Mahuta Nanaia: Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13746] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Listeners could be forgiven for getting slightly lost through the contribution of the previous speech from Paul Quinn. If there was ever an example of 10 minutes that said very little in relation to the bill at hand that was it. 
I will raise a number of comments with regard to the second reading of this Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. Members on both sides of the House gave due recognition to a process we have in New Zealand that is second to none—that is the Treaty settlement process. Yes it was begun by National but it was continued by Labour and now National is continuing it. Both sides of the House recognise that the Treaty settlement process and the reconciliation of historical injustices throughout this country from the time that colonisation took place are necessary moves towards becoming the type of country we want to become. I do not think any particular member on either side of the House could take the moral high ground on the necessity of our continuing down this track but let me commend former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and certainly the current Minister for recognising how important that process is. Iwi relish the opportunity to go into direct negotiation to stump up with their experts—historical experts legal experts technical experts—in front of Crown negotiators to put their issue on the table to work towards a settlement and then to get to the point of presenting legislation to the House so that the process can be continued which is where we are at. 
I think the direct negotiation process that has been embarked on particularly with the Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa has raised a number of interesting learning points for both sides. But the important thing—and this is the point I want to make to members of the House—is not how many settlements we get through in a year; it is whether people feel they have been treated fairly throughout the process. Often the process can be long and painstaking. With regard to this settlement the way in which the Government has addressed the overlapping claims in Whanganui can be commended. It provides a window of opportunity to the people of Whanganui and certainly to Ngati Apa. 
If that window of opportunity is that the ownership of Kaitoke Prison will be returned to Whanganui it is absolutely in line with some of the messages from members of that iwi that they see themselves in time getting into the management of prisons and I can well understand that. Given that one of the Ministers in the Maori Party is a promoter of that particular policy in light of this settlement it is easy to understand where the window of opportunity is and to understand the logic of their thinking. However it is one thing being an owner of a prison; it is another thing managing a prison. When one is managing a prison and policies like “three strikes and you’re out” being promoted by the Government which will see more prisons being built it does not add up. I suspect that there will be more issues regarding whether as a result of this settlement Whanganui iwi or Ngati Apa will on the one hand own prisons and on the other hand actually consider managing prisons under the current policy regime of this Government. I think there is more talk to be done there and I am sure that they will want the types of policies that would see fewer Maori in prison not more and would see fewer prisons being built not more. That is a really important point. 
There are some serious challenges for the Government in moving forward with Whanganui iwi. We know that the river is a key identifier of who the people of Whanganui are and they are eager to ensure that the resolution of their river claim can be reached within this term of Parliament. Labour members are too. We would like to see that happen. I see that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is nodding his head. He understands exactly what I am saying. A substantial number of the lands that can be returned to Whanganui reside in Department of Conservation ownership. It is a challenging issue for the Government and we are eager to see how the Government responds to the very serious and comprehensive nature of the interests that Whanganui have within their particular rohe. 
I will raise one other issue. Points were made in the first reading of this bill about the potential opportunity of iwi being handed back prisons. My issue is simply this: when iwi become landlords and the Crown becomes the tenant I hope that iwi are not treated as if they do not want to generate revenue from their lands for the betterment of their people—to return revenue to their people. When it comes to simple things like rental reviews of a prison which may over time see incremental increases I hope that Whanganui iwi will not be a punching bag for any future Government. Iwi need to take on board the commercial aspect of the types of assets that are being returned to them. They must manage them for the future long-term benefit of and the return of benefits to their tribal members. On past experience that has provided some points of tension from previous settlements. I would urge understanding from across this House because it is a contentious issue. 
Members of the Maori Affairs Committee rightly rectified references to “Wanganui” in the bill to include the “h”—“Whanganui” as I would say it—and I think that is really important. It cuts to the heart of what we are trying to achieve through Treaty settlements which is resolving historical injustices and recognising historical references. If there was any type of recognition that the Government could give leadership on for Whanganui iwi it would be to include the “h” in their name. I am glad that the Maori Affairs Committee rightly saw the opportunity to correct that. I just regret that the Government did not give stronger leadership on this particular issue because the correct naming of places is a really important aspect of Maori tribal cultural identity. If in such a small small manner leadership could have been given on that particular point I am sure it would have satisfied the many representations that had been put forward by people within Whanganui. 
I will not take up much more time but I endorse absolutely the contributions made by my colleagues in the Labour team who in the previous Government had some input into many aspects of Treaty settlements. I reiterate that we too see New Zealand’s Treaty settlement process—the opportunity to go into direct negotiation—as being second to none and that has been recognised in international fora in terms of working with indigenous peoples. I am absolutely confident that where there is an opportunity here the people of Whanganui will grasp it but it will present very serious challenges for the Government going forward towards a comprehensive settlement. It will also pose challenging questions within Whanganui iwi but that is their challenge; it is not ours. All we can say at this point is that the on-account settlement is a pragmatic and I think sensible way to deal with overlapping claims in this particular area. I look forward to the comprehensive settlement for Whanganui iwi. Kia ora.