Mahuta Nanaia: Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I stand as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee who did not hear submissions on this particular bill the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill but I want to acknowledge the amount of hard work and effort that has gone into compiling the deed of settlement which was signed last year. In fact the agreement was reached in May last year. So people can see that the progress from the deed of settlement to legislation through the select committee process has been quite swift. That is the first point.Acknowledgment has to be given to Minister Finlayson the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for progressing Treaty settlements where there is a sense of urgency from iwi to get things done—more so in an election year—to give certainty interms of their ability to take their interests forward. Parliament surely has played its part in supporting the Minister in that ambition.This is one of the types of bills where you would look to the schedules to get a real feel for what it is all about. You will notice in all parts of the schedules with the exception of schedule 6 the description of properties that are being returned to the Mangaharuru-Tangitū hapū. And when you go through the schedules you see that there are lakes streams and conservation bits of land and recreation reserves and scenic reserves—all component parts of this settlement. It gives you a flavour then of what it is that these people value the most. What is it that they value the most? Obviously your local connection to your lands and boundaries form a very important part of how you see yourselves continuing to play a constructive role in your community. But they also give a sense of what identity means and what whakapapa links exist for these people within this area.Lake Tūtira as was referred to by the previous speaker Paula Bennett is a beautiful place. When I was on the campaign trail with Meka Whaitiri the local candidate for this rohe she took me past Lake Tūtira and told me some very nice personal stories about the area. But you only needed to look at the place to think “Wow this is a great place to come and stay.” It is relatively untouched. It still has the natural preservation of the beauty that we all know and love—the New Zealand that we want to preserve—and now overshadowed on that there is the opportunity for the local tangata whenua to be able to be active protectors—kaitiaki if you like—of that area.I want to acknowledge the work that has gone in to ensuring that the most precious parts of the natural heritage—the lands the reserves the lakes and the streams—are included in this settlement and also that there is an active management instrument tool if you like within this bill to give the people of Mangaharuru-Tangitū a role in how these lands are cared for. There is commercial redress which is a component of every settlement but I do not get the feeling that that is the overriding objective of this settlement. There are statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition that make up the component parts of this settlement as well.Can I step back from the particulars and just make this comment with regard to how Ngāti Kahungunu as an iwi has approached its Treaty settlement process. The Māori Affairs Committee is often challenged with the internal divisions of hapū within iwi collectives who may feel either disenfranchised from the process or totally disregarded. The way in which Ngāti Kahungunu has approached its Treaty settlement process for the land settlements is somewhat different from that of other iwi. They have enabled pockets of Ngāti Kahungunu to settle their comprehensive claims within their rohe as a unique collective. If other iwi want to take the learnings from the whole evolution of the Treaty settlement process I think Ngāti Kahungunu has approached this in a way given its land mass and its territory that preserves the integrity of clusters of hapū that have distinct interests in an area and that does not take away from the centre from the common identity of the iwi.Again this is one thing that I think Ngāti Kahungunu has contributed to the settlement space. They collectively advocated for their fisheries interests as an iwi and they enabled hapū for their land and historical Treaty settlements to continue as unique identifiable clusters of hapū. I commend them for that because what happens as a result of that is you get Ngāti Pāhauwera and you get Mangaharuru-Tangitū being able to argue for the way that they want to approach their unique interests in their rohe and administer those interests.There is one issue that came up that I think I could comment on and it did come up in a previous settlement under the Ngāti Kahungunu cluster which was in regard to Ngāti Pāhauwera. There were people of Ngāti Pāhauwera who felt that they had someoverlapping interests in this bill which is currently being considered by the House. In my understanding—and certainly from my reading of the submissions and getting feedback from the members who were at the select committee hearings—that although it is acknowledged that there are overlapping interests here it is not an exclusionary benefit to just the people of Mangaharuru-Tangitū. So for example if someone with connections to Ngāti Pāhauwera had equally strong affiliations and connections and interests in this bill they would not be prejudiced or cut off from being able to exercise an interest in this space. I felt it was important to mention that because it was one of the areas where the select committee had to consider the extent to which this bill took account of some very real practical issues in the area.I do not want to take too long on this bill. The substance of the issues will be dealt with in the third reading. There were no significant changes to the bill from the way in which it was introduced to how it has come back to the House for its second reading except for a change and a clarification—a technical amendment to the date. Therefore the bill is basically presented as it was tabled with some very informative discussion as to why the settlement has been comprised in the way it has. I commend the bill to the House. I look forward to a speedy third reading. A lot of effort has gone into it. Kia ora koutou.