Finlayson Christopher: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10476] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta and because of her contribution I think it is appropriate now that she has finished her call to make a couple of comments. I acknowledge the very lengthy gestation period of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill; it was long. I have already paid tribute to the negotiators for Waikato-Tainui and the iwi itself because I thought their performance was a classy one. They were prepared to allow additional time for the incoming National Government to take a look at the arrangements in order to see whether something more streamlined could be developed and indeed it has been. 
The second point that the member raised was the issue of costs. That is a very important issue. I think there are a few myths about costs in this whole exercise. It is fair to say there is an ongoing debate about costs as they relate to the implementation of Treaty settlements. The joint management agreement mechanism provided for in the bill is an existing mechanism under the Resource Management Act 1991. In this instance it has been tailored to provide more effective participation for iwi and I do not believe that the implementation of the Waikato River joint management agreements will be at an additional cost to ratepayers in the region. 
The other point I would make about costs—and it is borne out in the settlement—is that as part of the settlement the Crown has provided a $210 million contestable clean-up fund for iwi local and regional authorities stakeholders and the public to use for river clean-up activities. The Crown will also pay for the ongoing costs of the authority for the fees of members of the authority and for iwi participation in the arrangements. So a very generous contribution has been made by the Crown to the costs of implementing this settlement. 
The member also raised the issue of the vision and strategy and Mr Quinn referred to the review of the vision and strategy. I thought that was a most helpful intervention on his part. I think it would be helpful for those who are concerned about the reviews to take a good hard look at clauses 13A to 13C of the bill and at schedule 2B. One can see that the review process set out there is a very rigorous one that permits good engagement by all relevant parties in the community and members of the public to ensure that the review is done well. I note clause 13A which states: “Within 3 months of the settlement date the Authority must begin a review of the vision and strategy—”. As Mr Quinn observed clause 13B provides for regular subsequent reviews. So I do not think that there can be any cause for concern about the review procedure for the vision and strategy if people take the time and trouble to read the particular provisions of the bill that I have referred to. 
Another point—and I thought it was a very valuable one—was made by Mr Henare quite apart from his correcting the historical account given earlier in the debate by Mr Garrett. It was about the idea of democracy being one person one vote. As Mr Henare observed that is one aspect of democracy but it is not the only one. I do not know whether the ACT members are suggesting that in order to have a pure Athenian democracy in New Zealand every single person who plays a role in the State should be elected. I would caution him against that by reference for example to— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Yeah we might end up with his younger brother. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I was thinking of elected judges. I always recall the first time that I went to the United States. All around San Francisco there were signs stating “Bye-bye Birdie”. It was a reference to the Chief Justice of California who was up for re-election. The right-wing lunatics—or probably in San Francisco they were left-wing lunatics—had put those signs up all around Russian Hill and Nob Hill. It was a most odious performance in my view. Of course one person one vote is a very important matter although our system permits one person two votes. But I do not necessarily think that because of the way that the river authority is structured there is some kind of democratic deficit even though that seems to be of much concern to the ACT Party.