Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 23 September 2008 
( 
continued on Wednesday 24 September 2008 
) 
Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker informs me that I have 1 minute and 30 seconds remaining to speak on the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I note that I started speaking last night at 9.52 p.m. so strictly speaking I should have 2 minutes but I will not quibble with the Chair because that would be inappropriate. 
All I want to do in closing is address the question of public access. It has been comprehensively dealt with in the bill. It is not an issue between the parties. The deed of settlement requires the Crown to grant public access easements over the forests prior to the settlement date and we can deal with that issue in the Committee stage. Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the issue and they are substantially the same as the clauses that the Committee of the whole House debated last night in the context of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill; I refer to Supplementary Order Paper 250 which brought into that bill clauses 130A and 130B. The intent is the same even if there are minor differences in wording. 
With those closing comments I believe that all the issues have been considered and that there is no impediment to the bill proceeding through all its stages as quickly as possible. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I naturally stand in support of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I intend to take only a very short call. I listened very carefully to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s second reading speech in the House last night and I am pretty confident that he covered all the technical aspects of the bill and also highlighted some of the important issues around the process that was undertaken by the Central North Island Iwi Collective. 
If I have any comment at all to contribute to this discussion it is about the process. It is important to acknowledge the leadership of the iwi collective leadership by Te Ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu and also the efforts of his executive team and all those tribal leaders who made a contribution to the process and also to the manner in which the allocation of interests to all iwi concerned will be undertaken. 
It is also important to comment about the effect that this particular process has had nationwide where there are collective interests involving a number of iwi over a number of areas and relating to specific claims. It seems that a forum for the representation of common interests is very very popular. I have met with a number of iwi around the country since the central North Island agreement was signed who wish to look at a similar process so that they themselves can resolve issues that they all share as iwi. For example the Muriwhenua forum will look at a number of areas including Te Oneroa-a-Tohe Landcorp farms forests rivers and mountains. They themselves will decide how individual iwi interests will be represented and also how those interests will be distributed. Interestingly enough I met with iwi from Wharekauri—Moriori and Ngati Mutunga—who are also looking at a similar process. I am sure that over the next few months we will see similar arrangements being implemented around the country. 
The way in which the central North Island settlement was reached has gathered a lot of momentum and a lot of support. It is important to congratulate all those who have been involved in the central North Island settlement to date and to thank them for the contributions they have made. I thank my colleagues Dr Cullen and the Minister of Maori Affairs for the great work they did and I acknowledge the independent facilitator Wira Gardiner who conducted the whole operation like a military exercise. I do not mean he shot prisoners; I mean he made everyone stand to attention—but I was getting worried sometimes! [ 
Interruption 
] And Matt Te Pou; there are so many whom I could mention but if I go through them individually I am bound to offend by leaving somebody out. 
I also acknowledge the contribution to this debate by Chris Finlayson. I was not sure whether he was talking about the bill or auditioning for a job as Crown prosecutor but I thank him for his contribution. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to take a call on the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. This bill came to the Maori Affairs Committee at the same time as the bill we dealt with last night the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill and the select committee travelled to the central North Island to hear submissions on the bills at the same time. I think it is a tribute to the significance of this bill and its ground-breaking approach that there was a very very good attendance of the interests represented by this bill as for there was for the Te Arawa bill as well and that there was generally widespread support for it. So it is very good to be here this morning to see the return of the bill to the House and to anticipate its passing into law later this week.  
This is an important bill as has already been referred to. It is important to remind ourselves that it addresses only claims as far as licensed Crown forest land is concerned and that there will be future negotiations over various packages for each of the iwi in the collective. I was interested to hear the honourable member who spoke previously the Hon Mita Ririnui talking about how this bill and the approach in it appear to have acted as a springboard for other settlements across the motu in terms of the way it is possible for various iwi and various interests to come together in a settlement when there are interests in common. That obviously makes sense if having to wait to deal with them individually would not result in a better settlement and would also result in a further time delay. I look forward to the Hon Mita Ririnui outlining several other areas where the Government has been engaging with iwi over the last wee while since the central North Island settlement and to seeing some of those settlements come down the line as well. I am very interested also to see that progress appears to be being made in terms of settlements in Tai Tokerau.  
I would just flag a slight anxiety of the Opposition members that there appears to have been a rush to settle these claims. That is not to take away from the importance of doing so or to take away from the fact that the iwi involved have been willing to engage in the process in this last 12 months. After all they are not witless either. They know when they are ready to settle and if they see a readiness on the other side which they obviously did then they have been willing to move to the table. It bodes well for the future and that is good considering that there had seemed to be a bit of going to sleep on the job in the previous 8 years of this Labour Government.  
In any event we had very good gatherings at the select committee. I will refer briefly to one or two issues. The mandate issues that arise in all settlements certainly were not absent from the select committee hearings on this bill. Several submitters opposed the bill on the basis that the collective had no mandate to represent them and that the inclusion of their claims in the bill was of prejudice to them because it removed their ability to pursue their claims through other avenues such as the Waitangi Tribunal or the courts. Issues of mandate were raised in relation to Ngati Manawa Ngati Hikairo Ngati Whaoa Ngati Tahu and Ngati Rangitihi. The submissions from all of them were well put to the committee. They were certainly aired and given a good hearing.  
But in the end what is unique here—and we have acknowledged this already—is that the Government has basically seen fit to let the iwi sort through issues that are internal to them. This has been unlike previous matters where the Government has tended to go where it should not tread. It appears that in the end one has to accept certain mandates because there seems to be a majority there and because various interests have been mandated for other purposes. That does not mean to say that those who feel aggrieved ought to be ignored. Hopefully the collective in time will find a way to bring those parties into this settlement as well. I understand that in the case of Ngati Hikairo since the select committee went to Taupo there may have been some progress on their issues in relation to the Taurewa Forest. If so that is good.  
I would again urge the tribes within the collective to take that issue seriously—I am not suggesting that they have not—and I hope that when this bill passes into law they will take all possible steps to bring those interests into the settlement. This is a big settlement; it is a settlement that will provide a very potent springboard for the tribes of the central North Island. It is a very sensible one in the commercial sense because it keeps the forest estate under one entity. That makes sense undoubtedly. It also makes sense that everyone who is entitled to benefit from this settlement does so in the future.  
The other matter that I would like to refer to is the allocation model and the tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. I raised this issue in my first reading speech. We were interested as a select committee to explore the issues involved with submitters. The proposed allocation for the commercial benefits in schedule 3 of the bill appears to be problematic for some iwi but again the collective itself proposed that to the Government. The tikanga-based allocation model or resolution process for the allocation of land interests of course is still to come. It is still before us. There are some anxieties about that as well. It interests me again that the iwi have proposed that to the Crown. It is good that the Crown accepted that given the experience we had over the fisheries model—although it has been laid to rest some time ago and we have seen the allocation of fisheries to iwi over the last 2 or 3 years.  
This model tries a new approach which leads us to the iwi themselves. After all they are the ones who know best or who ought to know best who has mana whenua in the various areas covering the Kaingaroa Forest. So that does seem to be a sensible place to start. The Opposition will be watching with interest and should we make it into Government we will certainly be monitoring and supporting the process. As I say it makes sense to leave those internal matters to the collective itself but it does require great leadership. Maybe it requires the various individual entities to put to one side their own interests in an attempt to make sure that the collective remains strong and united and to realise that everything is possible if one continues with dialogue and korero. Anything is possible if one does that. So we look forward to seeing how that model works and obviously if it is being followed elsewhere then maybe that is the way that other tribes will be able to see their way forward too. Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. The Maori Affairs Committee heard submissions on this bill and I was a member of the committee. This will be one of the few times I give some self-praise because I think the way in which the committee handled the various views on this bill would have given all the submitters a sense of satisfaction that they had received a fair hearing. 
