Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I move, That the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to move the second reading motion. This bill is an important achievement for those Wellington iwi who are part of the Taranaki Whānui collective. It is important for the Crown and it is important for the people of Wellington.

The bill gives effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement that settles the historic claims of the collective in what is known as the Port Nicholson Block. The collective is made up of Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, and other iwi from the Taranaki area. By 1839 representatives of those iwi had established themselves around Wellington Harbour. They had contact with whalers and traders before the arrival of representatives of the New Zealand Company in September 1839. The settlement covers the area of the Port Nicholson Block, which is an area of approximately 271,000 hectares spanning what is now Wellington, the Hutt Valley, Wainuiomata, and Eastbourne. In 1839 Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika agreed to sell some of this land to the New Zealand Company in what is now known as the Port Nicholson Block purchase. As part of the agreement, one-tenth of the land was to be held in reserve for the benefit of the four iwi that now form this collective. But the sad reality is that the Crown and its agents failed to protect the interests of those iwi.

Although the initial purchase was negotiated by the New Zealand Company, the Crown instigated a commission of inquiry into the company’s purchase. Despite the commissioner’s initial view that the greater part of the land claimed by the company had not been alienated and that the explanation of the reserve system was “perfectly unintelligible”, the Crown eventually completed the transaction. In the early 1840s significant areas of valuable urban tenths reserves in and around Thorndon were taken for public purposes through a series of endowments. When one walks down Mulgrave Street, past Old St Paul’s, one may not be aware that that land was originally reserved for those iwi who are now part of the collective, or that the pouwhenua at the gates of those grounds mark what was a landing place for their waka. Equally, the Wellington Harbour islands were also taken by Crown proclamation in 1843 without any consultation with the Māori owners. Furthermore, the Crown assumed ownership of the islands before commencing its inquiry into the validity of the New Zealand Company’s Port Nicholson deed. The use of those islands was denied to those iwi.

In short, the Crown failed to ensure that the agreements reached in 1839 between the New Zealand Company and later the Crown and those iwi who now make up the collective were in fact honoured. As a result, those iwi have been deprived of almost all of their lands in the Port Nicholson Block. By 1882 less than 1,000 acres from an original allocation of 11,000 acres of rural reserves, and one-third of the urban reserves, remained in Māori ownership.

Those iwi that now make up the collective also suffered the loss of their connection to Wellington Harbour, and the loss of their forests, waters, and natural resources in the Port Nicholson Block. The deprivation caused by those losses cannot be measured. The losses have inflicted profound pain and suffering. This bill enables the Crown both to recognise its past wrongs and to provide some atonement for its actions and inaction.

The Crown is providing redress over a number of areas to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. The harbour islands are being returned to the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust with all current reservation classifications retained. Once again Taranaki Whānui will be the owners of the islands while ensuring that the people of Wellington can continue to enjoy them as they do now. The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, which is the governance entity for the iwi, and the Department of Conservation will jointly manage the islands. The Pencarrow Lakes will also be returned as cultural redress, as will Korokoro Gateway, and Point Dorset Recreation Reserve. Those are areas that the iwi have a strong association with. In all cases current reserve classifications will be maintained as well as existing public and third-party access.

Another site of great significance that will be given back to the iwi is Pipitea Marae. This marae sits on what used to be the edge of Wellington Harbour in Thorndon and was part of the historical Pipitea Pa. The Crown has agreed to return the land under the marae to the settlement trust. In the time that the committee has been deliberating on the bill, the Ngati Poneke Maori Association and the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust have agreed to form a new joint legal entity to administer the marae—the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust. I think that that is an exciting step forward. The Crown will vest the land under the marae in the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. Following the settlement date, the marae land and the improvements will be vested in the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust. Clause 45 of the bill has been amended to give effect to those arrangements.

The bill also provides for the settlement trust to purchase a number of commercial properties at market value. Shelly Bay was sold to the settlement trust and the transaction was completed in February this year. The trust also has the opportunity to enter into sale and leaseback arrangements with Government agencies over key properties such as Archives New Zealand, Wellington Girls’ College, and the Supreme Court. Under that arrangement the trust can choose to purchase the land under those properties at market value and lease the land back to the agencies who will continue to own the buildings. The commercial redress contained in the settlement package will enable Taranaki Whānui to enhance the economic capacity of their members and to regain a position as a key player in the local economy. The settlement has been a long time coming. It has the overwhelming support of the registered members of the claimant community—98.6 percent of the registered adult members voted in favour of accepting the settlement package.

