Street Maryan: Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Street Maryan: Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13736] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the interrupted second reading debate of the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. This legislation gives legislative import to a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. This again as we have seen before is legislation that commenced prior to the introduction of the bill itself. The bill was introduced by this Government in August 2009 and had its first reading in November 2009 but clearly much of its content derives from an earlier history and some earlier negotiations. I acknowledge the work done by the previous Labour Government and I acknowledge also as we do repeatedly on these occasions the work of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for bringing this legislation to the House from its inception to this point of its second reading. 
The Labour Party supports this legislation. It is about the transfer of assets in an on-account settlement of historical claims of the Whanganui iwi. The substance of the bill simply puts into law an agreement that was made in principle and I suppose codifies in legislative form an agreement arrived at between Whanganui iwi and the Crown. The preamble to this bill describes some of the content of the bill. Basically it states that this agreement between the Crown and the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working party to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between northern Ngati Apa and the working party about aspects of the Ngati Apa settlement package. That was contained in the original agreement in principle between Ngati Apa of the North Island and the Crown. Ngati Apa went through the process of consulting with neighbouring iwi on the agreement in principle and what we have now is the result of that. It does transfer the ownership of land and it transfers the ownership of Crown forest land in particular the northern part of the Wanganui Forest. 
I am always particularly pleased when the Treaty of Waitangi settlements that come before this House for codifying in law include bits of Crown forest. My interest in this area goes back some years to my work as a trustee on the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and nothing gives me greater pleasure as an ex-trustee of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust than to see the map of Crown forests diminishing and land going back to what are usually the rightful owners of the land—or without exception the rightful owners of that land proven by claims before the Waitangi Tribunal—and knitted together as part of historical Treaty settlements. As that map diminishes I am heartened and it gives me great cause for optimism that the historical Treaty processes will be behind us in short order. The Government wishes that all historical Treaty negotiations should be concluded by 2014. I seriously wish it well in that respect and certainly there will not be any unnecessary objection on the part of the Labour Party seeking to derail or hold up any of those Treaty of Waitangi settlements as long as they are fair and address the grievances that various iwi bring to the table. 
It is important to note that even the transfer of this small part the northern part of the Wanganui Forest addresses old grievances. Typically in these circumstances we find the iwi being more generous than they could be in respect of settlements and transfers of land and assets. Huge injustices were done in the past. But in a spirit of goodwill and the wish to move this country forward and get past the Iwi/Kiwi nonsense that characterised former campaigns Maori frequently do not exact everything that they might exact from the Crown. 
It is interesting that in the report back of the Maori Affairs Committee it had only minor technical amendments to make to the bill but it did seem to get embroiled for some time in the issue of the spelling of Whanganui. I cannot speak to this bill without drawing attention to that point. If the House remembers correctly on 18 December 2009 the Minister for Land Information decided after the Geographic Board had put a bit of a conundrum to him that over time Crown agencies would adopt the spelling of Whanganui with an “h”. He made that decision on 18 December 2009 largely because it was close to Christmas and most people would have gone home. However the select committee said it felt very strongly about this issue; in fact it wrote the words “strongly feel” in its report on the bill. It chose to put the “h” into Whanganui except where there is a historical reference—I think there is only one instance in the bill in clause 4—to legislation that has Whanganui without the “h” in the title. That has been left there as a correct historical record. But from now on by changing and amending the bill clearly the select committee has recommended that Whanganui with an “h” should be the legal record of this transfer of assets and I welcome that. I think that was a good response for the select committee to make and I commend it for making those amendments. 
This legislation takes us another step forward in the Treaty settlement process and it is a welcome step. Every time that we get to the end of the process in a Treaty settlement there is a celebration. We are in the middle stages of this settlement right now and I look forward to its proceeding without further ado and to our getting to the third reading of the bill in short order. Thank you.