One of the observations I made during that whole process however was that I was mindful of the oft-stated phrase used to advertise State of Origin rugby league matches in Australia: “state against state mate against mate”. Well in the case of this bill—and I am not wanting to be derisive about the whole process—the sad part for me during the hearing process was to see whanau against whanau elder brother or elder sister against younger brother or younger sister. Although I sympathise with the views of both parties I think when we have settlements affecting land and in particular mana whenua then certainly we will see more of that kind of division. That is the challenge that awaits the leadership involved in this settlement. 
Having said that I acknowledge the real leadership that was exercised by those who represented their respective iwi at the negotiating table. I think some of the decisions they made showed true leadership. One of those decisions was a preparedness to give up a percentage of what was already agreed to to allow another iwi to have a bigger slice of the cake so to speak. I want to acknowledge that sort of leadership. 
There are a number of issues that are worth making mention of and in particular the issue of mana whenua. Although this bill is essentially in the first instance about the allocation of rental funds held by the Crown Forestry Rental Forestry Trust the fear of many of those who had some resistance to the bill was that it might set a benchmark in terms of the exercise of mana whenua. As I say that will be a real challenge for those involved. I will give members an example. Part of this settlement is known as the Taurewa Forest. One hapu made private submissions to me to say that in their view and not only in their view but also by virtue of their tikanga they felt that that part of the settlement should be allocated to them. That is an issue that will have to be dealt with by the leadership. 
The other point I will make with regard to the issue of mana whenua is that we received several submissions both written and in person from a particular submitter all emphasising the fact that in terms of history and his tribe’s tikanga his particular tribe owned a majority of the land that this settlement is about. His real fear was that if this bill was to go through in its present form then the percentages that were used for the allocation of Crown Forestry Rental Trust funds and future rentals would determine how the land would eventually be distributed amongst the claimants. His concern was such that he has an application with the Maori Land Court and I understand that he wanted an urgent hearing with the Waitangi Tribunal. But at the end of the day we have to take into consideration the fact that the negotiators who may not have had a 100 percent mandate but certainly had a majority mandate have made the decision. They have made the decision on behalf of their iwi. Who are we to amend that decision? Any amendment would take the whole process back to square one and we all know that for this particular settlement the negotiators have had to travel a very long and rocky path to get to the point where we are at the moment. 
I will also make reference to Ngati Rangitihi who were at the table very early in the piece but as part of the mandate process quite clearly did not have the support of their people to accept the settlement. Whatever the argument might be as to why they did not get their support I think it is to the credit of those who have negotiated this settlement that they have allowed an opportunity for Ngati Rangitihi to get the required mandate. I understand that postal voting closes on 6 October—I am not quite sure about the date but it is very soon. Those people have until Christmas Eve 2008 to indicate whether they have the required support and I think it is to the credit of the negotiators of this settlement that they have allowed that to happen. 
Suffice it to say New Zealand First supports the second reading of this bill. Kia ora. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. It has been interesting to hear the contributions so far about the complexities of the process about the submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee and about how to resolve the unresolved issues. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e hoa ma i tenei ata. The date 25 June 2008 was a unique moment in parliamentary history. The downside for me was that I was not here. I was in fact away at a tangi. I arrived back in the House to take a call in ACT’s slot following on from my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples. But one could not help but feel though that something significant had happened on that day. I am of course referring to the first reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. 
As the member of Parliament for Waiariki I was very disappointed that I was not here to witness a piece of history. Engari e kore e taea te karo i te karanga a-mate. One cannot escape the call of those who have passed on. The taxi driver commented on the migration of Maori here as we headed from the airport back to Parliament. He talked about and the people talked about kuia and koroua whanau children babies in arms all having been drawn to this place to be a part of history in the making and about seeing that everywhere one turned there were Maori. When I finally got into the House the public galleries that were crowded earlier in the day had thinned out as people had moved off for kai and to celebrate the event.  
The Maori Party acknowledges that day. We acknowledge those who made it happen te ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu the iwi negotiators Matiu Te Pou the Ministers and Dr Cullen in particular and Wira Gardiner on the pursuit of kotahitanga as the underlying principle the focus of unity. As I did during the first reading debate I give credit where credit is due and I acknowledge as I say Dr Michael Cullen for leading a new approach that sees us considering a heap of settlements prior to the closing-off of Parliament.  
The Maori Affairs Committee report describes the complexity that is associated with the mandate issues of iwi within the collective but clearly the approach taken to achieve kotahitanga within ourselves has been achieved for the most part. We certainly heard in the select committee as other speakers have spoken about from those who had issues but considering the task Matiu Te Pou and Wira Gardiner must take a great deal of credit for the result. This would never have been a straightforward procedure.  
The iwi making up the collective as we have heard are Ngai Tuhoe Ngati Manawa Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Whakaue Ngati Whare Raukawa and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu that are all detailed in the bill. There is space there for Ngati Rangitihi and I am hopeful of hearing in the Committee stage about the progress of the meeting that was held over the weekend. I have not been able to catch up on the detail of that. I am sure that the Minister will help us out on this occasion. The collective is a significant grouping of iwi.  
Having followed this process from the start it was pleasing to me to see the move away from caution like that shown at the hui held at Waitetoko last year through to kotahitanga to unity. I am clear in myself that getting to consensus views would not have been reached without fierce and robust debate in that sort of forum—and so it should be. There is much at stake here so all of the lead-in should be given the utmost scrutiny.  
Amongst all of this is Ngati Whaoa who for all intents and purposes may be classed as a small player. I spoke about this matter in relation to the Te Arawa affiliates bill. The desire on the part of Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa to uncouple itself from Ngati Tahu is clear and I have statements from Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa to confirm that. I will raise that issue again in the Committee stage but it is a major issue. Why? Because Ngati Whaoa has not insignificant interests in the central North Island forests under mana whenua. It is a small iwi with significant interests but its place in the scheme of things will be gone lost in fact by way of its being firstly coupled with Ngati Tahu then secondly wrapped into the Te Arawa affiliates. I will continue to do the best I can to represent the interests of Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa which has asked me to take up its concerns.  
We know that this settlement like every settlement carries with it the legacy of generations that have gone before. The central North Island settlement is no different from others; people have passed on but have left behind matters that can be addressed only within and between the hapu and iwi who form this collective. I remain hopeful that matters of concern will be sorted out internally for it is clear that damage done between and among whanau hapu and iwi will be long lasting and talked about on our marae for years to come. Mr Pita Paraone spoke about that in his speech.  
As we now know mandate concerns were raised to do with Ngati Manawa Ngati Hikairo and Ngati Rangitihi and as I say Ngati Whaoa and Ngati Tahu. There were accusations of people feeling they were not receiving basic information suggestions that there were inconsistencies around all of those who could say they spoke for the tribe and reports of people being shut down at hui. Although I and other members at the select committee may have concerns about some of the accusations it is significant that the Crown believes that those interests are best dealt with by those iwi and hapu themselves. I have to say I concur with that view. Iwi must hold their own to account and deal with issues internally. I must add to be clear that I mean this should apply when the disagreement is intra-iwi. Where there is inter-iwi disagreement and a settlement is at stake I say the new model of rangatira ki te rangatira with experienced facilitators can work and would save a heap of stress at the business end. It is important that resolution is achieved if it results in long-term gains for the people.  