The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 9 September 2008. The committee received and considered 17 submissions from interested groups and individuals including iwi, recreational and environmental groups, and a number of others. Of those submitters, 10 supported the bill. The committee heard eight oral submissions. The committee has now examined the bill, and as well as amendments in relation to the marae, the committee also recommends it be passed with a number of technical amendments. The bill settles finally and fully all the historical claims against the Crown of those represented by the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. The level of support shown for the bill is recognition of the collective strength that several iwi have been able to gain by coming together to air and settle their grievances with the Crown. Finally, I thank the Hon Tau Henare and the Māori Affairs Committee for their careful deliberations on this bill and their recommendations, which I endorse fully. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : Otirā, hei wāhi tuatahi māku, e Tā Paora koutou rā, he rā whakahirahira tēnēi ki a koutou ake. Nā, ka roa koutou hīkoi mai ana i runga i tēnei huarahi, kia rongo mai ngā taringa o te Karauna i ngā tūkinotanga o te Karauna ki a koutou, otirā, ki te iwi Māori whānui tonu, i ngā rā kua taha ake nei. Otirā, nā runga i te ngākau māhaki, nā runga anō i te rangimārie, kua tatū mai koutou i raro i te tuanui o tēnei Whare, e oti ai te hīkoi i hīkoi ai e koutou. E tika ana kia mihi ake ki a koutou, ki a koe me ō tamariki kua tatū mai, ā, me rātou kīhai te hara mai, rātou kua whetūrangihia, rātou kua takahia atu te huarahi wairua, anā kua tae atu i mua i te torona o Ihoa o ngā mano. Nāna rātou i tuku mai, ā, i tōnā wā, nāna anō i tango atu. Otirā, kei konei rā koutou, hei kanohi, hei ārero mō rātou kia mārama ai te katoa i te āhuatanga o te huarahi i whai nei e kōutou. Nō reira, nā runga i ēnā maumaharatanga, mihi ake ana ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The first part for me, Sir Paul, and indeed to others of you, is to acknowledge that this is a particularly important day for you. You have travelled this path for a long time so that the Crown can hear about its past wrongdoings to you and indeed to Māoridom at large. Because of your humble and peaceful nature you have arrived here beneath the roof of this House to conclude the journey that you walked. It is apt that I acknowledge you and your children, others who have arrived here, those who did not come, those who have passed on, and those who have walked the spiritual path to come before the throne of Jehovah of the multitude. He delivers them and in time takes them. But you are here as a face and representative for them so that everyone understands the condition of the path that you pursued. So having made those reflections I congratulate you. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the House this afternoon of our very, very esteemed guest, Sir Paul Reeves, and his supporters. It is on their behalf, and for the many who have led the charge on this particular and historic event, that we stand and speak in the House today. I congratulate them on being here today and on representing those people who are not able to be here—those kaumātua and kuia who have for many, many generations, and over many decades, attempted to gain the attention of the Crown, in order that it listen very, very carefully to its wrongdoings towards their people. The second reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill is significant. It has been a long journey and it has been a very, very painful journey for many, if not all, of the people involved.

I also acknowledge and congratulate the people on their tolerance, their generosity, and on the compromises they have made to satisfy the interests of not just their iwi but also of other iwi who have settled in their rohe and who have specific interests that they wish to protect as well. The generosity and the compromises have certainly been demonstrated in the manner in which the Port Nicholson Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika representatives have behaved. It has been an honour to work with them over many years, and as recently as the last couple of weeks to be able to listen to their story. Whilst I acknowledge the commitment of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to seeing the passage of this settlement bill, I need to take the time to acknowledge the contributions of my former colleagues—the Hon Margaret Wilson, the Hon Mark Burton, and, in particular, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I acknowledge the passion and vigour that he gave to insisting that we make positive progress on this settlement bill. He understood that it had been a long journey for the iwi of Taranaki.

Can I once again thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for his support of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I congratulate him on avoiding any delays in the passage of this bill; I wish I could say that about the Whakarewarewa transfer, and I wish I could say that about the Waikato River transfer, but it has not been the case. Certainly in this case, we have had no delays whatsoever. The Minister provided a lot of detail about the particular components of this settlement legislation. He also provided detail not only of the benefits that will be enjoyed by the iwi of Taranaki but also of the benefits shared with and enjoyed by those iwi who have settled here in Te Upoko o Te Ika.

I remind the Minister that over the next 3 years the only settlement bills he will be speaking to in this House will be those that have been signed up to by the previous Labour-led Government. But if he wants to increase the number of settlement bills passing through the House in the next 3 years, so that he can stand in the House and say that he did it on his own—well, I am looking forward to that moment. That is a challenge to the Minister.

He spoke about some issues that were covered at the Māori Affairs Committee. When I spoke of the generosity of Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika, it was at that point when those particular issues became more relevant and more obvious. The attempts by the representatives of Taranaki Whānui to satisfy the wider interests of the community were discussed by the committee hour after hour after hour. Congratulations must go to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, on allowing that debate to continue, although, if I have anything negative to say about it, he may have let the debate continue too long. We might have been having this debate much sooner than we are now. But as the Minister said, certain areas of the Upoko o Te Ika settlement are of significant interest to the iwi of Taranaki Whānui.

I say to members that the whole 271,000 hectares is of significance to the iwi of Taranaki Whānui. All of it has a spiritual significance, all of it has a historical significance, all of it has a cultural significance, and, in particular, for the welfare of its people, all of it has an economic significance. When the Minister said that the actions of the Crown had a negative impact on the iwi of Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika, I am sure he would have liked to use stronger language—but we cannot do that in this House—but the acknowledgment certainly is there.

I described Taranaki Whānui as being generous, because they have settled for much less than many would think they deserve. I am sure that all of us in this House shared that sentiment, as we have in respect of previous settlement bills, but in this particular case, this is the capital city. This is the hub of Government. This is the brains of the Crown—here, right here in Te Upoko o Te Ika. When many decisions were entered into in the past, most of them were done in the absence of Taranaki Whānui. For that reason, they were—shall we describe it as—wrongly treated. There is a stronger word for it, but I cannot say it in the House, and not today. Sir Paul Reeves and supporters are here today to acknowledge the second reading of this very important settlement legislation.

I am sure that at the Committee stage, when we debate some of the changes that have been made, particularly, for instance, in respect of Pipitea Marae and other areas, it will become more obvious why it was an issue for Taranaki Whānui, and why compromises were made on their behalf. A number of issues were highlighted at the select committee, but it was the view of the select committee that many of those issues, if not all of them, were for iwi themselves to resolve—iwi, hapū, and whānau. It was not the role of the select committee, the Government, or the Crown to act as an adjudicator in these particular matters. We have seen that on many occasions and in respect of many of the settlement bills.

This is the second reading of the bill, and I do not want to go on about this particular aspect of this bill, but I will have questions to put to the Minister at the Committee stage. I am sure he has the right answers for me. My questions will be along measuring the strength of his support not only for this legislation but also for the other settlement legislation that the previous Government signed up to.

