Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai tuarua o Te Whare e mihi atu ana ki a koe ā tēnei te mihi ki ngā uri o Kurahaupō waka ngā uri o Kupe o Whātonga nō reira nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. Mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa nunui nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and acknowledgments to you. Acknowledgments to you relatives of the Kurahaupō canoe and of Kupe and Whātonga. Therefore welcome; come hither to Parliament. Bring forth your teachings in regards to the proposal of huge significance. So congratulations and well done to you collectively. My appreciation to all of us.]I rise in support of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill's second reading. It is indeed my pleasure to be able to do this also as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā is a significant iwi hailing from the central North Island but despite being small in number the Rangitāne tribal rohe covers a huge area. For too many years as a result of the Crown's actions Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā went without recognition. In an early Crown consensus their identity was subsumed into other local iwi of the area despite claimants to the Native Land Court making claims on the basis of their Rangitāne identity. Even today it is believed that many Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā do not realise that they are descendants of the iwi. Despite being small in number Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā has the second-largest land area covered in a settlement behind only the vast areas covered by Kai Tahu. It is good to hear that there has been a recent resurgence actually in Rangitāne identity which I am sure can only be boosted by the passing of this bill.I want to turn to some of the things that we discussed in the select committee process of this particular bill particularly during the submission stages and the hīkoi or the journey to this second reading here today. One issue that was raised was the place of Te Hika o Pāpāuma which is recognised in the settlement as a hapū of Rangitāne. Te Hika o Pāpāuma submitted that they should be recognised separately as a large natural grouping for the purposes of settlement regulations. When looking at this situation though we saw there was actually a distinct identity separate from both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. The Crown prefers not to negotiate at individual hapū or whānau level preferring the large natural groupings but believed that to do so in this case would have actually been appropriate. This is something that the committee considered very very seriously. We have no desire to undermine the basis on which the Crown negotiates with large natural groupings. However we recognise that Te Hika o Pāpāuma does have a distinct identity within Rāngitane. Our conclusion was that the most appropriate way to recognise this distinct identity would be to attach an index to the deed of settlement that refers to instances where Te Hika o Pāpāuma is mentioned in the deed.We also had similar issues raised by the Wai 1950 claimants the hapū of Ehetere Kawemata Rautahi. This hapū affiliates to Rangiwhaka-ewa and is therefore included in the claimant definition of this settlement. Again we considered this issue very very seriously. We considered this issue very seriously. However in the end we had to conclude that because of the Wai 195 claimants which were recognised there as a hapū of Rangitāne it was appropriate that they be included in this final settlement.Moving on to the redress included in the deed of settlement we had submitters suggest that the redress including the Ngaumu Crown forest land and the former Lansdowne School should be reclassified from cultural redress to commercial redress. These submitters have a point which was made very very well. However I do not think it is the role of the Māori Affairs Committee to change the specifics of redress that have already been negotiated agreed and ultimately approved by the claimant community.We were also asked to give Rangitāne one further seat on the Pūkaha board where they currently hold one. This would ensure that Rangitāne's cultural footprint in Pūkaha / Mt Bruce would never be lost. This issue was not raised in the negotiations with the Crown prior to the bill's introduction and it is not something that would be appropriate for us to now insert at this stage. We did encourage Rangitāne to take this up with the Pūkaha board.I want to thank everyone here from Rangitāne who submitted to the select committee and also for the manaaki that was shown to our committee when we went for the kanohi ki te kanohi submissions hearings. I want to acknowledge that there was indeed a very very—we believe compared with a number of other Treaty settlements the manaaki that was shown reflected in some ways the kotahitaka that has taken place with Rangitāne in regard to this bill.It was an honour to be involved in the process and I look forward to speaking again on the remaining stages of this particular bill. I wish Rangitāne well and I assure you that we do have a very very succinct and direct process and that every settlement bill that comes before us has in some ways a lot of commonality with others but in some ways is quite different. On that note I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.