Today we acknowledge the significance of the $400 million - plus settlement as providing a foundation for the future of the people of Te Waiariki. Much has been made of the return of 176000 hectares of land which will make Maori the largest forestry operator in the country. Much has been made also of the collective ownership the large natural grouping that brings together the seven iwi representing over 100000 Maori. We know too that the settlement will make those iwi amongst the largest investors in Aotearoa. Those are all significant features of the settlement but we cannot lose sight of the injustice that is part and parcel of every settlement process which is that at its core compensation is only ever a fraction of the losses experienced.  
The Maori Party will not be quiet about the ongoing anomalies that must be responded to in the broader context of settlement policy. We will continue to raise the issues around cross-claims and time frames and around decisions being made in haste. But today is a day to recognise the precedent established by this bill. This settlement is innovative in the way in which it is iwi driven and tikanga based. The tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process set out in schedule 2 of the bill is a really interesting concept which we welcome as the initiative of the iwi involved. The concept involved three different criteria in the consideration of mana whenua ahi ka roa ahi tahutahu and ahi mataotao in three different tiers: negotiation mediation and adjudication. This provides an innovative model for other iwi to examine.  
The matter of the splits of rental moneys to iwi versus mana whenua is at the heart of concerns by submitters but I will talk about that at the Committee stage. Ngati Manawa for example has significant mana whenua interests over the land yet it gets only 6 percent of the rentals. An explanation of that would be appreciated. It is of note too that the Waitangi Tribunal in its report on the Native Land Court’s investigation of Kaingaroa No. 1 suggested a fluid overlapping and complex layering of interests. It may well be that the process that the central North Island negotiators and iwi have come up with satisfactorily addresses that point although the proof will be in the pudding.  
Perhaps a mark of how people have viewed this settlement has been the lack of strong and coordinated public opposition to it. Although issues have been raised it would be fair to say that the unique process the collective has followed has received a positive response. In fact only a week after the signing three northern leaders drew out comparisons for arrangements that might work say for Ngapuhi Ngati Hine and Ngati Whatua. Raniera Tau Erima Henare and the Maori Party list member Naida Glavish have sent a call to their respective iwi organisations to explore the potential of the central North Island process for advancing their own collective plans.  
At the other end of the country Te Wai Pounamu Ngai Tahu has also been watching on in terms of how this settlement will impact on its potential relativity top-up as it relates to the billion-dollar cap. In June my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples asked the Minister of Finance about the implications of this bill for the ratchet clause relativity mechanism. His response was that the point at which such a mechanism would apply could be expected to occur probably within the next 2 to 3 years in terms of reaching the point expressed in 1994 dollar terms. But as Otakou runanga chairman Tahu Potiki pointed out “there is definitely some subjectivity with the whole thing.” There are so many eyes on the central North Island watching the progression of this settlement and contemplating what it will mean. There is every opportunity for the economic development of the iwi involved in the settlement to prosper and every opportunity to increase the original investment and to generate greater value and higher returns.  
And so we come to the culmination of over two decades of energetic and inspired negotiation to bring this claim to a conclusion—or at least tomorrow it will be concluded. This bill represents a great deal of work since the passage of the Crown Forest Assets Act in 1989. The central North Island forest estate is an area not just of economic value but of huge cultural significance as well. The generosity of iwi in agreeing to preserve and enhance existing public access is an incredible statement from the iwi to the nation. We in this House must always remember that gift. The Maori Party will support this bill at its second reading. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I start by congratulating first the claimants themselves then the Government and then our little Maori Affairs Committee on a job reasonably well done. I will take a couple of minutes to talk specifically about what I think comes out of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I will not talk specifically about what is in it because I think although much is made of the allocation model the tikanga-based resolution process and although it sounds really good in a fantasy world there are still people outside of that even though we have a tikanga-based resolution process who think the deal is not up to scratch. I suppose it tells us that no matter what system we have there will always be somebody outside the process who might think the deal is not right.  
One of the more interesting facts I found out about this bill during the select process was the result of a question I asked one of the submitters. It was about mana whenua it was about property rights—it went down that avenue. I asked that person who will remain anonymous about the land shares that that person and that person’s family had had for years and years. The answer to the question was that they had gone back even further to communal ownership. I thought OK I can cop that. I accept that that is a line of thinking that goes pretty well with the settlement. But I got to thinking about who compensates the person who had the individual shares. At the establishment of the Native Land Court communally owned land was individualised but now that we are going back to a point in time before the individualisation of land who compensates those people who have just been left out vis-à-vis the individual shareholders in the land? So whatever we do out of this we will create I think another set of grievances more than with any other settlement I have seen.  
I am not saying this is a bad settlement and a bad bill. I am saying that out of this we have created most probably if people are clued up—and I am sure they are—a situation where in 5 or 10 years’ time they will trot back in and say they have been hard-done-by and can we please sort it out because we were the ones who made the grievance and gave them the ammunition to have a go at us. National will support this bill going through and I just wanted to raise that issue because I do think it is a huge issue. 
I will read out a little paragraph on the select committee’s report on the bill: “Ten submitters implicitly or explicitly disputed the mandate of Te Runanga o Ngati Manawa to agree to the inclusion of their claims in the settlement bill. The key concern underpinning all these submissions was that Ngati Manawa should have done better out of the settlement given their strong mana whenua interests in the Kaingaroa. Some of the submitters also asserted that Ngati Moewhare … had been excluded from the settlement negotiations or that Ngati Manawa representatives had not had a significant role in” the central North Island negotiations. 
I want to bring something up at this stage and you can rule me out of order if you want to Madam Assistant Speaker. This process raises the issue when we are dealing with Treaty negotiations and Treaty settlements in the House that it does not matter how many submitters the select committee gets and it does not matter how many are opposed and in favour of the settlement the select committee has no jurisdiction to change the settlement. In fact the House itself does not have any jurisdiction whatsoever to change the settlement. So with all due respect to the mana of the House this process is a bit of a farce. It is a bit of a farce in terms of when we expect the community to come to us and say: “Excuse me these are my feelings on this legislation.” But we cannot change it so what is the point? Is the point itself just giving the community the opportunity to say hello and air its grievances and to then go away and nothing happens? I think that is a Clayton’s way of dealing with issues.  
It might make them feel nice that they fronted up to the select committee and had their say but nothing comes of it. I was not astounded but gobsmacked that there was a Speaker’s ruling on this matter that pertained even to an amendment to Treaty legislation. I can certainly understand why. I am not quibbling and arguing against it; I am just pointing out the fact that when we are dealing with these issues it seems a bit on the nose that we call for submissions that we spend money going up the line and hiring out a hall at the hotel and that we call hundreds of people together so that parliamentarians can listen to their submissions only to find out that we cannot do anything about it. 
I just wanted to raise that issue. Maybe in the future a select committee or even the House can look at this issue in a bipartisan manner. How do we deal with the issue of submitters coming to the House and asking us to change something because of the way they feel about it? Instead of saying no maybe in the future there will be some way of saying that we will look at it and see whether we can change it. That is one of the main points I want to make in respect of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.  
