Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I always enjoy Mr Jones' excellent contributions and his warning to my good friend the MP for Hunua I am sure will be taken on board. Of course Mr Bayly is an excellent member for Hunua unlike one of his predecessors Mr Peters who lost Hunua—and Andrew Bayly has a majority of about 20000—just as he lost Northland and also—what's the other one he lost? Hon Member: Tauranga. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Tauranga—a chronic loser. Mr Jones—I think he was praising me—said that I had the patience of Job but not the wisdom of Solomon. I would have preferred the wisdom of Solomon. Actually I don't know that Job was all that patient because if you read the Book of Job—as I'm sure Mr Jones does—at the end of the day Job starts moaning and bellyaching. Finally Yahweh tells him basically to man up. So I have to confess that when considering this bill I did not have the patience of Job or anyone else. In fact I got quite short-tempered. There were two reasons for that. The first issue and it's referred to in the report—and I'm not going to give one of those boilerplate formulaic speeches that the Greens specialise in; I will focus on the report—concerns overlapping claims because there have been quite a number of overlapping claims in this area as Mr Jones knows full well and they are very very tiresome. This one involved overlapping claims between Ngāti Wai and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Ngāti Wai came along—as they often do I regret to say—to say that they wanted to deal with these claims in accordance with a proper tikanga process before the bill is enacted." That's always shorthand for me to mean that nothing ever happens—because I've come across that phrase before—but the reality of the matter is that we do need to advance claims. There will be overlapping claims. Some of them are very very difficult indeed like the ones on the Chathams that Mr Little is dealing with at the moment but the Crown does have a very careful overlapping claims policy. It applied that policy in the negotiations that took place and I know that Sir John Clarke a great New Zealander was heavily involved in dealing with these overlapping claims but it is the obligation not only of the Crown—everyone always talks about the Crown's obligation but it's the obligation not only of the Crown but of the various iwi groups to engage on these matters and try and reach a conclusion which is satisfactory to both sides. I strongly support the policy of the Crown for dealing with overlapping claims but they simply do need to be dealt with. In fact this afternoon I've been reading an excellent draft paper by Amokura Kāwharu on arbitration of Treaty of Waitangi settlement disputes and she particularly identifies these kinds of overlapping claims which could be susceptible for arbitration. If you want to hear any more about her splendid speech then I suggest members may want to come to Queenstown on 20 April when she and I will be presenting on this topic and mine will be pretty good as well. The second issue I want to deal with is referred to in the report. It's the time frame between the deed signing and the bill introduction and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki had some particular views about this. But again it was totally out of the Crown's control because the legislation involving Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki was encompassed in the broader Hauraki legislation. What we needed to do when it became apparent that the overlapping claims in the southern part of Hauraki between Ngāti Ranginui and Ngāi Te Rangi were not going to be very quickly resolved was extract the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki claims from the legislation and deal with it separately. It was a very difficult exercise. Parliamentary counsel did a good job and that was done by the Crown as quickly as possible. But the other point—and it's referred to in the report—is that after the deed of settlement was signed and before this legislation was introduced there was an advance made to them to try and mitigate the problems associated with the lapse of time in introducing this legislation to the House. But it's not a delay and it is not the fault of the Crown. There have been difficult issues in the broader Hauraki region which Mr Little is dealing with now and that's why initially it was grouped together as part of the broader Hauraki legislation and now it stands on its own. So as Mr Jones correctly observed in this part of the world there are very complex overlapping historical claims and they are not easy to resolve. So they are the two matters that I wanted to refer to. The report is a very adequate report and I look forward to seeing this legislation advance to the third reading just as quickly as possible. With those few specific comments—as opposed to general waffly comments—I commend the bill to the House."