Tanczos Nandor: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16923] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 E nga manuhiri tuarangi e nga karangaranga maha kua tae mai nei ki te tautoko i tenei kaupapa rau rangatira ma nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar to the many callings who have arrived here in support of this proposal and the many leaders welcome welcome welcome. 
] 
The Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill is as so many before me have said a historic settlement bill and the Green Party is supporting it. It is by far the biggest Treaty of Waitangi settlement with the Crown involving 170000 hectares of central North Island forest that is valued at something like $220 million. It is significantly bigger than previous large settlements including the Tainui settlement the Ngai Tahu settlement and the Sealord deal. 
Tau Henare referred to this as the “Treelords” deal and in some ways it does have some characteristics in common with Sealord’s. It is about income derived from harvesting rights in the first instance and although it does lay out a process for establishing mana whenua at some time in the future in the meantime the ultimate ownership of whenua is left undetermined. However it is difficult to separate the two issues entirely and I will come back to this shortly. Of course the Sealord’s deal was of little direct interest to many of the iwi involved in this settlement. They are a largely landlocked people unable to share in the benefits of the Sealord’s settlement. This bill is enormously important in that it affects people who are largely untouched by that deal although I think that some of its impacts will not be dissimilar. 
So what does this settlement do? It vests ownership of 86.4 percent of the central North Island Crown forest land and the accumulated rentals of some $222 million held in trust by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust plus ongoing rentals in the Central North Island Iwi Collective. The funds as has been said will be divided up among the iwi collective members according to a formula: Ngai Tuhoe will get 27.3 percent; Ngati Tuwharetoa will get 29.9 percent; the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu will get 16.2 percent; Ngati Raukawa will get 14.2 percent; Ngati Manawa will get 6 percent; Ngati Whare will get 14.7 percent; and Ngati Whakaue will get 3.6 percent. Of course 3.6 percent was also originally flagged for Ngati Rangitihi but of course Ngati Rangitihi has not agreed to the settlement and the option has been left open for them to join at a later stage. In addition Maori foresters will also benefit from a yet to be negotiated emissions trading forestry scheme. The remaining 13.6 percent of the land or 10 percent if Ngati Rangitihi joins and the accumulated rentals will be retained by the Crown to be held for 6 years to safeguard the interests of any iwi outside the collective with a legitimate claim. 
So this is a huge outcome with significant economic benefits for many Maori. According to the bill eventual ownership of the land will be determined on the basis of mana whenua in accordance with tikanga Maori. The factors used to determine mana whenua will include such things as the demonstration of ahi ka roa ahi tahutahu and ahi mataotao. I am not an expert in te reo Maori—and that is no news to any one here I guess—but I do know that this is causing some concern among my in-laws in Ngati Manawa. It would seem clear from the placing of those terms together that a demonstration of ahi matautau is intended to support a claim of mana whenua rather than negate it as some might expect. 
I said earlier that it is impossible to entirely divorce the issue of mana whenua from the issue of how forestry rentals will be divided. I say that because the allocation proportions cannot help but prejudice later discussions on ownership. Conversely the allocation of those proportions must be based to some degree on an assumption about who has rights and to how much land. Predictably this is causing tension. A number of hui in Ngati Manawa unanimously supported the injunctions sought by Maanu Paul and I understand that yesterday he was given the right to a hearing. He asserts that the Crown does not have title to the land in Kaingaroa to divest in the first place that this was recognised by the Crown during the negotiations over the establishment of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and that Ngati Manawa’s claim to that land was clearly established in the Native Land Court in 1878. 
Let me be clear that pulling off this deal was a huge feat of negotiation of navigation and of skill and I give my respect to those who pulled it off but the concern is that some small iwi and hapu often become grist to the mill of the settlement process in the desire of this Government to pull off large settlements. In this case some people in Ngati Manawa believe that their lands are being used by the Government to sweeten up an iwi whose rohe is substantially locked up in a National Park and whose claims might be difficult to resolve. So my fear is that for those hapu that live under the Ikawhenua Range this settlement may become a source of division for some time to come and that should concern us all. In the words of one of my aunties: “This is an awesome settlement but not for us.” 
The Green Party supports this bill. We acknowledge the enormous amount of work effort and determination that it has taken on the part of the iwi involved to bring it to this point. We congratulate those who have secured themselves a deal that they consider is good or is at least reasonable but we also acknowledge the significant concerns that continue to exist and that cannot be denied. We will also continue to advocate for a Treaty breach settlement process that is determined by Maori rather than the Crown and that is inherently more just than the constraints that iwi are currently obliged to deal with.