Mahuta Nanaia: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16934] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 People listening to the debate on Part 2 of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill should feel absolutely assured that Labour strongly supports this bill. Throughout the debate we have raised questions we have identified potential issues arising out of this settlement and we have asked for points of clarification. In terms of our contribution this afternoon it is for that reason that we have continued to seek points of clarification. 
I will highlight some of the questions that have been asked about Part 2 because it is really the meat on the bones the guts of the settlement and the opportunities that will be afforded to the Whanganui iwi. Firstly I am building on the contribution of Maryan Street who said that a component of Part 2 transfers the Crown forest assets the land and the accumulated rentals. Arising out of her contribution my question to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is what the value of the accumulated rentals is. Part of the difficulty the reason for our having to ask that question here in the Committee stage is that the Maori Affairs Committee did not provide a robust report at the beginning of this bill that answered some of these more permeant questions. I put that question to the Minister because it is an important one; it is one of substance relating to the value of the settlement. Many times prior in other settlements we understood the value of the settlement whether it was cultural redress or dollars. I think that is a reasonable question to ask the Minister. I also ask whether our contribution in identifying accumulated rentals as part of the transfer to iwi is correct. If it is correct I ask what the value is of the accumulated rentals that will be transferred to iwi because that in itself will signal the level of opportunity afforded to Whanganui iwi. 
With regard to the emissions trading scheme building on the contribution of my colleague Kelvin Davis and the situation up north I thought while he was speaking that if any question was to be asked regarding the emissions trading scheme we should probably ask the Maori Party how its deal with National offered opportunities for Maori in this settlement. I understand that it was quite a key piece of the negotiating of an outcome on the emissions trading scheme. It would be really good if a member of the Maori Party could explain to the House what the benefit of that particular deal on the emissions trading scheme will mean for this settlement. It is a very real question to ask who has liability for the replanting of the trees: is it the owners of the trees or the owners of the land? It is a very simple question and by and large something that goes to the heart of broader questions around how the emissions trading scheme agreement reached by the Maori Party and National would benefit the Whanganui iwi in this case. 
So I tell Minister Finlayson that we have not asked too many questions on this bill but we have sought points of clarification. We would indeed appreciate a response on those particular questions because we believe that seeking clarification at this point of the Committee stage will actually help people who are listening to the debate understand and appreciate I think the depth of the effort that has gone into this particular component of the settlement. 
Also I note in clause 11 that there is provision for access to the settlement online so that people can see the components of the settlement. I wondered when I saw that and I cannot recall my attention being drawn to a clause like that in other settlements. It could be a common provision but I wondered whether there were technical aspects of the settlement that might lend themselves to a type of interpretation that could create confusion. If the intention of including a small clause like that to make sure that access to the on-account settlement is free is to ensure that people are able to cite it in its full extent then there should be clarification about whether some technical aspects of the deed could create confusion or misinterpretation of the intent of the deed. 
So I have three small questions for the Minister. Firstly around the emissions trading scheme who has the liability for the replanting of trees—is it the owners of the trees or the owners of the land? Secondly what is the value of the accumulated rentals so that we could get a feel for the quantum of this particular settlement? Thirdly is access to the settlement in the manner provided for in the bill because there could be some misinterpretation of the intent of the deed? If the Minister responds to the question and my concerns are unfounded on all three fronts then I am prepared to accept that. Thank you very much. Kia ora.