Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations)
: I move,
That the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill be now read a second time. The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and submitted its report to the House, and I thank the committee for its speedy consideration of this extremely important settlement bill. Both the report of the committee and the submissions expressed the widespread and strong support that exists for the bill and the settlement it embodies. Indeed, 133 out of 167 of the submissions were in support of this bill, and the strong voice of support echoes the support that was shown so strongly for the settlement throughout its endorsement process. It also acknowledges a very real and wide-reaching potential this settlement has to better not only the more than 100,000 people who constitute the collective iwi but also the central North Island and, indeed, the nation as a whole.
This settlement represents a significant step in healing the wounds of longstanding grievances of the collective iwi, as was evidenced in the Waitangi Tribunal hearings and findings of discussions the Crown has had with iwi to date. The transfer of 176,000 hectares of Crown forest land, valued at over $200 million, to the trust holding company will have widespread economic benefit for the collective iwi and more widely for the people of New Zealand. This will in turn empower each of the collective iwi to forge a new path ahead, providing opportunities for economic, cultural, and social growth.
We should reflect, I think, on three important aspects of the settlement that the submissions to the bill raised. The first aspect is the mandate of the Central North Island Iwi Collective to agree to the settlement of the claims included in the bill. The tribunal, the Māori Affairs Committee, and I have considered the specific mandate issues and we are comfortable that the collective and constituent iwi representatives do indeed have the support of their people for entering into this settlement. The collective iwi provided evidence of broad support for their settlement process. The iwi held some 66 information or endorsement hui, with each iwi in the collective determining its own endorsement process. Some used postal votes; others used hui votes.
The results from this endorsement process showed that the collective iwi overwhelmingly endorsed the settlement, except Ngāti Rangitihi. Ngāti Rangitihi did not endorse the settlement and are consequently not included in the bill. But in recognition of the iwi leadership’s contribution to the collective’s proposal, the Crown and the collective are holding open a window for Ngāti Rangitihi to agree to this
settlement by 25 December this year, should they choose to do so. I very much hope they will. The various Ngāti Rangitihi groups are working hard to find a way through their differences, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rangitihi is coordinating a further endorsement process that will culminate in a postal ballot to close on 10 October. Whether to endorse the settlement, of course, is a matter for Ngāti Rangitihi to make a decision on, and we will respectfully accept any decision the iwi makes. If they decide not to endorse the collective settlement, they will still be able to claim against the Crown’s proportion of the central North Island forest lands that remain. The Government intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to provide a mechanism for adding Ngāti Rangitihi to the settlement, should they demonstrate broad support for doing this.
Key aspect No. 2 is the allocation model for the distribution of the commercial benefits of the settlement and the proposed tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. The settlement has created an allocation mechanism unique to the Treaty claims settlement process. Although the Crown assessed the outcome of the commercial benefit allocation for fairness and relativity, the percentages themselves were agreed amongst the collective iwi. The separation of the commercial benefits—the accumulated rentals—from the ownership of land itself was an innovation developed by the collective. As set out in the bill, mana whenua will be the basis upon which the land itself is allocated. This land allocation process will be iwi led, and it recognises the fluid overlapping and complex layering of interests over the Kaingaroa and wider central North Island forest lands.
The collective iwi made compromises amongst themselves to make this settlement happen. In doing so, they enabled more forest land and rentals to pass to iwi than would have been possible under the direct bilateral negotiations between individual iwi and the Crown, because the Crown would always have to be keeping back sufficient for any other iwi that might be coming along. This, coupled with the iwi-led development of the settlement proposal, the mana whenua process, will enhance the durability of the settlement.
The third key issue is the preservation of existing public access to the central North Island forest lands—a matter close to the Prime Minister’s heart. The Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective have also been mindful of preserving this existing public access, and the collective has generously agreed to preserve existing rights of public access to the central North Island forest lands. I need to note here that the existing 1989 Crown Forest Assets Act provides for all such access rights to cease upon the land transferring into Māori ownership, so it was an important part of the settlement that this deed of settlement and the legislation remove that removal of those access rights and, therefore, preserve the rights of the general public in the future in that regard. So the settlement bill preserves the existing public access. When these lands cease to be licensed, clause 11 enables new public access easements to be created that mirror the existing public access provided in the current licences.
There will be a Supplementary Order Paper, as I have said, to provide for the possibility of having Ngāti Rangitihi join this settlement if they choose to do so. For example, that will correct the percentages set out in schedule 3 to match those contained in the deed of settlement, as well.
On an occasion such as this, it is appropriate once again to express my deep appreciation for all those who have been involved in getting us to this point today—my colleague the Hon Mark Burton, under whom this process began, but particularly the ongoing leadership of Dr Tumu te Heuheu, Te Ariki o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Without Dr te Heuheu’s leadership this settlement would not have been possible at all. It was a risky venture, in fact, to try to lead a group of very disparate iwi with some very differing
histories, and indeed some histories of long antagonisms between some of the iwi involved in this settlement, to bring them together into a single collective process.
I also want to thank Wira Gardiner, who provided inestimable support to me as the Crown facilitator in this settlement, and to place on record, once again, my gratitude to my wife for defeating Wira in the 1987 East Cape election, thereby ensuring that Wira was available for other and higher duties in the service of Governments of different hues, both now and, I am sure, into the future. Without the contribution of people such as Tumu and Wira, this kind of historic settlement, this kind of journey that we are entering upon now, would not be possible.
