Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13736] 
Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 17 June. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the interrupted second reading debate of the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. This legislation gives legislative import to a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. This again as we have seen before is legislation that commenced prior to the introduction of the bill itself. The bill was introduced by this Government in August 2009 and had its first reading in November 2009 but clearly much of its content derives from an earlier history and some earlier negotiations. I acknowledge the work done by the previous Labour Government and I acknowledge also as we do repeatedly on these occasions the work of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for bringing this legislation to the House from its inception to this point of its second reading. 
The Labour Party supports this legislation. It is about the transfer of assets in an on-account settlement of historical claims of the Whanganui iwi. The substance of the bill simply puts into law an agreement that was made in principle and I suppose codifies in legislative form an agreement arrived at between Whanganui iwi and the Crown. The preamble to this bill describes some of the content of the bill. Basically it states that this agreement between the Crown and the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working party to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between northern Ngati Apa and the working party about aspects of the Ngati Apa settlement package. That was contained in the original agreement in principle between Ngati Apa of the North Island and the Crown. Ngati Apa went through the process of consulting with neighbouring iwi on the agreement in principle and what we have now is the result of that. It does transfer the ownership of land and it transfers the ownership of Crown forest land in particular the northern part of the Wanganui Forest. 
I am always particularly pleased when the Treaty of Waitangi settlements that come before this House for codifying in law include bits of Crown forest. My interest in this area goes back some years to my work as a trustee on the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and nothing gives me greater pleasure as an ex-trustee of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust than to see the map of Crown forests diminishing and land going back to what are usually the rightful owners of the land—or without exception the rightful owners of that land proven by claims before the Waitangi Tribunal—and knitted together as part of historical Treaty settlements. As that map diminishes I am heartened and it gives me great cause for optimism that the historical Treaty processes will be behind us in short order. The Government wishes that all historical Treaty negotiations should be concluded by 2014. I seriously wish it well in that respect and certainly there will not be any unnecessary objection on the part of the Labour Party seeking to derail or hold up any of those Treaty of Waitangi settlements as long as they are fair and address the grievances that various iwi bring to the table. 
It is important to note that even the transfer of this small part the northern part of the Wanganui Forest addresses old grievances. Typically in these circumstances we find the iwi being more generous than they could be in respect of settlements and transfers of land and assets. Huge injustices were done in the past. But in a spirit of goodwill and the wish to move this country forward and get past the Iwi/Kiwi nonsense that characterised former campaigns Maori frequently do not exact everything that they might exact from the Crown. 
It is interesting that in the report back of the Maori Affairs Committee it had only minor technical amendments to make to the bill but it did seem to get embroiled for some time in the issue of the spelling of Whanganui. I cannot speak to this bill without drawing attention to that point. If the House remembers correctly on 18 December 2009 the Minister for Land Information decided after the Geographic Board had put a bit of a conundrum to him that over time Crown agencies would adopt the spelling of Whanganui with an “h”. He made that decision on 18 December 2009 largely because it was close to Christmas and most people would have gone home. However the select committee said it felt very strongly about this issue; in fact it wrote the words “strongly feel” in its report on the bill. It chose to put the “h” into Whanganui except where there is a historical reference—I think there is only one instance in the bill in clause 4—to legislation that has Whanganui without the “h” in the title. That has been left there as a correct historical record. But from now on by changing and amending the bill clearly the select committee has recommended that Whanganui with an “h” should be the legal record of this transfer of assets and I welcome that. I think that was a good response for the select committee to make and I commend it for making those amendments. 
This legislation takes us another step forward in the Treaty settlement process and it is a welcome step. Every time that we get to the end of the process in a Treaty settlement there is a celebration. We are in the middle stages of this settlement right now and I look forward to its proceeding without further ado and to our getting to the third reading of the bill in short order. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will leave the definition of “on account” to my learned colleague Paul Quinn. The Maori Affairs Committee recommended that the spelling of Wanganui be changed to “Whanganui” throughout the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui Kaitoke (Prison) and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill with the exception of the reference in clause 4 to the Corrections (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison) Notice 2008 but including clause 1 the title clause. We had fun in recommending that Wanganui be spelled with an “h” considering all of the hullabaloo over that. 
