te Heuheu Georgina: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
te Heuheu Georgina: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18955. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 2 is the meat of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I hope that the Minister will take a call to answer my colleague Chris Finlayson’s query about the ouster of judicial review. 
The Minister may recall that National members flagged in our opening speeches our interest in the tikanga-based resolution process for the central North Island forests land which is to be found in schedule 2. Although I applaud and support the fact that the Government has seen fit on the motion of the collective itself to bring forward or to promulgate an allocation process based on tikanga and matters that are of interest to them as iwi and are known only by themselves my colleague and I have a reservation about what happens if the various interests in the collective cannot agree on the allocation of the land interests. That is not to raise any doubt that they are not up to the job but when the Maori Affairs Committee travelled to hear them it was very clear to me that they well appreciate that this area is a real test of the leadership of each of the iwi participating in the collective. It is a real test of their ability to recognise mana whenua interests of each of them in the collective and a real test to lead and be generous in their thinking. That is what I took from many of the submitters. 
But I come back to the point that despite the best will in the world there may come a time when agreement may not be possible. At that point I too am interested to know whether there remains the ability for aggrieved parties to go on judicial review. There is certainly nothing in the bill here before us that ousts it. If there were a disagreement at some future point—and we certainly hope there will not be—is there recourse to an independent outside authority? It would be an authority that is at arms-length to this process and to the iwi involved and if called upon can address issues that may arise. Some people came to see me before the introduction of the bill and asked whether there might be room for instance for the Waitangi Tribunal to be that body should there be a disagreement during the allocation process. I said that I would raise the issue. I am looking forward to the Minister taking a call to tell us whether there is in the event that it is required recourse to an independent outside authority. I am sure that if he does not have the answer immediately we might get that answer before the Committee stage ends. 
In the end the allocation process is not a matter for the Crown. The issues of mana whenua are for the various iwi themselves to deal with. They know the principles that underlie the issues of mana whenua and they ought to and should—and I am sure they will in this case—be able to resolve the allocation process without going off the rails. That is certainly what we hope. 
A responsible Government acting on behalf of the Crown and the people of New Zealand has a responsibility to promulgate and pass legislation that gives maximum opportunity for the process that the iwi have devised to succeed. That process must be open transparent and on the record. Is it envisaged that there will be a record of the discussions that proceed when the allocation process for the land gets under way? That is important too. These things are important for future generations. It is only fair to future generations that they are able to see how the tikanga-based resolution process for their land interests was resolved. Again I come back to the point that it is important to know that there is an organisation at arm’s length should it be required. I am trusting in the leadership of each of the iwi in this collective. They have shown great leadership up to this point to bring to the Crown a model and a proposal that they largely devised. I am sure that that leadership will go on. 
In fact the bigger part of this exercise is still to come. The iwi may think they can breathe a sigh of relief because they have got over this significant first stage but the bigger part is still to come because they will have to manage that commercial asset. Part 2 sets out the basis on which the commercial interests—the rental proceeds and the commercial process—will proceed. 
The bigger challenge is the division of the land interests and that was certainly flagged by the submitters who came to the select committee—those iwi who feel aggrieved who feel that the collective does not properly represent them. So there will be huge interest from all quarters in how this proceeds not least of which I guess is the interest from the regions yet to settle. We heard from Minister Ririnui earlier about the ongoing work he has been involved in in bringing other iwi into the settlement process. It looks hopeful though. I have to say that the process that has been proposed to divide the forests land is ground-breaking. Of interest to me is that the division will not necessarily follow the percentages that have been reached for the allocation of rental proceeds because as I understand it that was done on the basis of population numbers. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui could just remind us of that. Even though Ngai Tuhoe and Ngati Tuwharetoa receive quite substantial rental proceeds that is no indication of how the land interests will be divided. So that is good something to look forward to and hopefully something that is resolved with minimum fuss. 
I must pick up on what my colleague Chris Finlayson said about leaving the lawyers out of the process. Of course he is a lawyer and law is my profession as well so that could be a surprise to people. We have all seen how the involvement of the legal profession to date has been huge in these matters. It may be that the leaders in their wisdom devised this process partly so that the lawyers would not be there! As I say it makes sense because on the issues of mana whenua iwi know best. That belongs to them. It is their tikanga.