O'Connor Damien: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16933] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 If I was being flippant or was not making worthwhile or valuable points I could understand the Chair not giving me the call. But he has and I appreciate that. 
Part 2 of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill is about the transfer of the forests. One of the questions I have always had goes back to the objective of the bill which is the settlement of a longstanding grievance. The grievance goes back to a contract laid out in 1840 about a partnership that was clearly short-cut by the Crown. We obviously have to address the grievances arising from that. 
As I understand it we are going to hand back the forest land. That may seem really good; it may be really great because iwi have a connection with the land. As a farmer I can understand that connection. But the land in itself—and there is much Maori-owned land around the country—may not be delivering benefits. In fact it may not even be paying its way in some places. Rather than being beneficial to Ngati Apa it could be a liability. 
There are a couple of things to mention. I have believed for a long time that forest land in itself although it has a wonderful emotive connection with iwi or whoever owns the land does not necessarily deliver benefits. I think we are starting to see this. In fact questions are being asked around the country now about the division between forest land ownership and cutting-rights ownership about who gets to determine where the logs go about who gets the benefits of a rising market and about who carries the losses from a declining market. 
The issue is that the trees growing on the land will deliver economic benefits back to Ngati Apa. Those benefits could come by way of a fixed-term lease calculated on the return on logs. I am not aware of the details of that. The settlement terminates obligations in relation to the forest. I am not sure; I guess the obligations may relate to replanting. They may relate to possible emissions trading scheme obligations or there may be obligations regarding access. I am not sure what they are and the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations might be able to take a call and answer that question. Those things are quite important. 
It is no reflection on the negotiators; there are some very smart people around this country and the negotiators have the very best intentions. But they may not have foreseen the change in the emissions trading scheme. I do not know what the Government will actually deliver by way of forestry obligations—or indeed agriculture obligations—in relation to the emissions trading scheme. It is yet to clearly define what it will do. 
The point is—and I am not deviating too much from the bill—that this settlement terminates the obligations in relation to the forest on the land it is transferring back to Ngati Apa and those obligations are unclear to me. It is important that we in Opposition ensure that legislation being passed in this House indeed delivers on its intent. The intent is to do justice to Ngati Apa. They will get half of the prison land back—I have question marks about what that might do—and they will get the forest land back. The question is whether in that transfer— 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s to do with the Crown Forestry Rental Trust Damien. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Quinn may know the answers to these questions. I ask him to please take a call. I confess that I was not on the Maori Affairs Committee but I have come in objectively looked at the bill and read through it and I am asking questions of the members of the select committee and the Minister. I think a lot of people out there want to know the answers as well. 
We know there is confusion in relation to the emissions trading scheme in relation to forestry and in relation to the land below the forestry. I ask who gets to pay the emissions trading scheme obligations. We have had a discussion; we are not sure. In the far north I believe the landowner pays but I have always been led to believe that the person who cuts down the trees or who has an obligation to replant pays. I ask Mr Quinn to please get up.