The agreement by the Crown to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between Ngati Apa and the working party to address concerns Whanganui hapu had with aspects of the Ngati Apa settlement as part of the overlapping claims consultation process. The bill in essence protects Whanganui iwi interests in the northern part of the Wanganui Forest and the half share in the land under Wanganui Prison. This may seem to be an innocuous piece of legislation but it gives an indication of some of the issues that come about in the negotiation of Treaty settlements. 
I will briefly say that the select committee had a very very good hearing up at Turakina Maori Girls College. It was supported very well by the Maori Party the Labour Party and of course the Government. I think what that says about the difficulties with Treaty settlements is that there is a possibility for there to be an agreement with two “conflicting” iwi. I am quite happy to stand here and speak on this bill. I will say that it was not a hard decision to put the “h” back where it belonged. I for one am very very pleased that our select committee in the interests of brotherly and sisterly love was able to come to an agreement on the spelling of “Whanganui”. Thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Back in 1989 Muriwhenua elder and New Zealand Maori Council member Sir Graham Latimer went to court on behalf of Maori to challenge the Government’s right to sell some land that was subject to historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. It was decided that the land would not be sold although assets on the land such as forests could be sold. The decision was to have the land remain in Crown control because it was realised that the land could potentially form part of a future settlement of grievances under the Treaty of Waitangi. That is also what is happening in this Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. 
Aside from Sir Graham’s actions in ensuring that the Crown maintained ownership and control of the land he along with others also ensured that the rental of the property to forest owners generated an income that went into the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. The trust accrued the rental income and the interest on it and Maori were able to access that rental income in order to advance Treaty of Waitangi claims. With the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill we have reached the point where some of the land that would have been sold but for the actions of the Maori Council and Sir Graham is being returned to Maori in the Whanganui area. It is certainly something to celebrate. 
The principle that saw owners of forests pay rental income to the Crown landowners is also being applied to the land under the Kaitoke Prison. The land that the Kaitoke Prison sits on becomes Maori-owned but the buildings remain the property of the Crown. The Crown then rents the land and Maori are to derive a rental income from it. 
The land in question has overlapping iwi interests which caused some interesting debates and discussions. Overlapping interests are one of the key challenges in many Treaty settlements. It is a difficult area with no easy answers. In these situations the Crown has an obligation to negotiate with both iwi in good faith. The Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa have come to an arrangement and it is an incredible achievement. It is a huge credit to both iwi. In my opinion what counts now is not so much what the past held but what the future holds for these iwi. Their commitment and connection through the debate and in getting to a better place is something that we can all take lessons from. They now have an opportunity to put grievances to one side and focus on a successful future for themselves and the mokopuna of the future generations. That in my opinion is a key objective in the settlement of Treaty claims. It provides the opportunity for Maori to emerge from the shadow of grievance and into the light and dawn of a prosperous future. 
The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations needs to be commended for the effort that he has put into this settlement. I also want to commend myself and other people in the previous Labour Government who worked hard on this settlement; I thought that I had better say that too. But I do commend the Minister and his colleagues for that because people forget to say it. 
Nothing will ever compensate for the fragmentation and the degradation of the land culture and language and the loss of social political and economic opportunities caused by alienation from land. This settlement puts a lot of that right for Ngati Apa and the Whanganui iwi. 
The alienation of the Maori language—which the previous speaker Tau Henare talked about in relation to the select committee’s activities—leads me to the main concern in the report of the Maori Affairs Committee on the bill. A small but significant part of the Maori language for Whanganui people is a simple letter the letter “h”. Nowhere in the Maori language in any Maori dictionary can one find the word “wanga”—that sounds more like Aborigine. It has no meaning no connection and no mana or status of any kind for any tribe not just the Whanganui tribes. It is not a word that exists. Therefore it is with immense satisfaction that the word “Wanganui” has been erased from this legislation and replaced with the real Maori name of Whanganui. 
It strikes me as the ultimate act of arrogance that the language of one people can be taken control of by another ethnic group. I struggle to comprehend how a Pakeha in Whanganui can believe that he has any right to deny Maori the correct use of our language. But certainly as we are all encouraged as New Zealanders by the haka and as mana and aroha are commonly used words we know that there are a lot of better Pakeha who appreciate the word Whanganui and who are certainly supportive of it. 
The iwi of Whanganui have the right to walk through the central business district of Whanganui and see their language written correctly and to hear it pronounced correctly. It is no different from what most cultures would appreciate and expect of other people. Respect is a two-way street but many non-Maori view respect only from within their own cultural bias. The effort that has been put in by these two iwi to consolidate and settle this settlement along with the Minister and Co. is something that needs to be recognised and respected. 