Once again, I offer my congratulations to the representatives and the negotiators for the Port Nicholson Block, and those representatives of Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika. I am sure they are very anxious to have this particular matter resolved, so that they can, as the Minister of Māori Affairs said, have autonomy over their future, a certain measure of tino rangatiratanga, and get on with their lives. Nō reira, Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much, tēnā koutou.

PAUL QUINN (National) : In opening, I join my cousin Mita Ririnui in welcoming and expressing my best wishes to the representatives of the claimant group who have joined us here today to witness the second reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I also express the best wishes of the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, who, unfortunately, could not be with us today because he is carrying on doing other work for the nation in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee in Auckland. His thoughts are with us, and his full support is, too.

I do not intend to speak for too long, because there is no question that the iwi and hapū of the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and others have been waiting since 1839 for this justice. I do, however, wish to speak to carry out the obvious role this House has of scrutinising the legislation and the deed on behalf of the nation and the people of New Zealand to make sure that the settlement is both fair and enduring. It is on that basis that I stand to support this bill, in terms of the settlement for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and others.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that this is one of the grievances that have arisen as a consequence of the failure of the settler group—if I can call it that—in 1839 to deal justifiably and in an honourable way with the indigenous people of that time. Of course, I am referring to what became commonly known as the Wellington Tenths, one of which I was very familiar with for a long time. One of the more well-known tenths was Athletic Park. It was great to see that the return of Athletic Park did not require this bill in terms of giving back and reaching an agreement in respect of land from which the claimant group we are now supporting had been, in effect, alienated.

The previous speaker, Mita Ririnui, made the comment that this was a Labour bill, and I acknowledge that. But this is a joyous occasion, so I do not want to go down the track of reflecting on some of the issues under the previous administration and its approach to the Treaty of Waitangi, because I think it is a time to rejoice.

Having said that, I think that two particular aspects of this bill are important to understand and recognise going forward. They have been briefly touched on, but not in the way that I think is necessary in order to highlight and draw them to the House’s attention. The first aspect relates to Pipitea Marae. As the previous speaker said in respect of both the issues that I will raise—one being Pipitea Marae and the other being the Ngāti Tama opt-out clause—the select committee was able to make considerable progress and to bring some finality to the two issues through the good grace and support of the claimant group. The select committee offers its thanks to the claimant group for its consideration.

When the bill was first brought before the select committee, the issue in respect of Pipitea Marae was left unsettled. As far as the Government side of the House was concerned, that was a wholly unsatisfactory situation, for the simple reason that an existing group had property rights over the use of the land. Unfortunately, at the stage that the deed came to the select committee those property rights were not recognised to the satisfaction of the select committee. Through the good grace of the claimant group and the good work of the Office of Treaty Settlements the committee was able to resolve that matter. I guess the short message is that in going forward this Government will ensure that in settling one grievance it does not create another. It is very important that we recognise existing property rights and do not create other grievances in the process of resolving current grievances.

The second issue I will briefly touch on is Ngāti Tama’s opt-out clause, as set out in the deed and given authority through this bill. That clause provides for the ability of one of the groups that has been associated with this negotiation, in very broad terms, to opt out. Some sections of Ngāti Tama have chosen to opt out, but other sections are actually represented around this claimant group’s board table through their representative, Neville Baker. This creates confusion. As I think the previous speaker alluded to very briefly, the Crown is being forced into a situation where it is asked to adjudicate in disputes between iwi. The Crown should not be in that situation. The select committee was very strong in its commitment to put before this House the fact that opt-out clauses should not carry on. I say again that this is not a practice that the Government will be carrying forward.

Other than that, we have picked up the bill and supported it, and we look forward to taking it through as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : Ā, tēnei e tū ana ki te tautoko ngā mihi kua mihia. Ka tāpiri atu ēnei whakaaro ki ērā o taku hoa a Mita ki a koutou Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

[I rise to endorse the salutations that have been expressed, and to add these thoughts to those given by my colleague Mita to you Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Greetings to you all.]

I wanted to add my opening comments in acknowledgment of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, comprising Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Ruanui, and to say that after a very, very long time we are at the point where we can have the second reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and move into the third and final reading. It is a good signal. When going through Hansard I am reminded that the recitation of history, which was put on record in the first reading of this bill by the Hon Dr Cullen, was one that was substantive, and it will stand as a record of the legitimacy of this claim and the worthiness of continuing with a settlement for the people of Taranaki Whānui o Te Upoko o Te Ika.

I want to highlight, notwithstanding the travesty of history that has been experienced in this particular area, that I think the acceptance of the necessity to move forward has been courageous. I will always acknowledge that point with those claimant groups that move forward in Treaty settlements, because it is a difficult task.

This particular claim has seen about eight general elections, eight Governments, seven different Prime Ministers, and numerous officials. We as parliamentarians represent a smidgen of the long history associated with this claim. That should not go unnoticed, because although there have been several acknowledgments of the claimant groups and the negotiators who have been involved today, there have been many more who have preceded them, and I know that they too will have acknowledged the people in whose footsteps they have carried out this tremendous task.

As this is a second reading of the bill, it is important to note the chronology of the recent history associated with the claim as well: the mandate of the negotiating team, which was reached in January 2004; the terms of negotiation, which were signed in mid-2004 during the previous Labour Government; the agreement in principle, which was signed in December 2007; and the initial deed of settlement, which was signed in June 2008. During June and July the post-settlement ratification process occurred, and at that time 7,120 registered adult members were eligible to vote, out of which 2,634 valid votes were cast, and of those votes 2,597 were in favour of accepting the deed of settlement. Within the context of that brief time line, we reached a final deed of settlement in August 2008, and then this bill went to the select committee in September of the same year.

