Quinn Paul: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Quinn Paul: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4954] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 In opening I join my cousin Mita Ririnui in welcoming and expressing my best wishes to the representatives of the claimant group who have joined us here today to witness the second reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I also express the best wishes of the chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee the Hon Tau Henare who unfortunately could not be with us today because he is carrying on doing other work for the nation in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee in Auckland. His thoughts are with us and his full support is too. 
I do not intend to speak for too long because there is no question that the iwi and hapu of the Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and others have been waiting since 1839 for this justice. I do however wish to speak to carry out the obvious role this House has of scrutinising the legislation and the deed on behalf of the nation and the people of New Zealand to make sure that the settlement is both fair and enduring. It is on that basis that I stand to support this bill in terms of the settlement for Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and others. 
It is worth reflecting on the fact that this is one of the grievances that have arisen as a consequence of the failure of the settler group—if I can call it that—in 1839 to deal justifiably and in an honourable way with the indigenous people of that time. Of course I am referring to what became commonly known as the Wellington Tenths one of which I was very familiar with for a long time. One of the more well-known tenths was Athletic Park. It was great to see that the return of Athletic Park did not require this bill in terms of giving back and reaching an agreement in respect of land from which the claimant group we are now supporting had been in effect alienated. 
The previous speaker Mita Ririnui made the comment that this was a Labour bill and I acknowledge that. But this is a joyous occasion so I do not want to go down the track of reflecting on some of the issues under the previous administration and its approach to the Treaty of Waitangi because I think it is a time to rejoice. 
Having said that I think that two particular aspects of this bill are important to understand and recognise going forward. They have been briefly touched on but not in the way that I think is necessary in order to highlight and draw them to the House’s attention. The first aspect relates to Pipitea Marae. As the previous speaker said in respect of both the issues that I will raise—one being Pipitea Marae and the other being the Ngati Tama opt-out clause—the select committee was able to make considerable progress and to bring some finality to the two issues through the good grace and support of the claimant group. The select committee offers its thanks to the claimant group for its consideration. 
When the bill was first brought before the select committee the issue in respect of Pipitea Marae was left unsettled. As far as the Government side of the House was concerned that was a wholly unsatisfactory situation for the simple reason that an existing group had property rights over the use of the land. Unfortunately at the stage that the deed came to the select committee those property rights were not recognised to the satisfaction of the select committee. Through the good grace of the claimant group and the good work of the Office of Treaty Settlements the committee was able to resolve that matter. I guess the short message is that in going forward this Government will ensure that in settling one grievance it does not create another. It is very important that we recognise existing property rights and do not create other grievances in the process of resolving current grievances. 
The second issue I will briefly touch on is Ngati Tama’s opt-out clause as set out in the deed and given authority through this bill. That clause provides for the ability of one of the groups that has been associated with this negotiation in very broad terms to opt out. Some sections of Ngati Tama have chosen to opt out but other sections are actually represented around this claimant group’s board table through their representative Neville Baker. This creates confusion. As I think the previous speaker alluded to very briefly the Crown is being forced into a situation where it is asked to adjudicate in disputes between iwi. The Crown should not be in that situation. The select committee was very strong in its commitment to put before this House the fact that opt-out clauses should not carry on. I say again that this is not a practice that the Government will be carrying forward. 
Other than that we have picked up the bill and supported it and we look forward to taking it through as quickly as possible. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker.