Mahuta Nanaia: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19998] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Tena koe. I too want to make a contribution to the third reading of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. Unlike members who have spoken before me who have amply covered much of the detail of the bill I want to speak in a general nature about some of the learning points from the opportunities provided in this on-account settlement. To understand the full interests of Whanganui and the region we would have to look at the various component parts of their historical claims. It has been with some interest that I have seen the way in which Whanganui iwi have innovated in their approach to dealing with overlapping interests and the nature of their distinct boundaries within their larger collective group. So the fact that they have an on-account settlement that ensures that Ngati Apa interests in the south of Whanganui are provided for under this particular bill does not detract from any of the other subsequent interests of other component parts of Whanganui iwi within Whanganui. I think that is a good approach. We have had a number of settlements before the Maori Affairs Committee as I speak that seem with their own historical peculiarities unable to resolve some of the overlapping interests some of the overlapping claims and some of the contesting of their boundaries. So I think that there is good learning from this particular settlement. 
Can I say that the Treaty settlement redress that has been brought about through subsequent claims and certainly our understanding as parliamentarians as to how that is all made up has been supported by the innovation of iwi for dealing with their own complex issues. Again an on-account settlement is a creative and innovative approach to addressing overlapping interests while not impeding other component parts of an iwi’s claim. We have not seen this type of approach used too often but it should be a learning opportunity for other iwi who want to pick up the really difficult challenge of advancing their settlements. 
On some of the detail of the bill the fact that a half-share of the land of Kaitoke Prison will be offered back to Ngati Apa may present further opportunities for them. Obviously being a landowner of a prison and a manager of a prison are two different things but it certainly does present Ngati Apa with an opportunity on that front. But can I say that I am absolutely sure Ngati Apa do not want to see more prisons in their region. They probably want to realise any opportunity that gets their people out of prison and into productive parts of our society and contributing to our communities. I say that with a level of confidence because I am sure a lot of people from Whanganui would be happy to see the demise of prisons in their communities and the full utilisation of the skills and expertise of their people building their people wealth and their economic wealth. Only time will realise whether that is an empty statement or a real aspiration but it is an opportunity for Ngati Apa. 
Also the value of the Whanganui Forest in terms of Ngati Apa’s interests in planning for the future I think presents a real opportunity for Ngati Apa too. It will be an accelerant for them to reach their development aspirations. 
We spent some time in the Committee stage debating the issue of Whanganui and including the “h”. We took on board the recommendations of the Maori Affairs Committee. It does not really mean too much to me with our dialect up in Tainui because we have always always referred to Whanganui as Whanganui. Whether or not the “h” was recognised in the word we have always said Whanganui. The select committee has formalised the appropriate spelling of Whanganui and has amended it in this bill. 
The other part that I wanted to briefly comment on is an issue that was raised by Te Ururoa Flavell in terms of the other component parts of Whanganui interests especially with regard to their impending river claim. It seems to me that the opportunity once again for Whanganui to continue to advance some larger aspects of their historical claims will add another strong pillar to the ability of Whanganui to plan for the future to have a vested interest in the protection of their beautiful river and to contribute to long-term decision-making within their region. I say that with a level of insight because I have had the honour of being hosted down the Whanganui River and I know that it is one of special significance and sacred meaning and value to the people of Whanganui. 
I note with interest the contribution of the Green member who said that in this day and age we have moved well beyond some of the views that are starting to rear themselves out in the public domain about Maori getting too much. The resolution of historical injustice is an absolute necessity in order for our nation to move forward to plan forward and to ensure that Maori can contribute positively to the shape and identity of the nation that we all want to see which is the kind of nation where everybody is valued and where historical injustice has been resolved. Sometimes we can never take away the hurt of the past but working towards resolution redress and reconciliation is I think a positive way for our nation to go forward. 
All those pillars and elements of resolution are contained within this small bill and it is important to recognise that and to not underestimate the value of the transformation that can happen within settlements like this one. 
I thank the Maori Affairs Committee which considered these issues. As a current member on the select committee I am acutely aware of some of the limitations that we have when it comes to Treaty settlement bills and being unable to significantly comment on the substance of Treaty settlements—but neither would we want to. We do have to continually remind people who are making submissions on bills like this one that the select committee is limited in its capacity in terms of being able to make recommendations of substance that can be enacted by this Parliament. However if the Maori Affairs Committee is an avenue for casting an eye over some of the substantial matters dealt with in Treaty settlements looking to some of the technical aspects and ensuring that the intent of the deed marries up with the articulation of legislation I think that is a very valuable role for the select committee. I thank the clerks of the committee for their hard work the advisers to the committee the officials and last but certainly not least I recognise the negotiators—a young team—of this particular on-account settlement for their wisdom in trying to find a pragmatic solution that is also something that resolves some of their historical hurts and looks to the future. 
No reira Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson tenei e mihi atu ki a ratou no Ngati Apa i raro i nga whakaaro hei tutuki i tenei wahanga mo a ratou nei kereme. Tena koutou. 
[ 
So I acknowledge those of Ngati Apa Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson in the context of the thoughts expressed to complete this part of their claim. I salute them collectively. 
]