Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6428] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I have a few brief comments to make and I foreshadow that I will be moving a number of amendments to the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill by way of introducing a new Part 4. That part will introduce a number of transitional provisions to deal with the dissolution of the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority and changes consequent upon that including the transfer of assets and liabilities the position with taxes and duties the requirement that the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority prepare a final report and other miscellaneous matters such as registers the status of contracts and other instruments and matters that would not be affected by the transfer. 
It is perhaps important that I state briefly now why I am seeking to introduce those amendments. It seems to me that the Maori Affairs Committee has got it wrong on page 23 of the commentary on the bill. Mention of the transfer of the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority Board to Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga begins on page 22 and sets out the arguments as to why Ngati Mutunga wanted provisions to deal with the transfer of assets from the old board to the new governance arrangement. Page 23 of the commentary states: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” But that is not what is being proposed; in fact that statement is simply wrong because in July 2005 Ngati Mutunga ratified a new governance arrangement to succeed the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority. It was never seeking by legislation to establish the new tribal arrangement; it was seeking to do what has been done in numerous pieces of settlement legislation—to effect a transfer from the old body to the new body and to effect the dissolution of the old body. 
I am trying to make the point that the new entity Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga was established on 21 December 2005. The establishment of that entity followed a Crown-approved ratification process that involved Ngati Mutunga members over the age of 18. That structure was reviewed by the Crown prior to the ratification process and was accepted as a suitable structure to replace the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority and to receive settlement assets. 
In proposing these amendments I am seeking not to create a new entity but to recognise that there is this new entity that has been in existence for some months that it is the appropriate body to take part in the settlement and that the old body—the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority—could be appropriately dissolved. That is what I am seeking to do by proposing to insert a new Part 4. Although the proposed new Part 4 seems to have quite a few clauses in it when the discussion is reduced to simple terms that is what is happening and it is not different from the procedures that were adopted by this Committee in the Committee stage of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. If members look at Subpart 2 of Part 4 of that bill which deals with various miscellaneous provisions they will see that the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board was dissolved and that all assets and liabilities were transferred to the new body. That process is no different from what happened with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu in the 1996 Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act. 
They are a simple set of amendments that reflect what Ngati Mutunga wants and I hope members of the Committee will reflect on them. It is not a question of playing party political games but of trying to achieve for Ngati Mutunga a settlement that is appropriate and durable and of making sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. I particularly refer Minister Burton to the report of the Maori Affairs Committee because it seems to me that a mistake has been made in the report back. I am not seeking to do anything other than what happened in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill.