have to that place, and I think that that is a really important part of this settlement.

New section 45A has been inserted by the Māori Affairs Committee. It goes through quite a long process about how the trust will be established and how the marae will be vested in it. It also protects Ngati Poneke’s ability to continue to use the marae and have it as their base, as well as for it to be an ongoing place for the Taranaki Whānui and the people of Wellington. I think that that is an excellent outcome in Part 2 of this bill, which has been inserted by the select committee. It is another example of the fine collaborative and collegial activity of the committee. No doubt Paul Quinn put in his effort, in his diplomatic way, to ensure that that went through, continually looking to bring people together rather than drive them apart. He is a fine example to all of us.

Hon Member: Quietly spoken!

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right; he has been very quietly easing his way through the process.

The other matter I mention in this call is the question of Wellington Harbour’s island reserves, and my colleague Kelvin Davis was just talking about the role that the Department of Conservation will play. This is another example of why I think this settlement will be enduring, because once again we have been able to ensure that parts of Wellington that Wellingtonians regard very dearly, such as Matiu-Somes Island and the other islands in Wellington Harbour, equally have a far longer connection for Taranaki Whānui. Once again, we have been able to establish in this bill a process for the ongoing management of those islands, and the reserves around those islands, that respects the role of Taranaki Whānui but includes a wider management role for the Department of Conservation. I think that that is an excellent outcome. It includes the creation of the Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Board. That board will have an important role in making sure that the views of Taranaki Whānui are taken into account in ongoing administration and management, and the Minister has obligations put down in legislation that will mean the Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Board will be consulted. That is an important part of this bill, and again it is an example of how cultural redress will ensure that we have a long-term and enduring solution for the settlement, and that the settlement will be well-regarded.

I fully endorse Part 2 of this bill; it does a lot to start addressing grievances. Cultural redress is as important as financial redress.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : I thank my esteemed colleague Grant Robertson for that very fine contribution in the Committee stage of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and in particular his reference to the diplomacy skills of my Ngāti Awa whanaunga.

Paul Quinn: Tuakana, e hoa!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Such skills are common in Te Arawa and Mātaatua men. The member refers to me as his tuakana, but I am his mātāmua—a little whanau interaction going on there! Before the dinner break I was speaking about the importance of the particular areas included in the cultural redress, particularly the protocols over the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries. It is that ministry that I want to briefly focus on in the 5 minutes I have.

I refer to the original shoreline around Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. If we walk down Lambton Quay and look down at the footpath, we see plaques in the footpath that point out the original foreshore line of Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara prior to the Taranaki Whānui being evicted from this particular area. If we walk up to the end of Lambton Quay, there is a building complex up the top end of the quay. In that building, down the stairs, there is a glass cage in which are the remains of a big old wooden ship, the keel. It is a very sturdy-looking vessel that was beached there for some time. In the excavation of the area for development, the developers wisely protected that particular find. It is significant because it tells us a story about not only pre-European occupation but also post-European occupation and the trading that must have gone on in this area, it being the gateway to the South Island, although many South Islanders might disagree with that. But certainly the history is there.

My colleague Kelvin Davis referred to some of the name changes in the cultural redress part of the bill, and a particular area called Waiariki. It conjures up such powerful meaning, and it is very difficult to not surmise what that meaning might have for Taranaki Whānui. We have a mountain in Tauranga that suffered a similar fate. It is not called Waiariki; it is called Maunga Kiore. I live at the foot of it, and when I wake up in the morning it is the first thing I see. It is called Mount Misery. I once thought “I know why they called it that, because it is a miserable-looking mountain. It is very dark and the clouds are always over it.”, and my dad said to me “No, that was the mood of the miserable bugger who named it. He was one of the local farmers.” Maybe he had a reason to do that, but Maunga Kiore was where my people went to collect kiore, the native rat. It is a delicacy to our people. When I look at the mountain now, I think “Why did someone go to the extent of giving it a name like Mount Misery, when a powerful name like Maunga Kiore, with such a powerful history, was already there?”. We can all speculate about the mood of the character who named the mountain once he settled there, took up farming, destroyed all the native rats, and brought in other types of vermin—as the Chairperson would understand, being a person so dedicated to the protection of the environment in the South Island and the destruction of the many feral animals that roam the high hills of the South Island.

It is important, when we think about the relationship that Taranaki Whānui will have with the Crown through those Government departments, and the protocols that will be established, to ensure that the Crown does not ignore, through its departments, the arrangement that we are currently talking about in the passing of this settlement legislation. There are a wide range of issues that we can discuss in terms of the content of the cultural package and the sites that are involved. As I said earlier on, Taranaki Whānui have done well.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : I move, That the question be now put.

• Motion agreed to.

• Part 2 agreed to.

PAUL QUINN (National) : I will take just a brief call, because one or two points need to be made in respect of this part. I know that members will note, having all read the bill, that this is the commercial redress part. It is important to note that it deals only with those aspects of the commercial redress that require legislative support, by way of either changing other Acts or having impact on them. For instance, to those members who are looking to see what quantum of money is involved in the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, I say that they will not find it here. They will have to go back and get that doorstop document, the deed of settlement, to get that figure.

The two specific provisions that Part 3 deals with are contained in Subparts 1 and 2. Subpart 1 relates to the legal requirements in transferring properties that have been allocated and agreed—for instance, I assume, schools. In this situation, the claimant group might have chosen, as part of its redress package, to pick up schools and other properties, and Subpart 1 gives that legislative force.

Subpart 2 deals with the right of first refusal. I will dwell very briefly on this subpart and share with the Committee some personal experiences. I know that this Government, in going forward, will ensure that future claimants do not have to suffer the sorts of experiences that, I am aware, the parties involved in some previous settlements have had to endure. They have had to endure that suffering because of what one might term the nickel-and-diming of the issues at the margin.

