Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnei ka tū ake ki te tautoko i ngā mihi ki a koe e Nuk i tūwhera te arawhata ki Te Runga Rawa kia tau iho mai ōna manaakitanga ki runga i a tātou mō tēnei o ngā āhuatanga anā ngā take Tiriti ki a tātou katoa tēnā tātou! Ngāti Pūkenga tēnei ka tāpiri atu i ētehi ō ōku nei whakaaro ahakoa he iti; ka tāpiri atu ka tuitui ki ngā kōrero kua whārikihia i mua i te aroaro o tēnei Pāremata.[I rise to endorse the appreciations accorded to you Nuk the one who opened the stairway to the Almighty above so that his kindness descends upon us in regard to this one of the circumstances in regard to Treaty matters there to us all so acknowledgments to us all. Ngāti Pukenga I add some of my own thoughts although small; I add and sew them on to the contributions that have been laid out here before this Parliament.]I do not intend to take too long a speech in the second reading except to acknowledge the efforts of Ngāti Pūkenga to bring their claim through this process and to its finality. The reason I am not going to take a long call is that the bill and the settlement pass on two fronts that are very difficult fronts and hurdles to get over. Firstly in terms of overlapping claims—we heard previously in the previous debate my colleague Peeni Henare talking about the challenge of overlapping claims and the way in which Crown policy is applied and the way in which iwi would prefer to exercise their relationships by whakapapa in connection to whenua and important places within their rohe.Ngāti Pūkenga passes this hurdle to the extent that it is evident in the way that the cultural redress mechanisms have been achieved. They have been talking to their neighbours and they have recognised that in order to extend their own association and connection to a place it is probably a good idea to recognise those of others within the rohe as well and you can see that through the joint arrangements. We also did not hear any opposition at the Māori Affairs Committee to the redress remedies that were being sought by Ngāti Pūkenga—again a good sign that a lot of conversations had taken place. That is a challenging space to navigate but if one were to come into this process and consider the amount of effort that is required to get to the select committee with relatively very few criticisms I would say a lot of work has been done behind the scenes. So ka nui te mihi atu rā ki a koutou Ngāti Pūkenga.[So there is much appreciation to you Ngāti Pūkenga.]On the issue of commercial redress Ngāti Pūkenga have demonstrated—and it was evident at the select committee—quite a strategic approach to their commercial redress what was available and in fact what they might derive value from. They have been very smart. But here is a lesson to all of us: it is not how big or small your settlement is; it is how purposeful you design the intent of the settlement for the benefit of your people.One of the things that was impressed upon me when Ngāti Pūkenga came to the table—and we asked them a few tricky questions. Obviously we could not get away from the Hauraki issue so as the representative for Hauraki I had to ask that question: was Hauraki reaching all the way down into Tauranga Moana through Ngāti Pūkenga? They were very diplomatic and took a non-partisan view on that but beyond that the questions were really around what they intended to see as a benefit an opportunity for their people as a result of their settlement. It had nothing to do with size or scale. It had everything to do with reconnecting their history back to their places where they expressed an association; it had everything to do with ensuring that those obligations I guess of the Crown in terms of Ngāti Pūkenga specifically were recognised as having being breached; and it had everything to do with the commercial opportunities that they saw could be gained from their settlement. So I want commend them on that part.On the issue of clause 103—we did spend some time on it. It was of interest that Ngāti Pūkenga—certainly for the Treaty settlements that I have sat through—was the only iwi who had so clearly brought up this issue in a way that challenged us to really think about it. If we really come back to the point that the chair of the select committee made around the committee considering that a review was necessary—the review would be interesting to be able to I guess get a context for how this particular clause applies but also within the right of first refusal space how effective that whole process was operating and whether the time notification elements were efficient or optimised a transfer. Also there is the innovation that has been created within iwi to have internal rights of refusal and to be able to kind of trigger an improved process to build the capability of the iwi so it is an and/and" approach.So I think a review in my mind would be a way to signal to those who currently have settled and those who are yet to settle that it is always an opportunity to improve innovate and build on some of these mechanisms which are ultimately designed to support the aspirations of iwi in their settlement process.But on clause 103 what might the charitable purpose be? We could only go back to the history of Tauranga Moana and the way in which lands were gifted post raupatu and things like that to say: "Actually by and large we may be talking about churches." One of the challenging conversations in the space of churches taking on lands either gifted or by other means transferred to them is how hard it is to get those lands transferred back to iwi. So there seems to be an underlining element to the representation that was brought to us and I am aware—I think if I recall in the Ngāti Ranginui or Ngāi Te Rangi settlements there was a specific piece of church land that was desired in the settlement.But it struck me that we are probably talking about a limited pool of charitable purposes that this clause might apply to and it would harm no one to see whether or not—and I have heard what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said that this is very rarely triggered—it has been triggered and under what circumstances just to get a more accurate feel for how real or not this particular issue is. Of course we take the word of the Minister and the select committee was in that situation which is why no recommendation was made but we did it based on the word of the Minister and advice of officials rather than really combing through from the time that this clause was inserted in the right of first refusal provisions to now as to whether it has ever been triggered what the circumstance were and whether it created a prejudice against the iwi whose settlement the clause might have applied to—things like that.As I said I am not going to take a long call. I want to make the final point that Ngāti Pūkenga interests within the Manaia area in the Hauraki rohe are yet to be resolved. Perhaps with the wilful insight of the Ngāti Pūkenga experience and the way that they dealt with their overlapping interests the whanaunga up in Manaia might use that and draw on that as some opportunity to try to get through the current state that they are in so that they can also get ahead. It is not how big or small your settlement is; it is the intent of the purpose and vision that you have for your iwi to benefit your people in the next generation and I think Ngāti Pūkenga has achieved that well. Tēnā koutou."