The last point is that I think the people who have worked on this bill have come up with a way of dealing with issues that is particular and peculiar to them. So I commend those who have been involved; there are too many to name. I think this is a watershed time in terms of Treaty settlements and hopefully some other people can look at how the process has been achieved and at the road we have gone down so they can follow the lead of those involved in the bill. But we will not hold up the show too much longer. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Preamble  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 There is a certain air of unreality in going straight from a second reading to debating the preamble and there is a danger that in this air of unreality there will be unnecessary repetition. Of course the Committee does not want to hear unnecessary repetition from me. I must confess that my primary interest in the bill and the area I want to speak on is schedule 2 which is the tikanga-based resolution process for the allocation of land so I will be reasonably brief in speaking about the preamble. 
I simply say that I am particularly interested in recital (4) which talks about the way in which the allocation is to occur. It refers to the terms of the deed of trust. As we heard last night from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations almost 86.5 percent of the beneficial interest in the forests is to be held for the collective “and the individual beneficial entitlement of each member of that Collective is to be determined by reference to the allocation process that has been agreed amongst those members and is set out in this Act.” That is a reference first to schedule 3 which sets out the percentages for allocation of rental proceeds. I must say that I think those percentages have been prepared to an admirable level. For example Tuhoe are entitled to 27.2987 percent of the total and how that was worked out I do not know. 
More particularly I will focus on schedule 2 which deals with the way in which the allocation process is to occur. As we can see from that schedule which I will look at in far greater detail when we get to it there are essentially three stages. I am particularly interested in stage 3 and the effect of that type of adjudication process on the ability of courts to interfere in any decision that may be reached. 
The preamble is a quite straightforward part of the bill. It sets out the background and it sets out that the Crown and the collective agreed to negotiate in good faith have established a framework and have established the percentages and a means by which each individual member of the collective is to be allocated a particular portion. I think that is all I need to say about the preamble; we must move on and get to the real heart of the bill. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 My colleague Chris Finlayson is right of course: the preamble is reasonably straightforward. It is important for the fact that it lays the groundwork for the rest of the bill and sets out that “(1) The historical CNI forests land claims … are based on historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown and the desire of [the iwi involved] to secure the return of that land”—basically the land lying beneath the Kaingaroa Forest—“and to achieve an enduring settlement of those claims:”. 
The iwi of the Central North Island Iwi Collective comprise over 100000 individuals and they have interests that span a major proportion of the central North Island. This settlement relates to 175000 hectares of central North Island forest land and has its genesis in that land and in the contention that has surrounded it for the last 20-odd years. Interestingly the Crown Forest Assets Act was passed in 1989 so that is a long time for something to be done about this matter. I remember that Richard Prebble sat on the Maori Affairs Committee during his last term in Parliament. He was one of the main movers behind the Crown Forest Assets Act and he shared with Maori Affairs Committee members at the time that the issues surrounding the sale of Crown forests in terms of Maori interests—that is the land—were meant to be settled within about 3 or 4 years. Here we are now in 2008 and next year it will be 20 years exactly since that Act was passed. 
It is important to remind ourselves of the Act that was passed then because it sits behind the bill and its opening statements. Basically Maori took an action to the courts and as a result of hard-fought and successful litigation on their part that Act was brought in. A big part of it protected Maori interests in the land that is now part of this settlement—but not substantially because the land interests still have to be dealt with and some of us have referred to that in our second reading speeches. This bill deals with the commercial side of the settlement; as for the land issues in terms of allocation to the various iwi interests that exercise is still to occur. The rentals from the licences were set aside upon the passing of the 1989 legislation until the claims over the forests could be resolved. As I have already said that has taken longer than anyone had ever dreamt possible. I guess we have to wonder about the development costs to Maori in terms of lost opportunities over the years but I am very pleased that we are here today discussing the bill and the settlement. 
Recital (2) of the preamble sets out that the two parties the Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective agreed to negotiate in good faith. That has been referred to in previous speeches as well. When a settlement of this type comes together in the way that this one has with a long gestation we may ask whether that says something about the slowness of the Crown or about the various iwi interests not seeing a way to work together. Fortunately those things have been worked through. 
I think the preamble is fairly clear. It sets out what comes later and we will refer to some of the issues that are raised behind the preamble as the Committee debate progresses.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena no tatou. I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui even though we are just starting to hook into the debate and they are really just for clarification. 
I note that the preamble refers to 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest which I suppose implies that Ngati Rangitihi who were a part of the collective come under the 13.6 percent of the beneficial interest that has been tagged for remaining beneficiaries. I want to check with the Minister whether that is the case even though Ngati Rangitihi are not named. I know that this issue crosses over into Part 1 and into the schedules as well in terms of named iwi but I want to check on the issues around Ngati Rangitihi and where their part might be in terms of that matter. 
Could the Minister also give us some information about whether any progress was made at the mandate hui held over the weekend? Although I have not had submissions from Ngati Rangitihi or any of the factions I want to ensure that we can say that Ngati Rangitihi’s interests have been protected and I want to know whether there are any implications—I think I know what those implications are anyway—if they do not meet the 24 December deadline. Perhaps the Minister could give us some outlines around that matter. 
My main interest in the preamble is recital (4)—namely the 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest etc. I seek clarification specifically about the Ngati Rangitihi issue. I ask the Minister to take a call and give us some feedback. Thank you. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 For the benefit of the member Te Ururoa Flavell I will be very specific in terms of his queries about the preamble to the bill. If the member looks at recital (4) very carefully he will see that it is quite specific about the interests of Ngati Rangitihi. He asked a question about the progress being made in resolving the issue of a mandate within Ngati Rangitihi. I think it is too early to make any comment about that particular issue. It is an internal matter. There is a closing date for resolving the matter but it is quite some time away yet. I think we should allow Ngati Rangitihi the opportunity to resolve their internal matters and then come back to us and declare their position. Prior to that I certainly do not intend to speculate. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I am sorry to labour the point but the key issue in the discussions at the Maori Affairs Committee and indeed in the submissions made to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was that Ngati Rangitihi was originally included in the bill. We know that there are mandate issues—that is not argued. I thank the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui for at least saying that they are ongoing. All that I want to know is whether it is clear that Ngati Rangitihi’s interests which are not now specifically covered in this bill have therefore moved to the other slot. That is all I need to know. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The preamble of the bill does not specifically mention the interests of Ngati Rangitihi in terms of the period for which the remaining beneficial interest will be held but the member can take it as read that it is referring to Ngati Rangitihi. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to the preamble be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Preamble as amended agreed to. 
Part 1Preliminary provisions  
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2Provisions relating to transfers of assets allocation principles Crown agreed proportion and DSP properties  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The debate on this part includes clauses 6 to 29 and schedules 1 2 and 3. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am pleased that we will be debating schedule 2 because it would make no sense to debate Subpart 2 of Part 2 without looking at schedule 2. 
Part 2 deals with provisions relating to the transfer of assets and to the all-important allocation principles. In my second reading speech I dealt with issues relating to public access. They are contained in clauses 10 and 11. They are in substantially the same form as the clauses contained in the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill which we debated yesterday. I have no problem with any of that. 