The intransigence of the Crown has meant that some claimants have spent 10 years on very small aspects of settlements, and this, in the broad scheme of things, has really been a waste of energy, time, and progress. I refer to one example in particular. I am pleased that both the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Defence are present tonight, because I refer particularly to the army hall in Whakatāne, which is a right of first refusal property that has taken 10 years to resolve. It has been resolved only through the absolutely wonderful guidance of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Defence, and the fact that they talk to each other. Their attitude is to quit the nickel-and-diming and to get on with doing the deals, so that people can get on with their lives. Because of these two excellent Ministers, Ngāti Awa have finally received a section 40 clearance, so that the army hall can now come back to Ngāti Awa.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Part 3.

PAUL QUINN: This is the right of first refusal process, and I am saying that because previously people have tried to nickel-and-dime, we have ended up dragging the process out unnecessarily. I can assure the Committee that this Government, in its desire to reach agreements by the target date of 2014, will ensure, in a spirit of cooperation, understanding, togetherness, and commitment, that it will not nickel-and-dime. It will make commitments and stick to them, and will not put road blocks in place. These are very important issues. Having dealt with some big issues, we must make sure that the processes after that are moved forward and that everyone works hard to achieve outcomes. I take the opportunity in closing my call on this part to acknowledge the two Ministers.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I want to make just a very brief contribution on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and perhaps to ask the Minister in the chair a question around the issue of the former town belt land that may be affected by this settlement package.

The Māori Affairs Committee’s report back to the House notes that some submitters raised concerns about the inclusion of former town belt land in the bill, and about how the right of first refusal mechanism, on which my colleague Mr Quinn has just given a focused contribution—

Hon Steve Chadwick: About Whakatāne.

GRANT ROBERTSON: About Whakatāne; that is correct. I want to clarify with the Minister whether the statement that the select committee has made in the commentary on the bill reflects his understanding of that matter. The committee has said its understanding is that “the bill provides for ‘Right of First Refusal for 100 years’ and that agencies owning land which is subject to the right of first refusal may offer the land to a local authority in accordance with section 50 of the Public Works Act 1981. Upon such a transfer, the local authority, for example,”—and, indeed, it is the example—“the Wellington City Council would take on the right of first refusal obligation to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.” I want to clarify with the Minister that that fits with his understanding.

There is an ongoing process, which I talked about in my second reading speech, in terms of the town belt land. A private bill is being worked on by the Wellington City Council, and I am assisting it with that. The bill will clarify issues around the town belt, how it is managed, exactly what it is, and how land is added to it or, perhaps, removed from it where necessary. Obviously, there is a key role for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in that particular process, and I am hopeful that they will be acknowledged in the bill itself in terms of that role and its importance. The Minister may choose to take a call just to confirm that the select committee’s understanding, as articulated in the commentary on the bill, is correct, because I think that would provide some assurance.

Whatever the case may be, there will be ongoing dialogue between the Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. I am also participating in and helping to facilitate that dialogue, and I am sure that at the end of that process we will see an outcome that protects the town belt, the green space that the people of Wellington so love, but that also ensures that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika will have a say in its ongoing protection.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : It is a pleasure, once again, to take a call on Part 3 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. As we mentioned earlier, the cultural redress aspect of the settlement is a very, very difficult one. It is difficult in terms of the cooperation of the Government agencies, and also difficult in terms of the identification of certain sites that have historical significance to the claimant community—the list just goes on. The establishment of the protection protocols is also very difficult.

Then we get to a completely different part of the settlement, and that is the commercial redress, which is the part of the redress that will provide the claimant community, hopefully, with solutions to all the issues that have been discussed in the Chamber this afternoon and this evening. Those are issues around the development of the claimant communities, around the sustainability of any economic development activity entered into by the claimant group, and around the durability of the settlement. By that I mean whether it is a fair settlement and whether the claimant community, over time, will accept that it is full and final. That is a particular issue for many claimant groups. In this case, although the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika have expressed forgiveness to the Crown, there is also the issue around whether, in the long term, the settlement is durable. That will depend largely on the cooperation of the Crown representatives—and I mean those agencies that have been identified—and very largely on the ability of the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika representatives to make the right decisions going forward.

The issues there are in terms of how those representatives grow the commercial redress, and how they ensure that all of the issues they have identified that could benefit their tamariki and mokopuna in the long term do, in fact, happen as a result of the decisions they make. Those will not be easy decisions for them to make, because of the uncertainty around the future. As we spiral into a recession it must be more and more of a concern to them that the right decisions are made. As was mentioned earlier on, from my contact over a number of years with the negotiators involved in the settlement—Dr Ngātata Love, Neville Baker, Kara Puketapu, and many others; I do not want to go on mentioning names, in case I offend some people by leaving them out—I have no doubt that they will take a very prudent approach to growing the settlement, particularly the commercial aspect of it, and will ensure that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and all the beneficiaries benefit from the settlement.

That being the case, we can talk about whether justice has been done. We can ask the questions of whether justice has been done and whether we have a durable settlement. That can be determined only in hindsight. Some time in the future Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika will look at themselves, at their situation, and at the strength of their internal economy, and they will answer that question. They may say yes, the settlement is durable and able to sustain their communities or they may say no, it was not durable. They may identify a number of reasons for that. That is entirely a matter for them to ponder over in the future.

It was not my intention to take a very long call on this particular part of the bill, because all that needs to be expressed is the acknowledgement of the difficulties that lie ahead for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika when it comes to managing the entire settlement package—not just the cultural redress but also the commercial redress. Naturally, we all wish them the best going forward and have confidence that they will make the right decisions. Kia ora.

• Part 3 agreed to.