Submissions were heard largely after the last general election. This provided an opportunity for people, I guess, if they had some doubt as to levels of support, for opportunities for further recourse to viewpoints. The select committee was the next natural step. Although I was not on the select committee, I have read the information. The committee received 16 submissions, seven of which were heard. That probably is an indicator if, at any point in time in the future, comments are raised, and this applies to many Treaty settlements in terms of there being opportunities for people to have input. As we can see, the chronology of history has provided opportunities for people to engage.

I will now talk about the select committee report on the bill and highlight two things in the report and one thing that has been mentioned by the Minister. Firstly, in respect of the Ngāti Tama opt-out clause, the point was well made in the select committee report that this really is a precedent that the committee does not think should be set in the future. With the best intentioned efforts, one would hope that various disagreements or disputes within iwi about aspects of settlements could be settled internally. I know, from our own experience in Waikato-Tainui, that had the opt-out provision been contemplated we might not have reached a settlement. The same thing might also have been applied to Ngāi Tahu. There are many other variables that exist in contemporary modern Māori society that we cannot altogether put our finger on, and we have to look at those on a case by case basis. Although I certainly understand and agree with the select committee view that opt-out clauses are not the preferred mechanism, we still need to consider each Treaty settlement within the context of the dynamics and the issues that they are dealing with, in and of themselves. That is the key point.

The next point is around requests made by other iwi to have certain statements expressed in deeds of settlements with the iwi in question. I think as a general principle if the Crown acts in good faith with an iwi to negotiate the terms of that deed of settlement, it is a binding agreement on those two parties. For the third parties then to ask for particular considerations to be included in someone else’s deed of settlement I think again provides some very tricky ground and sets some very difficult precedents, and is perhaps not the preferred path to go down. I make that statement in particular in relation to the comments of the select committee with regard to the request for a statement of non-challenge by Ngāti Toa rangatira, many of whom are my whanaunga too.

The third point I comment on is the one that was raised by the Minister in relation to the remedies of redress and the comments that he made that there will be an opportunity for Taranaki Whānui to purchase back particular properties within the Wellington central business district, such as Archives New Zealand, the Supreme Court, and Wellington Girls’ College, and then lease them back. It is up to them what they do, but I urge parliamentarians to consider that if that transaction takes place, future lease provisions should be treated as for any other property developer or business organisation within the city.

There is an expectation, I think sometimes unfairly put, on iwi organisations, Māori organisations, to have a greater conscience towards the purposes of use of buildings, when it is OK for private property developers but not Māori. I think some equity of treatment is an important aspect when we are looking at provisions like this, because in the general public perception if iwi purchase back certain properties at market value, then market rentals should be a natural consequence if they are going to lease them back. That is not often the case when dealing with Government organisations and public entities, and it should be.

Finally, I acknowledge the good work and hard work of the Māori Affairs Committee, under the stewardship of Tau Henare, and all the committee members. I know in particular the previous Minister of Māori Affairs would want his acknowledgment and continued support for this settlement to be made in this House, and also the officials of that select committee and the Office of Treaty Settlements officials. Select committee processes can often be unwieldy and very lengthy, but I think there is a general accord across the House that on Treaty settlement legislation the more that we can ensure it goes through with a level of consensus across the House, then the better opportunities we provide for all New Zealanders to enable iwi to get along and do the things that they do.

Without too much more to add to previous comments, I am pleased to offer these small thoughts on the second reading of this bill and endorse Labour’s continued support for the Port Nicholson Block and the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Kia ora tātou katoa.

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

[A huge acknowledgment to you Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.]

Acknowledgments and respects to the honoured guests in the gallery. Green MP Metiria Turei is not here today, but I, as the Pākehā side of the Green Party’s te Tiriti portfolio, am humbled to stand and speak in support of the second reading of this bill. I cannot claim to have had any association with it until this moment. However, a number of us in this House were born in this city. We went to school here, we had tertiary education here, and we made our lives here. My own family lived in a suburb here for 55 years, but at no time in my youth was there ever any Pākehā recognition or acknowledgment that we stood on Māori land. We also purportedly studied New Zealand history and the activities of the New Zealand Company in Te Upoko o Te Ika. We were taught that the company was a heroic entrepreneurial trailblazer in the acquisition of lands on which to build Wellington City. The real history of this land alienation process has been well summarised in some excellent first reading speeches made by members on all sides of the House. I include the comments of Green MP Sue Kedgley, who, as a former Wellington City councillor, identified that the process of justice is vital, not only for the future of tangata whenua but for Wellington’s peoples as a whole.

It is exhausting and overwhelming to contemplate the last 21 years of painstaking research and remembering and of documenting and advocating for this claim. I acknowledge all of those who led that process towards justice. The Green Party particularly acknowledges the damage done to the resource base of tangata whenua of Te Upoko o Te Ika by the pollution of their resources through urban development, and particularly sewage. That pollution is not only a pollution of food sources and wāhi tapu; it is a pollution of identity and collective human rights, of cultural relationships and spiritual well-being. My own culture, and our addiction to “flush and forget”, has dumped sewage down the drains and sent it to that magical and mythical realm called “away”. The hurt and te Tiriti breaches in just that one failure to manage human waste has led to deep and long-term effects. Of course, there are many other issues associated with this bill, with the history of invalid land deals, the tenths issues, the theft of land for reclamation, and the violation of wāhi tapu throughout the rohe.

