Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. E rau rangatira mā kia ora mai tātou. It's a pleasure to speak to this the second reading of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. I'm hoping today just to give a little bit of background and to also talk to some of the key items that the Māori Affairs Committee discussed and if we have time to also look at some of the items in the deed of settlement that are not covered in this bill.Heretaunga Tamatea is a large hapū of 15000 to 16000 people in the middle of the Hawke's Bay. As we heard from the previous speaker during the select committee there were several items of interest that consumed quite a bit of resource. One in particular a key part of the select committee deliberations was around Te Aute College and the issue of the Glasgow leases.To give the background to that if we just recall the Heretaunga Tamatea hapū gifted 7000 acres of land to the Crown for Te Aute College in 1853. The next significant step was in 1916 when the Te Aute Trust Board divided the land into 23 blocks which were placed under the Glasgow leases. Glasgow leases are also known as ground leases. At that time the leases were designed for long-term occupation and they were intended to provide the college with a source of income to support the college's operation.The Te Aute College lease arrangements have been prohibitive in allowing the college to earn a reasonable rate of return on the land. With Glasgow leases like this you often get that tension between the landlord and the tenant particularly in these forms of leases. Clearly you have the tenant who is looking for the lowest rent they would pay and you have the landlord who's looking for the highest. The issue is that Glasgow leases are valued on what's called the unimproved value of the land. Typically 5 to 7 percent of the unimproved value of the land is how the rent is set often in seven-year rent reviews but sometimes you have 21 years in perpetuity.Some of the challenge there and what has been contested all the way to the High Court is the definition of unimproved value of the land. There are some who would say the land will never be vacant will never be unimproved because by nature of the lease there will never be new structures on it per se. The problem there is that the value of unimproved land is substantial because developers can see an opportunity to develop on it. But in these particular cases in the Glasgow leases the lease prohibits that. I think the last time this was substantively traversed was Cornwall Park in the High Court in 2010.We can understand how Te Aute have got caught up in this dilemma of breaking up their land into blocks that they hoped would produce income for Te Aute but in fact it hasn't done that. This truly was a significant issue if not one of the key issues for this organisation. We know that because we can see in the departmental report that He Toa Takitini the mandated body for Heretaunga Tamatea informed the Office of Treaty Settlements that they did not consider that the settlement would be successfully ratified by Heretaunga Tamatea if it did not include redress in relation to Te Aute College. So very clearly this was a big deal for them and as we can see in the settlement $5 million was put aside for the sustainability of Te Aute College. So it's a very important part of the bill.I think the second item that received substantial time in the select committee was around Wai 401 Renata Kawepo Estate claim. The issue here was that Wai 401 included interest in Heretaunga Tamatea and the Taihape District. As the settlement was written it would have expunged all claims for Wai 401. All the parties agreed this wasn't appropriate or fair and so there were some amendments made to the bill so that the Wai 401 claimants could progress through the Taihape settlement process.The third item of substance from the select committee was raised around the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee (HBRPC). Basically they were concerns from Heretaunga Tamatea that some of the relationships and promises that they'd understood were to be developed with the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee had not actually eventuated. The iwi had actually raised concerns with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in 2016 but felt that no substantive discussions of a meaningful nature had continued from there. The regional planning committee was established outside the Heretaunga Tamatea settlement and so the feeling of the committee was there was no scope in this bill to address that particular issue.If I could just come back to the Glasgow leases. I think Minister Little also did talk to the fact that the bill was not thought to be the right place to deal with what are private ownership issues around the Glasgow leases—just to conclude that piece of thinking.I think it's also important to note those items that are not in the bill—those items that are in the deed of settlement but are not covered in the bill. Sometimes they can be substantive and all we see is what's in the bill and think that's a good settlement. We sometimes forget the other appendages that are included in the bill. I would like to comment on some of them.The key elements of the deed that do not appear in this bill include various commitments relating to developing the relationship between Heretaunga Tamatea and the Department of Conservation the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry for Primary Industries the Ministry for Culture and Heritage the Department of Internal Affairs Te Papa and the Ministry of Social Development.The Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust's right as a post-settlement governance entity under the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 is to provide for the governance entity's entitlement to appoint two members to the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee. So while there were discussions and unhappiness there was some resolution as to how to sort of resolve that and keep moving. Two members will be appointed to the HBRPC.The total financial and commercial settlement package to the value of $105 million—again not in the bill but as part of the deed of settlement—includes $5000 being the on-account payment paid on 23 July to the governance entities for their operations; $7.989 million for the value of the shares held in Kaweka Forestry Co. Ltd; $45000 being the on-account payment made on 10 March; and $5 million—I may have said $5000; I meant $5 million—was the gifting to Te Aute to maintain the sustainability of Te Aute and I just wanted to comment on that part also.This is a good bill. I think it has clear bipartisan support. There's some excellent work that's been done by the select committee on some quite challenging clauses in this bill. It's certainly with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.