I look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading, and I thank all colleagues in the House who have been so generous in facilitating this bill, reaching this point at this stage.
Hon Tau Henare: Send him up north.
Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Send them both up north.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We will have news for the members on up north fairly soon, I am quite hopeful.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National)
: National enthusiastically supports the second reading of this bill, which, as the report of the Māori Affairs Committee states, gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective, which was signed on 25 June 2008. The committee’s report—and the Minister has referred to this—records that there were 167 submissions, and the committee heard 42 of those submissions in Taupō on 6 August 2008. The committee’s report also notes the genesis of this settlement. The Central North Island Iwi Collective emerged out of a recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 2007 that the Crown give time for central North Island iwi to develop a proposal for Crown forest lands.
As I have said before, the tribunal report does not make pleasant reading. It was highly critical of the Labour Government’s conduct of the Te Arawa negotiation. It said, among other things, that aspects of the Crown’s processes of dealing with overlapping groups were inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It said the Crown failed to act fairly and impartially towards all claimants. It said: “Future settlements cannot proceed like this. The Crown cannot continue to ‘pick favourites’ and make decisions on tribal interests in isolation, based on inadequate information.” The tribunal said that the Crown’s failures in respect of consultation over commercial redress constituted a breach by the Crown of its Treaty duties to act honourably and with the utmost good faith, and failed actively to protect the interests of all Māori. The tribunal described the Crown’s failure to adapt its policy to the unique situation of overlapping cultural and commercial interests as inflexible, inappropriate, and inadequate.
On page 67 of its report, the tribunal said this: “We see Treaty settlements as critical to the future of our country. For this reason, we consider that any recommendation that a proposed settlement not proceed should be made only as an absolute last resort. However, on balance, we cannot endorse the KEC settlement in this form. We have not made this decision lightly, but we have grave concerns about the impact of this settlement on overlapping iwi, and on the durability of future CNI settlements.” So this damning report made it clear that the Labour Government had suspended the laws of averages. It got everything wrong. After 8 years of this Government, where little or no progress had been made on finalising Treaty settlements, 2007 certainly was a watershed year; doing nothing was replaced by a policy of messing up everything Labour touched.
The Minister generously referred to the leadership of Mr te Heuheu, and I endorse what he said. As a result of that leadership, ably assisted by Wira Gardiner, central
North Island iwi came together and presented a proposal to the Crown. It was this proposal that ultimately led to the central North Island deed of settlement being signed on 25 June. In my first reading speech I praised the proposal, which, as the committee report said, was best summarised as being iwi-driven and regional. Stung by its litany of failures in 2007, the Crown, this year at least, did not get in the way and considered the proposal. The deed having been signed, the legislation came to the House and, as the Minister observed, has now come back from the select committee very quickly indeed.
In the course of his speech, the Minister addressed some of the issues raised by the select committee report. I endorse everything the Minister said about the hopes for a settlement involving Ngāti Rangitihi. I endorse what he said about the novel resolution process and, finally, what he said about public access.
In my first reading speech I indicated I had a real interest in the allocation model, and I want now to focus on this aspect of the bill. Several submitters opposed the commercial allocation model or the tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. They said the allocation of commercial benefits, set out in schedule 3, was disproportionate because it ignored the extensive and legitimate claims of smaller iwi, thus depriving them of their rights over customary lands. When we come to deal with Part 2, particularly Subpart 2 on allocation principles, I will say something about clauses 14 and 15. The submitters also said that the commercial allocation model should be based on mana whenua, rather than on population, and that it was important to determine who held mana whenua before commercial benefits were allocated. In response, the committee was told that the proportions derived from the commercial allocation model, and included as schedule 3 to the bill, were the result of unanimous agreement and full consensus. They also said it was appropriate that iwi, rather than the Crown, determine title to the land through a tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process, which is set out in schedule 2. It was noted, also, that all the collective iwi had to compromise. Compromise was made possible by the separation of commercial benefits flowing from the land itself.
The committee also heard submissions on schedule 2, and when we come to the Committee stage I will certainly be looking very closely at that schedule, which sets out the steps required for a tikanga-based resolution process for Crown central North Island forests land. It is a very interesting process indeed. One of the issues will be whether it will oust in its entirety the prospect of judicial review proceedings, because I am well aware of what happened after the fisheries settlement in 1992. From 1993 onwards there were debates in the courts about the allocation of quota, or the leasing of quota, and of course there was the great allocation debate that went to the Privy Council, on three occasions, I think. It is extremely important, for the timely resolution of all these matters, that schedule 2 works and that it prevents unnecessary court proceedings, but I will be saying something about whether it effectively does so when we look at schedule 2.
The committee was advised that the collective decided to separate the allocation of commercial benefits of the settlement from ownership of the land, so land is to be allocated according to the mana that iwi traditionally held and exercised over the land, determined according to tikanga. This resolution process means that iwi, rather than the Crown, are primarily responsible for determining the allocation of the title to the forest land. Officials consider that this is appropriate and will enhance the durability of the settlement, and I certainly hope they are right. The collective does not expect mana whenua allocation to be in proportion to financial allocation. Those with greater mana whenua will receive greater land allocation and, after the agreed period of 35 years, the rental streams associated with the land.