I come to Subpart 2 and particularly to clause 14 which is a very important clause. It sets out that “The iwi of the CNI Iwi Collective may in accordance with the resolution process set out in Schedule 2 agree among themselves as to which specific area or areas of the CNI forests land is or are to be transferred to the iwi of the Collective.” When one looks at schedule 2 one sees that a very comprehensive resolution process is set out. The first stage is for the parties to identify their mana whenua interests and this aspect is to be concluded by 1 October 2009. If there is a need for negotiation one moves to the second stage which will continue through to 30 June 2010—a very tight timetable and I will say something about that a little later. The third stage will be to finalise the allocation agreement which hopefully will be concluded by 30 June 2011. 
There are two parts to the third stage. The first part is to go down the mediation route. The provisions relating to mediation are very sensible as to both whom the mediators are to be and the way in which they are to decide the matter. But if the matter has to go to adjudication then the company has to appoint an adjudication panel. National members have no problem with the qualifications of the adjudication panel but the way in which the panel is to reach its conclusions perhaps needs a little discussion. 
Let me say at once as one who was involved in the fisheries allocation issue for many years that this provision is an admirable attempt to speed up resolution of any issues relating to allocation. Mr Shane Jones of course is the master of these things because he was on the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission for many years—in the latter stages as chair. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It doesn’t make him a master. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It probably does not make him a master; I apologise to my colleagues for that unnecessary and undue praise. Members will recall that the 1992 Act was passed consequent upon the parties signing a deed of settlement and the idea was that the commission was going to determine the allocation of quota. Almost immediately litigation started. It started first in relation to the lease round. Of course the final allocation work had not been done so the quota had to be leased. It seemed that every decision of the commission was subjected to judicial review. Then in 1996 the people of Muriwhenua commenced a claim against the commission and that raised a huge number of issues. As I said last night the claim went to the Privy Council on at least three occasions that I can recall. Finally a couple of years ago the Government passed legislation to give effect to an allocation model that had been finally worked out by the commission but it was long it was tortuous it involved a huge number of proceedings the legal expenses incurred were horrific and the delay that occurred was most unacceptable. 
That is why I think this model is an excellent attempt to speed up allocation issues. I have just a couple questions about the effectiveness of it. I agree that as clause 6(13) of schedule 2 states the adjudication panel appointed must have “complete discretion to determine the process and the timetable”. I also agree that it is desirable that lawyers not appear before the adjudication panel unless all the parties agree. That may seem to be a startling statement but one must bear in mind that we are dealing with allocation on the basis of mana whenua and one would hope that lawyers would not get in on the act and because of legalism unnecessarily complicate things. 
Another issue which is extremely important and which we need to make sure we are very clear about it arises from clause 6(15) of schedule 2 which states: “The decision of the adjudication panel will be final and binding on all the parties.” I want the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui to comment on whether the Government intends that that will have the effect of ousting judicial review proceedings because time and time again those sorts of clauses give rise to issues before the court. Let me give members an example from a judgment of Justice Temm in September 1993. A challenge was made in relation to payments made under the New Zealand Steel pension fund. Clause 18 of the trust deed set out as follows: “If any question shall arise as to the interpretation of these presents or the rights or obligations of any member or other person hereunder or as to any other matter touching or concerning these presents such questions shall be decided by the trustees whose decision shall be final and conclusive.” Members will note that those terms are similar to those contained in clause 6(15). The High Court said that that form of clause is commonly found in such deeds but it has to be interpreted on the footing that the decision of the trustees has been lawfully made and it must not be thought that a private transaction of this kind can prevent the courts from supervising the acts of trustees and persons of a similar status. So it did not oust the ability of the court to look at the issue. 
Of course the issue arose some years ago in relation to Mr Zaoui and his case against the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. There was a discussion about the ability of Mr Zaoui to seek judicial review. I will not trouble the Committee with the detail of the case but I will refer simply to a reference to a decision of Justice Tipping in a 1995 case called  
O’Regan v Lousich 
 where he said among other things that it is “possible for Parliament to provide if it chooses that the decision of a particular decision maker shall not be impugned on certain bases or indeed on any basis. With most types of tribunal and decision maker there is a presumption that Parliament does not intend the decision to be conclusive irrespective of errors of law unfairness or unreasonableness …”. 
My position—and I do not know what the Government’s position is—is that the jurisdiction of the courts should probably be ousted but I do not think that that occurs here and I do not think that clause 6(15) would prevent judicial review. We need to be clear on it. It is in the public interest and it is in the interests of these iwi that this allocation process result in a resolution by June 2011 and that the iwi not be troubled by judicial review proceedings or other types of proceedings. I simply say to the Minister that this clause will not have the effect of ousting the ability of parties to seek judicial review. If it is intended that the clause will have that effect then I think some stronger language is required. I will be very interested in his views on that. It is a very important issue because unless we get some clarity on it now the parties will embark down this path and there will be at least—I am prepared to bet on it—one or two challenges to the process. Maybe it is the intention of the Crown that judicial review of an error of law for example will be permitted. We need clarity and it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s view.  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 2 is the meat of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I hope that the Minister will take a call to answer my colleague Chris Finlayson’s query about the ouster of judicial review. 
The Minister may recall that National members flagged in our opening speeches our interest in the tikanga-based resolution process for the central North Island forests land which is to be found in schedule 2. Although I applaud and support the fact that the Government has seen fit on the motion of the collective itself to bring forward or to promulgate an allocation process based on tikanga and matters that are of interest to them as iwi and are known only by themselves my colleague and I have a reservation about what happens if the various interests in the collective cannot agree on the allocation of the land interests. That is not to raise any doubt that they are not up to the job but when the Maori Affairs Committee travelled to hear them it was very clear to me that they well appreciate that this area is a real test of the leadership of each of the iwi participating in the collective. It is a real test of their ability to recognise mana whenua interests of each of them in the collective and a real test to lead and be generous in their thinking. That is what I took from many of the submitters. 
But I come back to the point that despite the best will in the world there may come a time when agreement may not be possible. At that point I too am interested to know whether there remains the ability for aggrieved parties to go on judicial review. There is certainly nothing in the bill here before us that ousts it. If there were a disagreement at some future point—and we certainly hope there will not be—is there recourse to an independent outside authority? It would be an authority that is at arms-length to this process and to the iwi involved and if called upon can address issues that may arise. Some people came to see me before the introduction of the bill and asked whether there might be room for instance for the Waitangi Tribunal to be that body should there be a disagreement during the allocation process. I said that I would raise the issue. I am looking forward to the Minister taking a call to tell us whether there is in the event that it is required recourse to an independent outside authority. I am sure that if he does not have the answer immediately we might get that answer before the Committee stage ends. 
In the end the allocation process is not a matter for the Crown. The issues of mana whenua are for the various iwi themselves to deal with. They know the principles that underlie the issues of mana whenua and they ought to and should—and I am sure they will in this case—be able to resolve the allocation process without going off the rails. That is certainly what we hope. 
A responsible Government acting on behalf of the Crown and the people of New Zealand has a responsibility to promulgate and pass legislation that gives maximum opportunity for the process that the iwi have devised to succeed. That process must be open transparent and on the record. Is it envisaged that there will be a record of the discussions that proceed when the allocation process for the land gets under way? That is important too. These things are important for future generations. It is only fair to future generations that they are able to see how the tikanga-based resolution process for their land interests was resolved. Again I come back to the point that it is important to know that there is an organisation at arm’s length should it be required. I am trusting in the leadership of each of the iwi in this collective. They have shown great leadership up to this point to bring to the Crown a model and a proposal that they largely devised. I am sure that that leadership will go on. 
