Young Jonathan: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3400. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): After those sage words of advice from David Parker I will gladly take my 10 minutes to talk about some aspects of this bill. The previous speaker I guess bright-eyed and bushy-tailed back in 2008 introduced the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Here we are today and thank goodness we are not debating Power New Zealand policy or any of those other ideas that the member was proposing.As I read through this bill as the member for New Plymouth I note that there is a section in this bill entitled “Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area”—clauses 42 43 and 44—that has been deleted by the Primary Production Committee in its consideration of the bill. I bring out this point because this bill is being promoted to bring contentment around land issues that individuals or councils need to have straightened out and sorted. But the reason why these three clauses were deleted by the committee is that they created discontent. Perhaps it was done in all good faith and maybe not understood why at that particular time when the bill was introduced but certainly as time progressed it became very clear. As I read through the commentary of the committee under that heading “Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protection Area”—which for those who do not know where that is it is just off Port Taranaki 1.5 kilometres offshore from the fantastic city of New Plymouth or Ngāmotu as these islands are also referred to. The committee—Kris Faafoi: Is there a polling booth there?JONATHAN YOUNG: Actually prior to European arrival in the area iwi did live on that great island offshore from that great city. There was also a whaling station. In fact when James Cook came around New Zealand he looked there in 1770 at the guano deposits. They reminded him of the way that sugar in Europe was stored in heaps or loaves. He named the islands the Sugar Loaf Islands. I think Mr Deputy Speaker you would like to know the reason why. This issue around the Sugar Loaf Islands is very important. The committee said regarding the Sugar Loaf Islands: “We recommend the deletion of clauses 42 43 and 44 from the bill. Removing these clauses has the support of all the parties who made submissions on these clauses of the bill. This would allow further consultation with all affected parties and enable the Government response to the report of the Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 to be incorporated in any future resolution of this matter.”So we go back to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004—the legacy of the caring and sharing party opposite. Peter Moeahu a colourful and well-liked leader in our community who comes from Te Ātiawa noted that the Foreshore and Seabed Act has had no bearing on the already good relationship that he has established with the Department of Conservation and the New Plymouth District Council over the Sugar Loaf Islands. This relationship has protected interests and ensured involvement in the management of the islands. That has been taking place through all these years and then the Foreshore and Seabed Act just overrode all of that. This is what the bill says in clause 43—“Transfer of land to the Crown”—that is the heading of clause 43—“The fee simple estate in the following land is transferred from the Taranaki Regional Council and vested in the Crown:”. Further down in subclause (2) it says: “The fee simple estate”—and it names a number of the islands—“is transferred from the New Plymouth District Council and vested in the Crown.” The reason why these clauses were deleted from this bill is that these islands were incredibly important and significant to local iwi to Te Ātiawa and to Taranaki. Members on the other side when considering the Foreshore and Seabed Act missed that. Then it was included in this bill to vest the ownership of those islands in the Crown. I am sure Peter Moeahu and others of Taranaki and Te Ātiawa would have come and presented to the committee to say: “We want those islands to be vested back to us.”It is this Government—this Government this National Government—that has done more for Māori than the previous Government. I have to tell the story that back in 2009 the Hon Chris Finlayson Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations came to meet the iwi of North Taranaki. He heard from their lips and from their hearts the story of the Land Wars that started 150 years prior on 17 March. He said to them: “We want to sign the head of agreement on the 150th commemoration date of the commencement of those Land Wars in order to start to redress and peel back the issues and the harm that happened.” In August 2014—and Mr Deputy Speaker you will know and see how relevant this is to my speech—it was reported that the Crown had signed a deed of settlement for the historical Treaty claims of Te Ātiawa at the Rangiātea complex in New Plymouth. The Crown was represented by the Hon Chris Finlayson who is held in the highest of regard by iwi in Taranaki. The deed signing was witnessed by the New Plymouth member of Parliament Jonathan Young. The settlement provides—Kris Faafoi: Name-dropper.JONATHAN YOUNG: Name-dropper? I drop the name of the Hon Chris Finlayson any time I can. He is such an excellent member of Parliament and excellent Minister. The settlement provides for the joint vesting of Ngāmotu Sugar Loaf Islands in Te Ātiawa and Taranaki iwi. The joint vesting of Ngāmotu was supported and approved by the New Plymouth District Council and the Taranaki Regional Council after consultation with the public. So here we see a redressing. The best thing I can say is that in this bill there are three deleted clauses because they return to the iwi of Taranaki and the iwi of Te Ātiawa those historic lands that they hold so precious. Thank you.Bill read a second time.