Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Ā tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā e mihi atu ki a koe. Huri noa i Te Whare nei ka mihi ka mihi ka mihi.[And so thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you and greet commend and thank you all throughout this House.]It is indeed an honour as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee to be able to stand and speak to the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty Settlement Bill in the second reading. One of the amazing things with this particular role and being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and a member of this Parliament is that we see right across the House under the auspices of Treaty settlements an opportunity to engage with Māori—an opportunity to engage and to hear about the richness of the korowai of all our iwi across the country. This particular iwi is no exception.Ngāti Pūkenga's tūpuna their ancestors have a very very long and noble history particularly when we talk about Toroa who was the kaihautū or the captain of the Mātaatua waka. The whakapapa there the ancestry is very very very deep.The other part of this though when we look at Pūkenga himself—and I appreciate and acknowledge the excellent history lesson that we got about the relationship of Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāpuhi. But also when we look at the stories of Ngāti Pūkenga we see the incredible role that they played particularly in upholding two things. One was actually the Treaty of Waitangi and one was Kīngitanga. When we look at that this particular iwi's stories are of peacefulness and dependence on the rule of law. This is in some ways one of the hallmarks I think of the nobility and the incredible things that this iwi did even though at the end they were subjugated and it was a very very dark time in their history. But coming back to looking at the Ngāti Pūkenga bill I think an important thing is reflected in the fact that there was only one submission. There was only one submission which really showed the incredible work that was done to bring this about so that the iwi could actually continue that journey to where we want to take it—to the third reading and the Royal assent. The submission actually came from within Ngāti Pūkenga from in some ways within the negotiating team. It came from Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga and it is about the right of first refusal (RFR). I think we need to put it in a little bit of context as to the way that the Māori Affairs Committee took on board this one submission and the work the discussions and the korero that we had to get to a place that we believed was of fairness. In our report we did say that we would actually acknowledge where we believe there should be a change. Obviously we were highly supportive because Te Tāwharau raised the issue around the RFR.The question of the right of first refusal was a provision within the settlement and the submission was particularly around clause 103. In keeping with all the other settlements that contain the RFR provisions clause 103 provides for the landowner in this case the Crown to dispose of its land as a gift for charitable purposes without triggering the RFR provisions. There is no reason for a clause like this to exist. For example in some cases it is considered that the Crown should have the option of gifting land back to some person or organisation who actually gifted it in the first place. There also may be instances where the Crown wishes to gift the land to a charitable organisation that wishes to carry on the work that the Crown had been doing on that particular piece of land. It was all very very reasonable in other circumstances but in this case Te Tāwharau would feel aggrieved and we think quite rightly so—quite rightly so. This is one of the very very few properties under the RFR mechanism that they had included in their settlement through really complex negotiations with other iwi and with this it was disposed of by the Crown without their right of first refusal being triggered. So when we looked at this the view of the Māori Affairs Committee was that a charitable trust should not be preferred over the iwi. We did not think that there is any particularly good reason for this clause to have been included in the Ngāti Pūkenga settlement.However there were a number of other reasons why we did not recommend a changing of the provision. As I said previously we noted first of all that this particular clause is in every RFR provision in every settlement. But we also noted the clauses in the deed of settlement—getting here via the deed to amend which Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown had already agreed to. So that was a big thing—Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown had already agreed to do this so why would we want to recommend for them to change it? So that was that. We did not think it is the role of our select committee to amend the legislation in a case like this to create an inconsistency within the deed of settlement.I do think that this clause should actually be reviewed. This particular clause around the RFR should be reviewed as we have actually highlighted. I have highlighted it here and we highlighted it at the Māori Affairs Committee—and we actually recommended that in our report. We recommended that in our report.Ngāti Pūkenga has fought for many years to reach this point. The settlement is now within their sight. I really do want to acknowledge a lot of the work that has been done which has been reflected in speeches in the House here this morning the incredible work of the rakatira of Ngāti Pūkenga and also the incredible goodwill that has been shown here so that they can actually move forward. We have had speeches here in the House this morning acknowledging the fact that we do need to know the history and the stories behind it. I think that one thing has always been clear over the last few years that I have been here and particularly in the Māori Affairs Committee: for all of our people in a lot of ways it is not actually about the commercial redress; it is actually about the apology and a meaningful apology. That is what has been reflected here today in the speeches. This is what is being reflected to the utmost I believe in the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty settlement.So on that note I look forward—if we can get this bill through to the third reading before the House rises in August. So on that note I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.