However, this settlement offers some positive resolution in terms of a journey towards tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake. It is not perfect, as we have heard. No dealing with the consequences of colonisation can be called perfect. They need constant re-evaluation by all parties. But I would like to briefly speak of one matter that touched my heart when I heard some of the speeches made today. It was the matter of forgiveness. The Crown’s apologising, which happens quite a lot with claims, has become standard. But something unique happened, which is both customary and groundbreaking, in the tangata whenua giving their forgiveness. There is no healing without forgiveness and without a return of resources and an offer of apology, but the acceptance of that apology is profound. We are blessed in this country that tangata whenua can continue to offer forgiveness, when we actually return very little in terms of economic, cultural, social, or spiritual resources. From now on, how well we play our part in this city in recognising the Treaty relationship is a responsibility for the Crown and all citizens, but Taranaki Whānui have taught us much through this process, and the Crown and tangata Tiriti katoa need now to give our thanks to them. I am proud to support the second reading of this bill. Kia ora koutou.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to mihi to the team upstairs. It is really good to have them here today. I am really humbled to be able to speak today on behalf of the Māori Party in support of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. In doing so I recognise the legacy of the tīpuna of Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki Tūturu, Ngāti Ruanui, and other people from Taranaki, including Ngāti Mutunga.

This is historic legislation, in which every individual who is a member of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika has the opportunity to benefit from the deed of settlement that will settle their historical claims. This legislation acknowledges statements made by Taranaki Whānui of their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association with 13 statutory areas.

As with any settlement legislation, the bill’s passage through the House is a time for quiet reflection, for tears to flow, and for stories to be told. It can never be an occasion of celebration, no matter how significant the outcomes articulated in the bill. I think it is an opportunity to reflect on the occasion that took place just less than a year ago, not far from here, at Pipitea Marae. The occasion was the day on which the Port Nicholson Block claims team, together with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, met formally with Crown Ministers for the official signing of the deed of settlement.

When one looks at the reports of that day, a phrase stands out: “An air of heavy anticipation hung over the marae.” The heaviness that hung over the heads of all those gathered was the pain, the memories of ancestors who migrated to Wellington in the 1820s and 1830s. It is the heaviness of the stories recalling those tūpuna who signed the Port Nicholson deed of purchase in 1839.

We think back to those days, we think back to last year, and we look ahead, mindful of all those who have gathered in the gallery today. Their hearts are also heavy with the collective losses that were recorded in the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Wellington district inquiry, published in 2003. It can never be a day for rejoicing when we acknowledge in this House the breaches of the Crown in its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

There are also tears that can be shed for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika for today, as any of us who have read over the submissions can attest to. Members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Toa, also my relations, shared with the Māori Affairs Committee their concerns that much of the Crown’s estate has been provided to Taranaki Whānui at the expense of Ngāti Toa, but, in the spirit of true manaakitanga, of generosity of spirit, they conceded to moving on despite the redress they had been offered within the Port Nicholson Block not meeting their expectations or adequately reflecting their interests.

Ngāti Tama ki Te Upoko o Te Ika supported the intent of the bill but was concerned about the Crown’s treatment of the Ngāti Tama interests that have not been addressed. Here I have to mention that Ngāti Tama is my husband’s iwi, and he was very involved with Ngāti Tama’s claim. Ngāti Tama’s support of the bill, therefore, was guarded, influenced by the spirit of hope that the Crown, in conjunction with the Taranaki Whānui governance entity, will resolve the outstanding Ngāti Tama issues in the best interests of all concerned.

It is deeply distressing to know that just 10 days ago some Ngāti Tama opted out of this settlement and will not be part of the Port Nicholson Block claim entity receiving settlement entitlements. Instead, they seek to renegotiate for their own exclusive settlement within the same area. There was the option to go back to the Waitangi Tribunal for further recommendations, but they have chosen to opt out instead.

This situation has arisen because some from Ngāti Tama felt that they had not been well-served in the process. To raise unresolved issues in the context of settlement legislation is always an uncomfortable position to be in. The Waitangi Tribunal report, Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara me ōna Takiwā, in making reference to iwi that have unresolved issues, states that “Leave is granted to the parties to seek more specific recommendations (from the tribunal) if agreement cannot be reached.” We acknowledge that there is the opportunity and the mechanism by which unresolved issues can be heard, but that does not make it easy by any means.

It is precisely because of those concerns that the Māori Party has advocated to establish a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Treaty to review and monitor progress of Treaty settlements and of the whole settlement system. Our member on the Māori Affairs Committee, Hone Harawira, told us of the agonising concerns regarding the opt-out clause.

As Mr Quinn noted, in the case of Ngāti Tama the committee does not recommend the use of opt-out clauses. The committee’s view was that if some Ngāti Tama wish to negotiate a separate settlement they should form a single entity and achieve a mandate recognised by the Crown. The committee noted that the Crown should not be called upon to adjudicate differences within an iwi grouping, and it considered that these are matters for iwi to resolve. So we leave it there, for the time, but we leave it knowing full well that these issues will return to haunt us if we do not ensure a full and comprehensive understanding of all the varied positions and views of this settlement, as with any settlement.

The submission put forward by Eldon Pōtaka was clear that Ngāti Tama people wished to have their right in terms of tino rangatiratanga, founded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to determine their own future with regards to lands, forests, and all taonga. Ngāti Tama do not assume the right to oppose a settlement that the bill provides, but they would hope that they are not denied their right to choose their own negotiators, as the tribunal recommended.

These are important issues, and they are issues that the Crown and this Parliament must continue to take seriously. The desire had been that the Taranaki Whānui governance entity seeks a resolution of the Ngāti Tama issues simultaneously with the passage of this bill and implementation of Taranaki Whānui’s settlement. We will be interested to watch this progress as the bill moves through the House.

Finally, the Māori Party acknowledges those who have been part of the negotiations team and who have played such a major part in this negotiation. We acknowledge the enormous dedication of people such as Sir Paul Reeves, Professor Ngātata Love, Neville Baker, Kara Puketapu, June Jackson, Liz Mellish, Mark Te One, Dawn McConnell, Spencer Carr, and Kevin Amohia—I apologise if I have left anybody out—who were all represented at the signing last year.

