Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Speaker. I've been listening carefully to the debate and found the contribution by the member who's just resumed his seat Tāmati Coffey the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee quite moving in his description of the desire of many involved and affected to move on and to be allowed to move on. I do want to acknowledge of course as others have already done that the process is not perfect. The outcome in the eyes of some will be somewhat less than perfect and we can acknowledge that in the context of the litigation that is now still ongoing. But I think the chair of the committee puts in very real and frankly helpful terms the desire that is heartfelt from the point of view of those who wish to have closure in the sense of this legislative process in order to be able to open a new chapter going forward.He's spoken a lot about the process from the point of view of the select committee. I didn't sit on that select committee so I've listened carefully to this debate so far as well as its first reading and been made aware of some of the discussions that have taken place. I know that we'll hear from other members of the select committee including my colleague and friend Harete Hipango in addition to having heard already from Joseph Mooney on our side of the House and I think it's really important.Sometimes process is almost as important as the substance of the outcome and I think it demonstrates a good-faith approach to lawmaking—in this case what is in many ways a negotiation of a commercial nature albeit that it is of course much much more than that. I think the good-faith basis that is reflected in the process is important because there will be some people who are ultimately dissatisfied with the outcome. In order for them to feel that their view wasn't disregarded albeit that it might ultimately not have prevailed—I think that's important for the cohesion of those on the ground for whom this will be a very real part of their family whānau iwi hapū and indeed the life of the area moving forward.Before I humbly offer a couple more reflections on those bigger themes before closing my contribution I do want to acknowledge what is in the settlement. We've heard a certain amount about what is not in the settlement—and that's appropriate because it's important for the sake of the record that the Minister first and then other contributors to the debate acknowledge the extent to which legislators have not been able to give effect to the desires of everyone involved or potentially involved in the process. But nevertheless it's worth acknowledging and dare I say it celebrating the things that have been able to be concluded by way of agreement.So without delving into the detail entirely I will say in the legislative statement put forward by the Hon Andrew Little we've seen reference to the deed of settlement that does rely on the legislation. That's the point of us being in this House Parliament—being outside the negotiations on the ground beyond the select committee and in the place where laws are made to give effect to what has been agreed. Of course the purpose is to finally and comprehensively settle all the remaining historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Kahungunu so that's an important matter. It almost goes without saying but I think the Crown's acknowledgment of the wrongdoing—indeed the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles regarding those people—is important not only because we get to dollars and cents at the end of the process but along the way the cultural redress obviously is part of that. I understand—and forgive me again speaking to process but I understand that the issuing of a couple of protocols by the responsible Minister will follow this process in order to give effect to that which has been decided.Geographic place names: I understand we'll allow some 30—three zero—geographic place names as listed in the relevant clause of the deed to be put forward and that will feel significant to some in that part of the world and good luck to them. I see as well actually interestingly right of first refusal over land defined as such within the Ngāti Kahungunu area of interest for a period of 170 years from settlement date. No doubt those involved will understand why that's a significant period of time.So having addressed at least to that high level of detail that which is in it's appropriate to acknowledge that which is not in. Specifically for those who have sought inclusion by way of litigation—and I understand it is before the Supreme Court even as we speak—we've heard from the Minister his reasoning that such a claim would be unlikely to succeed without a departure from what he has described as stare decisis or the doctrine of precedent. In other words it would be unprecedented quite literally for the action to succeed. And so while this House shouldn't lightly pass laws in the area that looks on paper as though it's very much similar to that being considered by a court of this land nevertheless I think we should take some comfort from the Minister and take him at his word that he's been advised and has made a judgment call that as much as it's ever possible to be certain about the outcome of litigation it's unlikely that that result would cut across the decision effectively being made by Parliament in a parallel process.All previous contributors to the debate have talked about the determination of whakapapa not being within the role of this Parliament. That's right. That's something that can neither be given nor taken away by us as parliamentarians; that is inherent to a people themselves. And so of course at the risk of stating the obvious we confine ourselves to understanding what can best be done to acknowledge the rift in the relationship but to do as much as possible at the same time to repair the relationship between Crown and those affected by the actions nearly two centuries ago.My final remarks would be along the lines that while it's sometimes sad to say we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and an aspect of that is the philosophy that the Minister has rightly outlined already in relation to Treaty settlements. Oftentimes large groupings are preferred because it advances the cause of settling claims as opposed to having unsettled claims uncertainty and a lack of access to resources quite frankly so a balance is needing to be struck. I should probably mention in passing as well as others have too the view that's been expressed that the claims by others who have ultimately found themselves outside the tent—and I should probably use that phrase gently. But the claim that has been made by those in that position could risk being viewed in a way as being disproportionate to other Treaty settlement claims that have been made and therefore there'd be a risk that we would be taken backwards and not forwards in the Treaty settlement process as a whole for New Zealand.So adopting the words of our colleague the Māori Affairs Committee chair for those who have found themselves between a rock and a hard place that can sometimes be an uncomfortable position but if there is to be closure then we hope that smoother paths will lie ahead that way. And so on this side of the House taking it all into account the National Party does continue to support this bill.