In fact the bigger part of this exercise is still to come. The iwi may think they can breathe a sigh of relief because they have got over this significant first stage but the bigger part is still to come because they will have to manage that commercial asset. Part 2 sets out the basis on which the commercial interests—the rental proceeds and the commercial process—will proceed. 
The bigger challenge is the division of the land interests and that was certainly flagged by the submitters who came to the select committee—those iwi who feel aggrieved who feel that the collective does not properly represent them. So there will be huge interest from all quarters in how this proceeds not least of which I guess is the interest from the regions yet to settle. We heard from Minister Ririnui earlier about the ongoing work he has been involved in in bringing other iwi into the settlement process. It looks hopeful though. I have to say that the process that has been proposed to divide the forests land is ground-breaking. Of interest to me is that the division will not necessarily follow the percentages that have been reached for the allocation of rental proceeds because as I understand it that was done on the basis of population numbers. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui could just remind us of that. Even though Ngai Tuhoe and Ngati Tuwharetoa receive quite substantial rental proceeds that is no indication of how the land interests will be divided. So that is good something to look forward to and hopefully something that is resolved with minimum fuss. 
I must pick up on what my colleague Chris Finlayson said about leaving the lawyers out of the process. Of course he is a lawyer and law is my profession as well so that could be a surprise to people. We have all seen how the involvement of the legal profession to date has been huge in these matters. It may be that the leaders in their wisdom devised this process partly so that the lawyers would not be there! As I say it makes sense because on the issues of mana whenua iwi know best. That belongs to them. It is their tikanga.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to make a brief comment on schedule 2 “Tikanga based resolution process for CNI forests land”. It will keep the lawyers at bay and I think that is a great thing. Over the years unfortunately the legal profession has made a hell of a lot of money off the backs of both the Crown and the iwi at the heart of Treaty settlements. I do not want to be too disparaging of the legal profession and of my colleagues in that respect but in the past they have played rather too large a part in the process. So the resolution process in the way it sets out what is to happen is a very good one. It is to be hoped that the allocation methods of settlements that follow can take a leaf out of this bill. 
I note that schedule 2 says nothing about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill which the House has just dealt with specifically mentioned the principles of the Treaty and I am staggered and gobsmacked that they are not mentioned in the bill that the Committee is debating now. I am waiting for the member from New Zealand First to stand up and say something about it. I think there should be a statement about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. If it is good enough for Te Arawa then it should be good enough for everybody else for goodness’ sake! 
Pita Paraone 
: Similarly if it’s good enough for this collective it’s good enough for the rest of the country. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well there you go! That is a good point. I had never thought of it that way but now that you bring it up! 
Colleagues on this side have commented about the tribunal and judicial review. There has to be some sort of mechanism whereby if something goes wrong right at the end if the parties have followed through the process but have hit a brick wall there is some sort of final adjudicator. [ 
Interruption 
] I heard you on the radio mate—Phil Heatley the new member for Whangarei. Whether it is the tribunal or the judicial review process there must be a process whereby somebody adjudicates legally. I think we can work on that. The Crown the Government and the collective have a responsibility to ensure that the process entered into is transparent. It does not matter what system one has or what resolution process one has; there will always be people who disagree so for them one has to have a transparent process. I am with my colleagues on that point. 
I will turn briefly to schedule 3 “Percentages for allocation of rental proceeds”. Ngai Tuhoe will have 27.2987 percent. That is down to the last piece of timber! I am not so interested in the amount of allocation to each tribal district—Ngati Manawa Ngati Tuwharetoa and so on and so forth—but I am interested in the way that the percentages were arrived at and maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui can shed some light on that aspect. It is interesting to note that if one were to read the percentages for the allocation of rental proceeds then one would think that they were right down to the last little growth on the tree or the last little piece of grass in Murupara. 
That is all. I think that all in all the process is a fantastic attempt at taking out the argy-bargy the legalese that we have seen before and I hope that the process grows into something that we may be able to use later on down the track. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I would really be grateful to receive the comments of the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui on an issue. In my earlier contribution I dealt in detail with schedule 2 and particularly with the adjudication part which is to be completed by 25 June 2011. I focused on clause 6(15) in schedule 2 which provides that a “decision of the adjudication panel will be final and binding on all the parties.” I said the authorities have suggested that the effect of that clause would not be to oust the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review. My personal view is that maybe it should do so.  
But I come to clause 7 in Part 2 of the bill which may provide us with some guidance. Clause 7(1) is the standard privative clause and it is not dissimilar to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 as amended by section 40 of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. In fact it is very similar because section 40 provides: “… the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire into or make any finding or recommendation in respect of— … Commercial fishing … The Deed of Settlement … or … Any enactment …”. In a 1996 case the Court of Appeal stated that the effect of that clause—the so-called privative clause—in section 6(7) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act was to oust the jurisdiction of the tribunal.  
Then we come to clause 7(2) of this bill which is an interesting clause. It states that “Subsection (1) does not exclude the jurisdiction of a court tribunal or other judicial body in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the deed of settlement or this Act.” So any question of the interpretation of the legislation which would include the schedules obviously would be available in jurisdictional terms for a court or a tribunal to consider as would any question of implementation.  
It would seem on the face of it that the jurisdiction of the court is not ousted and that clause 6(15) of schedule 2 may not be the end of the road. I really think that we ought to be crystal clear about this because I believe based on my experience of the fisheries allocation saga that there could well be litigation although I agree with what my colleagues have said—that given the parties involved and the desire to reach a settlement one would certainly hope that there would be a conclusion of the allocation debate if there is to be a debate by 25 June 2011. But the Minister’s contribution on the allocation model and on whether it is intended to be final and oust the jurisdiction of the courts is very important because on the face of it I do not think it does that. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairman. I will just respond to the questions that Chris Finlayson asked earlier in relation to the resolution process. I took my time in rising to respond to them because I thought that other speakers might also ask similar questions. I did note that after Chris Finlayson sat down the contribution from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was along similar lines and she may have provided him with some answers to those particular concerns. 
I think it is important that we understand that this resolution process was developed by the collective and that clause 7(4) contemplates the possibility of litigation. I cannot give the member a guarantee that lawyers will not become involved but it was certainly the view of the collective that due to their experience of lawyers the role of lawyers should be minimised. Members should also understand that the decisions cannot be appealed but a review of the process can be sought to ensure that the process itself is consistent with the tikanga-based process in schedule 2. 
There were also queries about the proposed tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process that I just spoke about and also about the allocation model that was developed solely by the central North Island collective. As we heard from the submitters by and large a large percentage of them had the opportunity to participate in the process of determining the model for allocation and what we did find interesting when we came to the mana whenua concepts in terms of allocation or in terms of rights was that those concepts were defined as ahi ka roa which translates as continuous undisturbed; in other words permanent occupation. I would think that every iwi involved in the central North Island collective would qualify on that particular principle. 
But the collective also went to the extent of looking at other areas of mana whenua and other concepts. One that is new to me is ahi tahutahu which basically means provisional shared looked after by somebody else. It also can mean temporary occupation. In other words it suggests that a particular iwi may be transient and may move around considerably. I do not know that any of those iwi that are mentioned in schedule of the bill are in that position. The last concept of ahi mataotao which I often hear about is one of abandonment or lack of representation or underutilisation of land or no utilisation of land at all. I could not imagine anywhere in the country where that particular concept may apply although from time to time we do discover new iwi developing amongst the more known iwi and these particular iwi become the centre of debate whether or not they actually exist. 