In naming individuals, we think too of all the whānau who have given so much to supporting those who have taken the claim so far. We acknowledge the negotiators, the beneficiaries, those who cast votes, and all those who gave so much to this process. We also acknowledge those who have taken the hard call to opt out—those who did not vote but who also carry the legacy of their history upon their shoulders. We mihi to them all, we add our vote of support for this stage, and we remember their pain.

AARON GILMORE (National) : I rise to support the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill as well, and it is really good to see such a collegial attitude across this House towards this bill. This settlement bill represents another step in the right direction towards our Government’s target of resolving all Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014, and I am really pleased that it represents an agreement across this House. We are a Government that is committed to the settlement of claims, and I am pleased that one year since the signing of the deed of settlement we are having the second reading of this bill.

As a young Treasury analyst about 10 years ago, I recall aspects and issues of the Wellington Tenths Trust coming across my desk and passing various issues and concerns over to the relevant Minister at that time. It is quite strange that today I stand to speak in support of this bill in its second reading as a result of that. This settlement will see some significant redress being made to the descendants of the Māori people in Wellington and the Hutt Valley generally. We should be thankful for the sound guidance of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who has picked up this bill from a previous Labour Government bill, and also for the stewardship of Tau Henare, who pushed this bill through the Māori Affairs Committee with good guidance and some interesting comments that a number of earlier speakers touched on and that I would like to touch on.

Some minor changes to this bill that the select committee made following the first reading have been mentioned. The big issue that has jumped out at me is around the opt-out clause that exists for one group in particular. It is really interesting; I have not seen such an opt-out clause in any deed of settlement. As other speakers have mentioned, it is an aspect that we should not encourage in future deeds of settlement. It is also interesting that the opt-out clause allows for only one particular group to opt out, and some people in that group have chosen to do that. I understand their decision, but I think it is disappointing that they want to negotiate what they perceive might be a better deal for their people, given all the work that has been done to date to get to where we are today by people on both sides of this House and by people who are no longer in this House. That aspect is contained in the select committee report, and, interestingly, it is touched on in some changes to clause 9(1) of the bill. This opt-out clause places the Crown in a difficult position and causes a lot of uncertainty, not only to the people of Ngāti Tama who have opted out but also for people who may have some other aspects, like Ngāti Toa—and they have been mentioned today, as well.

I hope that all Māori who will benefit from this legislation see this settlement as a method for them to move on and a potential position for them to move on from together. We have approximately $20 million in cash being passed over to the various iwi groups under this settlement, but, more interestingly, so are a number of very iconic land sites that exist across Wellington. I know the very important aspects include former canoe landing sites, Pipitea Marae, and other sites. Some of those things will hopefully provide a sustainable position for Wellington Māori to go forward from in the future. I note that other iwi, when they have been awarded similar types of amounts, have gone on to be very successful in sustaining their own economic and financial position.

I cannot stand here without pointing out how successful Ngāi Tahu were in getting their $170 million to grow to well over $600 million within a 10-year period. I encourage the people who will benefit from this legislation to learn from the experience of Ngāi Tahu. Perhaps they can go and get some understanding of what may have happened around that. I encourage people to share their experiences, because if Wellington Māori can go on to grow and be successful, as Ngāi Tahu have done, that would be a wonderful thing. I am sure that the people of Ngāi Tahu would be very happy to share their experiences—for a fee, of course.

I think this is a momentous occasion for the people of Wellington. They have waited since 1839 for this settlement bill to come to this House. It is a wonderful occasion, and I look forward to the people of Ngāti Tama thinking more carefully about what they have been offered. Maybe they could think very carefully about what that might mean for them, about what may arise for them in the future, and about not having to have a large amount of renegotiation, which could occur from a further deed of settlement and set of negotiations, and which might take a significant period of time.

I will leave it there, but I commend this bill to the House. It is an excellent step, and I think it is wonderful that this House is in agreement on this settlement. Hopefully it leaves Wellington Māori in a good position to go forward from for the long-term future.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : Ā, te mea tuatahi māku he mihi kau atu ki a koutou o Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, nā, koutou i tatū mai ki raro i te tuanui o tēnei Whare, e whakarongo ana ki a mātou e whakawhitiwhiti kōrero ana mō tēnei kaupapa tino ātaahua e pā ana ki a koutou. Nā reira, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnei hoki te mihi ki ō koutou awaawa, ō koutou maunga, ō koutou whenua, o koutou rawa katoa kua murua i a koutou. Kore e warewaretia hoki ō koutou tūpuna nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i pīkaungia, ā, tae noa ki tēnei wā. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The first thing for me is to acknowledge you of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika who have arrived here beneath the roof of this House and are listening to our exchanges over this extremely attractive matter that relates to you. And so I greet you as well as your valleys, mountains, lands and resources that were taken from you. Your ancestors cannot be forgotten. They carried this matter from the outset and it has continued to this day. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

I begin my address in the debate on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill by reading from the deed of settlement, and it is the acknowledgments, apologies, and statement of forgiveness that I would like to refer to. I will not read it all, but I will go into the part that says: “For too long our history has been a troublesome burden. It is now time to set the record straight.” Kei te tautoko ahau i wēnā whakaaro. [I endorse those thoughts.] “We acknowledge and forgive the Crown for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. We acknowledge and forgive the Crown for its failure to protect our interests in the acquisition and administration of our lands. We acknowledge and forgive the Crown for its actions which caused hurt and prejudice for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. We acknowledge and accept the Crown’s profound regret for the significant impact on our social, economic, cultural and spiritual well being.”

I would like to say to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, thank you. Forgiveness is the start of healing, and from healing we then move on to hope. My hope, and hopefully their hope as well, is that the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill is the beginning of the future for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. For too long they have had to wait for this moment, like many other iwi around the motu. For too long, and at too many times, this has happened over and over again to Māori, through the confiscation of lands, resources, and mana.

