Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20696] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
Tenei e tuana ki te tautoko nga mihi mai ingatahataha o te awa o Waikato mai i te maunga o Taupiri ki NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau tena koutou. 
[ 
I rise and in turn add my acknowledgments from the river banks of the Waikato and the mountain of Taupiri in support of those expressed to NgatiTuwharetoa of Kawerau; greetings to you all 
.]  
I join with my colleagues to support the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Already the House has heard that the bill is in part connected to historical events subsequent to the Land Wars of the 1860s and confiscation of lands. Much of that historical account is included in the bill. More particularly it includes the avenues for redress. 
I want to make my contribution in light of discussions that were held before the Maori Affairs Committee. We spent some time debating two particular aspects of the settlement and they are worth restating in the third reading. Firstly we debated the issue and definition of “whangai”. I reiterate that the committee felt that claimants should decide on how they want to express whangai in their settlement bill and more important to determine just how benefits are to accrue to tribal members according to their tikanga. This was a subject of some discussion before the select committee and it was noted in our report back to the House. 
The second issue was around the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. Our deliberations became quite fixated on the way in which a geothermal statutory acknowledgment would be referred to in an Act of Parliament. It is important to mention that many members around the select committee table did not believe that the particular origin of association to geothermal resources as told by ancestors and passed down through generations should be included as such in an Act of Parliament. Quite frankly none of us could guarantee that the iwi’s stories would not be made a mockery of in this House as is so evident from derogatory remarks that are being and have already been made with regard to taniwha and the like. 
I think that what is in the bill safeguards the iwi’s particular association to the geothermal resource and the integrity of the iwi’s own story. Albeit it was not the wish of its particular negotiators at the time it was the reasoning for the committee’s decision. 
I sincerely look forward to any development opportunity that looks likely to arise from that statutory acknowledgment as it is the first of its kind and we should celebrate that—certainly on this side of the House. 
I take the opportunity to thank advisers from the Office of Treaty Settlements Heather Baggott and her team as we have had quite a few learning points in considering this bill and the issues that have arisen from it. 
From the committee’s perspective it is important that the information received by advisers is accurate and reflects agreements reached with the claimant group but that it also reflects concerns expressed by the select committee back to the claimant group. We felt that that is an important role the Office of Treaty Settlements plays and will be increasingly so as we deal with more and more settlements. 
In many ways the Office of Treaty Settlements became integral to the transmission of information while the bill was still with the select committee. No doubt our committee will continue to ensure that it is a full and robust process and I certainly thank Heather Baggott and her team for persevering with the deliberations before the committee. It was not an easy task at times. 
I want to make a comment on the use of te reo Maori in bills before the House. We are going into new territory with the claims settlement bills as most preambles are expressed in both te reo Maori and Pakeha. Mechanisms for redress often use Maori words in order to restate what that mechanism means in terms of redress measures. I agree with the member from New Zealand First in that as legislators and as Maori in this House we should endeavour to ensure that that is done in an accurate and robust way according to the intent of both the claimants and the Crown. That said I know that the process will probably be organic and I hope a positive movement forward. I look forward to the day when we are writing laws in Maori. 
Lastly treaty settlements in themselves cannot solve all the problems that continue to exist in our communities and neither should they. The treaty settlements provide a platform of opportunity for claimant groups like NgatiTuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty to move from grievance to reconciliation and to restoration and to the advancement of their own aspirations. That is as it should be. It is not an easy journey but deciding to start somewhere puts the next generation on a firm footing. 
No reira tenei te mihi ki a koutou iteneiwa tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
And so at this point in time I acknowledge you all greetings 
.]