Those are issues that iwi themselves will deal with and it is certainly not over to the Crown to determine whether a particular concept applies to particular iwi in a particular circumstance. I know I have just skimmed over many of the queries but I found that although many of the speakers asked questions by the time they resumed their seats they had actually answered the questions themselves. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is along the lines of what the Hon Tau Henare was discussing this morning. It has come out of the discussion about the provision for debate of amendments to do with Treaty settlements. By way of providing some background—I am not sure whether you were in the Chair at the time Mr Chairperson—let me take you through the issue. 
My amendments last night sought to amend clause 11 of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. They were ruled out of order in accordance with Speakers’ ruling 110/2 which states: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” I ask that you as the Chair or the Speaker’s office or whoever deliberates on these issues look at this particular issue on the ground that the agreement that the Te Arawa bill gives effect to is not an agreement between the Crown and another party. The deed of settlement has been signed by the Government and another party but the Government is not the Crown. Shall I carry on Mr Chair? OK I will carry on. The deed of settlement has been signed by the Government and another party but the Government is not the Crown. The agreement becomes one between the Crown and another party only after Parliament has passed the legislation and the Order in Council has been signed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Sovereign. The point is one of I think fundamental constitutional importance: who and what is the Crown? 
I emphasise that the Maori Party supports the legislation—this bill and the Te Arawa legislation—but we uphold the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding constitutional document of this nation and we assert the value of the principles of the Treaty to regulate behaviour. It is incumbent on this Parliament to deal with matters involving tangata whenua in particular on the basis of Treaty principles—mutual respect reasonable cooperation and the utmost good faith. We are not advocating what are often termed in Parliament as frivolous vexatious or unreasonable amendments to legislation giving effect to agreements that have been reached between the Government and the Treaty partners. No that is not it. Our question is one of a constitutional nature: what is the purpose of bringing this bill before Parliament if it is true that the agreement has already been signed by the Crown? What is the purpose of seeking Royal assent to the Act once the bill has been passed by Parliament? Where does sovereignty lie if an agreement signed by a Minister of the Crown supersedes the authority of Parliament and the Executive Council? 
As the Hon Tau Henare has talked about we have called for submissions on Treaty settlement bills such as this one and the Te Arawa bill. The Maori Affairs Committee has listened to the submitters presenting reasoned and rational points of view. What is the point if Parliament simply ignores what the people have to say because the deal is already basically done? It is a fundamental principle of Westminster democracy that Parliament is sovereign and regulates its own procedures through Speakers’ rulings among other ways and it has been that way since way back when—the Magna Carta of 1215. Established conventions separate the powers of the legislature—Parliament that is—from the Government and the judiciary. Each guards its roles jealously. Parliament should not allow its powers to be constrained or allow itself to be seen to be in effect just a rubber stamp for the executive. 
Mr Chairperson all that I ask as a representative of the Maori Party is that you give consideration to looking at this issue to possibly giving a new ruling that might clarify it and more important perhaps to having a debate in respect of what is fundamentally from our perspective a constitutional matter. I am sorry that I have taken quite a bit of time but it was important to try to give you some background. I place the issue before Parliament at this point because we are in the Committee stage there are a number of other speakers and provisions to come and I want to take a call in respect of Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Flavell. I would like first of all to refer to the Speakers’ ruling you mentioned—110/2. It is quite specific. It states: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” That ruling was made both in 2003 and in 2005. I understand that you were seeking to amend the names of the signatories or the parties to the deed and to take one group out. This Supplementary Order Paper contains amendments to the settlement agreement that have the agreement of the parties. Bills such as this are to give effect to the settlements; they are not to amend the agreements unless both parties—the Crown and the signatories—agree. That is where the matter lies. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that that on the face of it is very much the case and that was an explanation given by Dr Cullen. What we are talking about however is a bigger issue. Sure the agreement has been done but if you listened to the first part of the debate you would have heard that it was very much about the notion of those agreements being between iwi and under that particular wording “the Crown”. The point I was trying to make was that the definition of “the Crown” within that is open to interpretation and is not clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I suggest Mr Flavell—it cannot be done now—that there is always the opportunity to make amendments to the Standing Orders. The Speaker on a number of occasions has invited parties to do that. Maybe that is something the member needs to look at in the future but we cannot go back and do that now because we already have Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that govern the proceedings of this House and that is how it works. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I have only one other question that I want to raise about schedule 2 and I would be grateful for the guidance of the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui. My question concerns clause 13(e). 
Clause 13 provides—I think sensibly—that the adjudication panel will have complete discretion to determine the process and the timetable for the hearing. That complete discretion is subject to certain requirements and they are more particularly set out in paragraphs (a) to (g). For example paragraph (g) provides that a decision is to be reached by 25 June 2011. But I am interested in paragraph (e) which states: “there is a right to question witnesses;”. What I would like to know and maybe we need clarification is whether that right to question witnesses relates only to the adjudication panel or whether an iwi claimant can also ask questions of another iwi claimant. If I were to proffer an opinion I would say it means both: that the panel could ask questions but that iwi claimants should also have the right to test evidence by way of cross-examination—by asking questions of witnesses for other iwi. 
What we do not want in the course of the adjudication panel hearing this matter is to have some kind of eleventh hour application for judicial review. I know that these sorts of questions have been subject to judicial review in the context of commissions of inquiry. I seem to recall a case concerning someone called Badger where the person presiding over the commission of inquiry was a former Attorney-General Dr Martyn Finlay and the case was held up for some time while the parties went to the courts. 
That is my interpretation but I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some guidance. Does the right relate to the panel alone asking questions or is there also the right of iwi claimants to ask questions and to test the written evidence that will have been filed by another iwi claimant? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I say to the member Chris Finlayson yes iwi claimants can ask questions as well. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. There are just two issues that I want to raise. I agree very much with a number of the sentiments that have already been raised by other members that it is appropriate that iwi deal with internal issues themselves and I touched on that point in the second reading. I am pleased about the approach of internal conflict resolution; I think it is a good idea. 
The two points that I want to raise in particular are in respect of the notion of mana whenua and they have been highlighted by way of two groupings in particular. One is to do with Ngati Whaoa under the mantle of the Te Arawa affiliates and the other one is best exemplified by the Ngati Manawa example. 
The first issue in respect of Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa is in two parts. One is the point that Ngati Whaoa’s claim has been included and we have touched on that in debate on previous bills. How is it that a person in a sense puts forward a claim on behalf of others then finds that in the process of settlements the claim has been put to be settled yet there has been no formal notification there has been no consultation and basically the claim is taken out of that person’s hands and put smack dead in the middle of this particular bill? I refer in particular to the claim led by Mr Peter Staite. That is the first issue. 
The second issue is in respect of this whole question of mandate. I know we did broach some of it in the debate on the Te Arawa affiliates bill but it is an important issue in this case in particular. According to what I have heard at least Ngati Whaoa might be relatively small in numbers but from their perspective they believe that they have not insignificant interests. We know firstly that their interests have been included in the settlement under the Te Arawa affiliate bill and that they have tried to get out of it in one form or another. I attempted to basically pull them out of the settlement last night but my attempt was ruled out of order. They have tried to get out of it in a number of venues. There have been three Waitangi Tribunal reports. The Waitangi Tribunal through Judge Carrie Wainwright pulled the parties together and attempted to facilitate a process. It did not happen. I am told that the group they have a grievance with did not want to continue the facilitation process so that was basically the end of the story. On top of that they have been to the Office of the Ombudsmen. 