Let me say as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee that it was a privilege and an honour to participate in the deliberations. As a new member of Parliament, it was the first opportunity I had to listen and to hear. It was a privilege to hear the submissions to the select committee, to hear and experience the pain that had been caused. To some extent, as a member of Parliament I feel a sense of responsibility for what has occurred. In another sense, I feel a sense of responsibility for finding the solutions. I believe this bill is a solution, and that it will help not only the people involved, but also, when similar settlements are reached, all of us as Māori to move ahead.

I acknowledge those members of Parliament from the previous Government who began this process. I acknowledge Dr Cullen, my colleagues Parekura Horomia and Mita Ririnui, and others who have contributed to our reaching this point, as well as the current Government, which has stated some urgency in terms of settling our claims. It is really important, not just in this instance but to us as Māori, to make sure that these settlements occur quickly, so that we, as Māori, can move on and assume our rightful place as leaders, and that we can use these settlements to progress ourselves as people.

I also acknowledge the select committee, led by Tau Henare, as well as Paul Quinn, Hekia Parata, Hone Harawira, Parekura, Mita, and myself for the deliberations. It was not easy discussing everything. I also acknowledge members from the Office of Treaty Settlements, in particular Darren and Margot. I recall the to-ing and fro-ing around the Pipitea Marae issue. They would come to us, and we would believe that the issue was almost resolved, then they would have to go back, and it was forward and back. In the end we have come to a resolution, and I acknowledge both Margot and Darren—I see them there in the gallery—for the hard work, commitment, and dedication that they put into the job.

The opt-out clause has been touched on by a number of previous speakers, and I too share some of those concerns. It was put there because not all members of the iwi could come to an agreement in terms of how to go forward. There is an opt-out clause for them so that, if they can form a single entity and achieve a mandate recognised by the Crown, they can move forward on their own. It saddens me that this process, to an extent, is dividing people rather than bringing people together, but I also understand and acknowledge that people—iwi, whānau, hapū—who feel their needs are not being met or addressed, have the right to form an entity of their own and move ahead.

We noted in our report that “The opt-out clause in the Deed is an unhappy exception to the Crown’s practice of dealing with large natural groupings.”, and also that “We wish to note that the Crown should not be called upon to adjudicate differences within an iwi grouping.” I agree with that. It is not the Crown’s role to tell Māori whom they should affiliate to. That is an issue that iwi themselves need to hui and wānanga about. We went on to say “We consider the provision of an opt-out clause to be inappropriate as a model for any future settlements. We consider that these are matters for iwi to resolve. We do not recommend the use of opt-out clauses in the future.”

I do not wish to draw out this debate. I believe that we need to settle these issues as quickly as possible, be it with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika or in any other settlements that need to occur. But I think it is appropriate once again to acknowledge the pain and hurt over the years for what has occurred. As I said earlier, I believe that as members of Parliament we need to take some responsibility for what has gone on in the past, but also as members of Parliament we are in a position to right those wrongs. In my time as a member, I genuinely and sincerely hope that I will be able to help other iwi to settle their claims against the Crown.

Nā reira, ka nui wēnei māku mō tēnei wā. He mihi whakamutunga ki a koutou kei runga ake rā, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So what I have stated for now is enough. In closing, I congratulate you, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, seated above. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all throughout.]

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) : I rise to make a brief contribution to the second reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and in doing so I join in acknowledging the representatives of the claimant group who are here in the House today—people for whom this day is an important day of progress.

This bill gives effect to aspects of the deed of settlement, signed by the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the Crown in July 2008, to settle all of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s historical Treaty claims against the Crown. The enactment of the bill is an important indicator of progress in settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims, which is a commitment of this National Government.

In respect of the claims, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s claims against the Crown, which the Crown acknowledges and this settlement will settle, include, firstly, the Crown’s failure to consistently protect Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s interests during the process by which the Crown and its agents acquired their interests in the Port Nicholson Block; secondly, the compulsory acquisition and endowment of their lands for public purposes; thirdly, the delay in implementing legislation and administration of their reserves; and, lastly, the undermining of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s tino rangatiratanga.

This is a comprehensive and final settlement. The bill is a comprehensive and final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claim. It is intended to enhance the ongoing relationship between Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and the Crown, and I commend the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the members, and, most important, the claimants and their representatives. Thus I conclude my contribution in support of this bill.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika—tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. It gives me a great deal of pleasure as the member of Parliament for Wellington Central to stand in the House today and speak during this second reading. It is a pleasure to be here, not too long after the joyous occasion at the Pipitea Marae that my colleague Rahui Katene mentioned earlier. That was indeed a special occasion. I am not sure whether the air of heavy anticipation that Rahui mentioned was just Darren Ponter’s stress about whether all the i’s had been dotted and the t’s had been crossed, but it was a very special day.

I join with my colleagues in acknowledging the work of both the Taranaki Whānui and the Office of Treaty Settlements, and of all the officials who have worked on this settlement. It has indeed been a long, long road since the claim was lodged, and obviously even a longer road since grievances were aired.

I will not dwell in great detail on the aspects of the agreement; they have been covered quite well today by a number of other members. But I do not think that anyone who reads through the submissions, or who looks at the settlement or at any of the history around the Port Nicholson Block, could help but be moved by it and feel that there needs to be urgent redress. As the Wellington Central MP, every day as I walk around the electorate I serve, I am very, very conscious that the steps I take are on land that was taken on the basis of a flawed deed and without compensation, on land where title was extinguished without any reason or need, and on land where long delays to justice and redress have been experienced. As I walk around Wellington Central I feel that, so I can, therefore, only imagine how it feels for the Taranaki Whānui. I hope that as we move through this process now, the feeling that we are resolving that issue and moving on together is one that we can grasp.

