Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e ngā puawaitaka o tō tātou mātua tīpuna. Anei rā mihi hōhonu ki ngā uri o Maururu a Paerangi. Mā rātou i takatakahia te whenua i te timataka o te noho kai whenua o mātou tīpuna tūturu.[Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you all who are here to represent our ancestors. I want to particularly acknowledge the descendants of Mauruuru a Paerangi. It was they who set about exploring the land when our ancestors first made landfall.]It is with real āhuareka that I stand to speak to the second reading of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill. A second reading is always interesting because it's a time for a considered reflection and report back on the process of the settlement from the Māori Affairs Committee to this House. The committee received 26 submissions and I acknowledge the work of my parliamentary colleague and whanauka Rino Tirikatene for his chairmanship in this process. The Māori Affairs Committee went on a beautiful day to Ōhākune and that is where we heard a number of the submissions for this bill. Of the 24 submissions 17 supported the bill three offered no position and four were opposed. It's those that are opposed that the committee—and it is one of the conventions of the Māori Affairs Committee to hear all submissions but it's also interesting that we do spend a lot of time hearing those who actually are dissenters.Of the objections to this particular bill the following were outlined. There were objections to the historical account and Ngāti Rangi oral history. There were allegations of Crown bias towards Ngāti Rangi. There were claims of insufficient redress left for other groups. There were objections to specific redress. There was also the Uenuku Charitable Trust with not having their interests adequately represented and also there was opposition to the Ngāti Rangi Trust by a Ngāti Rangi whānau.We had submissions concerning the history of Ngāti Rangi rohe and that it was being rejigged and an alternative history was being put forward in the deed of settlement. It is difficult to make a determination on whether Ngāti Rangi was an up-river or a down-river iwi. Considering the evidence for who Ngāti Rangi were and in hearing their own kōrero about their whakapapa and where it resided on the river it appears Ngāti Rangi's answer to the question Are you up the river or down the river as an iwi?"—certainly from a whakapapa perspective the raranga of whānau who may more closely align to one iwi or other is entirely contingent actually on which whānau you are getting on with on any given day.So in considering the question of river location we went back to the whakapapa and responded noting that it is actually normal to disagree on the whakapapa of our tīpuna. Whakapapa as a genealogy is not just that actually and it's not just a list of names that starts at A and finishes at Z. Rather whakapapa is made up of detailed and concise information from a collection of all the kōrero that surrounds the various individuals of that whakapapa. It is also a memory from each person's perspective who knew the people in the whakapapa and what they passed down to their descendants.The Crown does not set out to establish a consensus of agreed facts between the iwi but rather to reflect the origins of the settling group as it sees itself. That is why we take no position—and that's why we didn't take a position—on the agreed historical account in relation to other iwi.I also want to pick up on another concern that the Crown was being biased towards Ngāti Rangi. Now as a former chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and also as someone—as a member of Parliament—that has actually seen and been part of a lot of settlements you just have to ask any iwi that has gone through a settlement with the Crown and every one of them will probably tell you that the Crown was totally biased against them. And it will not surprise me that Ngāti Rangi may have a similar view of its dealings with the Crown. In some parts of this bill and listening to submissions in some ways that was the situation.And so related to the concern of the Crown with this one towards that bias of Ngāti Rangi I think is the concern that insufficient redress will be either left to other claimant groups. In fairness though when thinking about this the Crown itself its coffers are not bottomless. But nor is there a preference to one iwi over the other. So rather than each claim being assessed on its individual merits we've got to go back to the Waitangi Tribunal for this one because I note with confidence that the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that other groups in the rohe were not precluded from obtaining redress within the rohe by this particular settlement.I think that's really one of the key points here around this take or this issue—that it was actually that response from the Waitangi Tribunal. I'm encouraged though to see when we look at these and particularly the Ngāti Rangi settlement that we do see a mutual sort of support being expressed between Ngāti Rangi and their whanauka in the Uenuku claims trust. The support that both iwi offered each other is a true expression we believe of tikaka and also manaakitaka that we Māori so proudly stand on.I want to also comment on a submission from former members of the Ngāti Rangi Trust because it is a rare iwi entity that manages to negotiate a settlement process without mamae arising between whānau. Unfortunately in some ways in this Ngāti Rangi bill and the submissions and all the kōrero and negotiations there was some of that but not a lot. But the desire to make good on sins committed against them by the Crown and to make a difference for iwi members can see whānau clash. To make a difference for iwi members but to see whānau clash with each other is difficult to watch and to experience. I think that one thing that we did here is that we listened and then we made that informed decision based on that tikanga particularly around whakapapa and particularly around that manaakitanga that they both showed to each other. That's how they reached through that conclusion to where this bill is today.That said the purpose of the submissions phase really and what we're reporting back here in the second reading is to iron out the issues caused by inadvertent legislative writing or other reasons. So as a consequence there were changes. There were 36 changes actually that were needed and that's what we're reporting back at this second reading. Some of the changes they reflected were more important drafting changes. There was one particular one under the Fisheries Act and then another one particularly around the intent to transfer the New Zealand Defence Force land.I think when we look at this this bill is definitely on its way particularly with reporting back now for this second reading. I think the important thing I want to acknowledge though is the work that has been done by the Hon Andrew Little and the good work that he's done to get it to this stage. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson as well because it was on his watch as the Minister that this bill actually really did start its journey but it's been picked up well by the present Minister.On that note in this bill I do honour those Ngāti Rangi whānui that are here today and wish you well because once it goes through this stage we're there into the third reading of your bill. So kia kaha to you and then on that note I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa kia ora."