In terms of this particular bill the question is to raise issues about Ngati Whaoa’s interest in all of this. The Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui talked about mana whenua and I suppose the question is that their mana whenua interests have basically now been pulled into the big Te Arawa affiliate collective. My role as an MP is to represent their interests and all I can do is put on the record that from their perspective at least their tamariki may well be back here at some point in time to reflect on this whole matter. Although we might say that those are internal issues when the two parties do not want to come together or do not come together then of course the matter will not move forward. As I said in the second reading I would like the approach to be rangatira ki te rangatira with facilitators to move the discussion along. 
The second issue which other speakers have taken up concerns the divvy-up of the resources. I accept that the divvy-up of the resources is an internal issue and from what I understand of the collective one representative from each of the iwi is sitting at the table and they make the decisions. It is a great approach for iwi to be empowered to make decisions about their own futures; that is fine. All we can conclude is that in particular around the rentals and the divvy-up of the land later on on the face of it iwi have driven it but the key thing is that some of the submitters told us that they had certain concerns about the divvy-up. It is not for me to say yay or nay or which is the best way. As I say I support the notion of iwi doing their own thing. But we have to wonder. 
I will choose Ngati Manawa as an example because of their large number of submitters at the Maori Affairs Committee hearing. They say that they have far and away more than 6 percent of mana whenua interests. Some might say that in comparison with the other iwi they are a small player in numbers but nevertheless in terms of their land interests they are very significant in the bigger picture. The concerns that were expressed by some of Ngati Manawa—certainly not all—were about the weighting and the allocation of the rentals. That was a key issue and I would not mind if the Minister could elaborate on it. I know that that question was put by the Hon Tau Henare. The second issue was the weighting of ahi mataotao ahi tahutahu and so on and how they might play out. It might be said that that is an iwi issue. Sure but again some of the submitters at the select committee suggested that they might lose their interest because the bigger blocks might gang up on them. And we can understand that because this settlement is probably the most significant settlement that they will ever see in their lives. 
It is about simply trying to get to grips with understanding the issues if the Minister is able to provide an explanation. The decisions might have been made behind closed doors. If it is all about those iwi making decisions for themselves then in the end I suppose their representatives have to stand and fall on those decisions made at the table. All I am doing is representing the interests of those who have made representations to me to seek some clarification. I suppose in the end they are simply protecting their interests—making sure their interests are looked after. I am talking for some of Ngati Manawa—certainly not the runanga because it is in there. Some of the submitters presented the case that they are quite significant in mana whenua issues yet they get a very small piece of the cake in terms of the rentals. They do not even know what their percentage of the bigger picture is and they have some time ahead of them to debate whether they will get their fair share of mana whenua. They ask “What is the story? How do we protect our interests?”. 
All I am doing is raising those issues and perhaps the Minister might be able to respond so that it will be on the record and I can tell some people back home. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3Miscellaneous provisions  
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1  agreed to.  
Schedule 2  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that schedule 2 stand part. All those in favour please say “Aye”— 
Hon Members 
: Aye. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: —of the contrary say “No”— 
Sue Moroney 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The “Noes” have it? 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: The “Noes” have it. 
Pita Paraone 
: The “Ayes” have it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The “Noes have it? The “Ayes” have it? Party vote called for? This is the vote on schedule 2. I will put the question again. Are we clear? The question is that schedule 2 stand part. All those in favour please say “Aye”. 
Hon Members 
: Aye. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: And those against? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The “Noes” have it? The “Noes” have it. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not for me to give an indication as to what the Government is doing and I see that we have a senior Minister in the Chamber who might be able to help us but we have the Labour whip calling one vote and the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui calling for a party vote on the opposite position. That just cannot be right. We need some clarification about what is happening here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All right. Let us get some clarification from the Minister please. OK. I want to get this right; this is the question that schedule 2 stand part. I understand that schedule 2 has to be lost because there is a new schedule 2 which will be put after this one. Are we clear now? This one as I understand it should be lost but there is an additional vote for a new schedule 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 and that is the one to be agreed to. So this one will be lost. Let me put it now so that we are all clear. All those in favour of schedule 2 standing part say “Aye”— 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry. I do not mean to be difficult but it is an extraordinary situation when the Chairperson of the Committee of the whole House is saying before we have a vote that the vote is meant to be lost. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand. 
SIMON POWER 
: I think that in fairness to the Committee we should have the vote and then if indeed there is an issue someone can seek leave to amend it. It is most odd for you as Chair to be saying how a vote should go before you put the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Power and I concur with what you were saying. I was trying to provide some leadership in the situation.  
Schedule 2 not agreed to. 
New schedule 2  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to insert new schedule 2 be agreed to. 
New schedule 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 3  agreed to.  
New schedule 4  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to add new schedule 4 be agreed to. 
New schedule 4 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I might add for the member’s benefit that clauses 1 and 2 are taken together but there will be separate votes. So the member can debate clause 1 and 2 but there are separate votes. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I will take a very short call. We do not want to be seen to be dragging out something that we are all in support of and that is obvious but the title the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill is very important. It is a very proper title obviously. But if one reads the title only without knowing the substance of the bill then one may not necessarily get the significance of what is being achieved here. It certainly is a collective which is one that I do not think we have seen before; a number of iwi have come together in terms of the commercial side of interests that have their genesis some 20-odd years ago in the Crown Forests Assets Act 1989. 
The bill makes provision for the allocation of land under the Crown forests but the individual claims of the iwi involved are still to be completed. It is a unique initiative and one that hopefully will be repeated if in fact it all appears that it is able to work the way it is obviously intended to work here. So it may be that we will see more region-wide settlements where we have collectives involved as well. This is the first one. It is unique. We support it. We would like to see it happen again. 
My colleague Pita Paraone might suggest—[ 
Interruption 
]—oh OK. I will not say anything about the north then. But I was just hoping we might see that where there are similar iwi interests in a particular region there may be room for similar legislation so we might see this term in use again as we go forward. So it is pretty simple. I want to support clauses 1 and 2. Thank you Mr Chair. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I want to take a short call on clause 1 which is the title. First of all I say that I support a lot of the sentiments of the previous speaker the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. You know we talk about the use of te reo Maori and I wonder whether any consideration was given by the principals of each of the iwi groupings that came to the negotiating table to the opportunity of giving this particular bill a Maori name. I see that my colleague from the Maori Party is grinning—I do not know whether it is a grin of derision or a grin of support. In terms of promoting the use of te reo I would have thought that this might be an opportunity to give the bill a Maori title. 
I am very mindful of the fact that the spokesperson for Ngati Manawa was very emphatic about what Ngati Manawa meant in relation to his tribe. Of course I can appreciate what he said. But I think that we will see similar titles in terms of collectives and affiliates and I suppose this title does provide a blueprint for titles of similar settlement bills. There is an opportunity for both the Crown and negotiators to consider Maori titles for our legislation. During my first term in this House I can recall making references to the opportunity of giving bills Maori titles. If it is OK for the House to provide committee reports back to the House in te reo Maori then I think that at some time in the near future we should be seeing bills that pass into law being written in te reo Maori. 
New Zealand First does not have any concerns about the title of this bill or its commencement date. Kia ora. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 not agreed to. 
New clause 2Commencement  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to insert new clause 2 be agreed to. 
New clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.