I will talk about two matters in particular today. There has been some discussion about the first of them and none about the second, so I will speak more about the second. The first matter I want particularly to talk about is the statement of forgiveness. For me, the thing that struck me at Pipitea Marae last year was the way in which Taranaki Whānui were able to do something that had never happened before in a Treaty settlement. That was a unique aspect. For me, it is the strongest possible basis for the people of the Wellington region, of Whanganui-ā-Tara, to move forward together. We have the apology, and the apology is meant and seriously meant, and that has been reflected in the speeches today and in other speeches in Parliament during this process—and, indeed, in the deed of settlement. But the notion of a statement of forgiveness in return is something quite remarkable. I believe that that will give us an extremely solid basis going forward for the Wellington region to develop, and I am happy to be a part of that.

An aspect of the bill I will also mention now in terms specifically of the future of Wellington is the question of Wellington town belt land. There is a reference in the commentary from the Māori Affairs Committee to some of the submitters who raised concerns about the inclusion of former town belt land in terms of this bill. I will read briefly from the report of the select committee, to ensure that this ends up on the record: “We understand 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, the Wellington City Council would take on the right of first refusal obligation to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.”

I put into the record that the process for dealing with, and ensuring that we continue to have a strong and constructive relationship around, the town belt has some basis in the bill. But what is much more significant for me is the ongoing relationship between the Taranaki Whānui and the people of Wellington around the management of our town belt.

The town belt is an incredibly important part of Wellington. The green space that surrounds this city is one of its unique features, valued I think by all Wellingtonians, Pākehā and Māori alike. I think it is extremely important as we move forward that there is a place for the Taranaki Whānui in the overall management of the town belt. At this time I am working with the Wellington City Council on a local bill that will begin to clarify some elements of the town belt—its shape and its size, and how land is taken out of it or put into it. That work will crucially involve Taranaki Whānui. I hope that some form of kaitiaki-type status will be able to be vested with Taranaki Whānui, and that the Wellington City Council and those represented by the Taranaki Whānui will be able to be part of managing that land together. That town belt land now forms a critical part of what I believe is a joint future in Wellington.

I know that I did not participate in the select committee. Therefore, it will be of great interest to me in the Committee stage of this bill to be able to work through some of the issues that other colleagues have raised—the opt-out clause being one I am particularly interested in.

I like the fact that in the select committee process the issue to do with the Pipitea Marae has been dealt with. I think that it looks as if there is an enduring process there. Pipitea Marae plays a very important role in Wellington as a whole. It is obviously of great spiritual significance for the Taranaki Whānui, but it is also of significance for Wellingtonians generally. One of the great occasions each year in Wellington takes place immediately after the Dawn Service on Anzac Day, when people troop down the road towards the Pipitea Marae and come together in a way that is particularly special on a day that many New Zealanders now regard even more fondly—Anzac Day. To me, that symbolises the important place that Pipitea Marae has in my city. I am very pleased that in the select committee process we have been able to work through the Pipitea Marae issue.

I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. I believe that the settlement will allow Wellington to move forward together as a city, where Māori and Pākehā have their rightful say and their rightful place, and an ability to stay connected to the lands and the history that are so important to them. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I must admit I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, so I speak with a certain amount of naivety as to what actually went on at the select committee. However, I would like to make a few points that I think are important as to what we see in this House. The first is that Treaty settlements are always a special time for this House because the people who are affected by the bill actually come and watch the House pass the legislation. For the vast majority of other legislation that is passed through the House we do not necessarily have interested parties come and watch. The reason I think that is special is that it shows the degree of time that many people have waited to see the legislation being passed, and the importance that those communities place on this House passing the legislation. It goes to the heart of Māoridom and the way in which Māori have approached many of these settlements in recent years.

Māori have been waiting for a long time for the words of sorrow and regret from the Government about what has happened in the past. It has been a long time coming, but now both major political parties have been pushing the settlement process over a number of decades and we are finally giving regard to the importance of the process that this Parliament represents.

I thank the members of Taranaki Whānui for their attendance here today. What it symbolises to this Parliament is very important. I also thank those who were involved in the decision making and in the negotiation of this settlement. I know that it was started by the previous Government but I draw special attention to our Minister, Chris Finlayson, who has taken an active interest in progressing settlements and who has achieved a lot in a very short time.

I also mention the select committee. I am sure that Tau Henare will be very disappointed that he was not able to be here today. He is in Auckland working on the Auckland governance issues, but he would definitely want his regards passed on. Tau Henare is someone who has made a huge commitment to Māoridom and this House over many years. It would give him great pleasure to see the advancement of this settlement.

I think it is also important to thank the other parties in this House, especially the Labour Party in this regard, and the Māori Party, for their input and their desire to see this settlement progress. It shows a genuine intention on the part of this Parliament and its members to see some redress.

As a farmer, I can say that one of the things farmers have is an affinity with the land. One of the dearest things to us is the land. I can understand how Māoridom associates with the land and places prime importance on it. When one slaves on the land and works hard on the land one does have certain respect for it and a real desire to maintain it. I guess one of the most hurtful things that could be done to people like myself would be to take that land off us, for us to lose it after having worked so hard to achieve on it. We have a great degree of respect for the Māori communities involved in the settlement processes who look beyond that and look for the better good of their communities and the country going forward. We take our hat off to those communities that work towards a settlement. It is a major challenge, and a lot of emotion has to be dealt with to get to that point. It is something that I think resonates with a lot of people in our community because we understand the nature of the issues involved.

I remember the history of Port Nicholson from when I was a school student. It was an important part of how New Zealand came about, and the population growth from Europe and England. So historically a lot of sentiment is involved in the nature of this claim, as well. In closing, I thank all of those involved in the select committee, the Minister, the political parties, and, most important, Taranaki Whānui for the way in which they have approached this issue. We wish them all the best with that settlement as they go forward.

• Bill read a second time.