I am thrilled that throughout this bill the meaningless word “Wanganui” has been replaced with “Whanganui”. Over the coming years “Whanganui” will subsume “Wanganui” in all legislation on all Automobile Association signposts and in the consciousness of all people. History will look back at the objection to changing the name Wanganui to Whanganui and see it as what it blatantly is—a redneck attack on the rights of indigenous people to practise their language and culture on their own terms. 
The ancient Whanganui debate reminds me of the furore over the correct pronunciation of Taupo and the outrage and indignation expressed when Joanna Paul opened the news with “Kia ora.” Likewise there was the battle that Naida Glavish a telephone exchange operator had when she was demoted for greeting callers with “Kia ora.” So we should take a collection on every Pakeha who says “kia ora” now but it is an accepted use of language in this country and that is wonderful unification. 
If we are serious about nationhood then the essence of this bill is just that. It can help to leverage that and be serious about recognising and respecting other peoples’ wills and needs. So it is for me with the name Whanganui. A whanga I can picture. Where I come from it has two meanings. One meaning is a noun; the other meaning is a verb but both conjure up a picture in my mind. “Whanga” means a bay and “nui” means something large in which case when I hear whanga and nui combined a picture of a large bay springs to mind. 
I use this example to attempt to explain our connection to our language. It is not there just for fun; it is something that many non-Maori would understand and it is certainly a joy to share that knowledge with them. I find it incredibly ironic as I said that one of the literal translations of “Whanganui” could mean a long wait which is exactly what Whanganui iwi have had to experience to get to the stage where a fraction of their land is about to be returned not as compensation but as the right thing to do to correct historical injustices. 
To finish I acknowledge the work of the Tupoho working party whose members have worked hard. They have had to stand and stare down people and work and develop with them. They undertook a robust ratification programme to ensure that the deed of on-account settlement was well supported by Whanganui iwi. Ka nui nga mihi atu ki a ratou me koutou katoa. I tautokotia atu te kaha rawe i roto i a ratou mai ra no mo to ratou kaha e tae pai atu i tenei wahi. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
I greatly appreciate them and you all. The good intentions among them have been first class and supported from the outset and as a consequence the matter has arrived at this place in good shape. So acknowledgments to us 
.]  
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. I will begin by acknowledging the Green Party’s respect for the work and the endurance of the hapu the whanau and the people of Whanganui who have brought this matter to this stage and who are bringing closer a time when they will have returned to them what is rightfully theirs. 
Clearly there is general satisfaction with the shape and form of this bill; the most that the Maori Affairs Committee could do was to insert the “h” into “Whanganui” which was a critical matter. It was an important matter and the previous speaker the Hon Parekura Horomia very eloquently traversed the significance of that “h”. I commend the continuing embedding of it into this legislation. 
The Greens have supported this bill along the way. We will continue to do that and are very pleased to continue to do that. We will support all settlement bills that seek to right a wrong to return mana and to acknowledge mana and to return property and resources to people who should have them. 
This is an interesting bill to the extent that it is on account and I reflect on the comments made by the co-leader of the Maori Party Tariana Turia in the first reading when she noted: “Addressing overlapping interests is one of the key challenges in Treaty settlements. It is a difficult and a complex area and there are no easy answers.” She went on to note: “The on-account settlement with Whanganui iwi demonstrates the challenge that the Crown confronts in trying to find flexible and creative solutions to these very difficult issues of overlapping interests.” This legislation is a good example of an approach that does not simply dictate that one interest will take precedence over another but seeks to accommodate and balance out those interests and to allow internal Maori debate to finesse some of the cruder shall I say disposition of resources that this bill entails. 
As I noted the symbolic acknowledgment of mana and kaitiakitanga is important but so too is the return of resources of material benefit. The return of land and resources provides the necessity and the basis for the re-establishment of an indigenous economy in a very new and different circumstance but Maori in Whanganui will demonstrate and prove as has happened elsewhere that Maori are capable of rising to the challenge of recreating a new economy by taking the best of the old ways and incorporating opportunities and models as a step towards regaining self-sufficiency which was taken away along with their land along with their livelihoods and along with lives lost in the confiscation of that land. 
We tend to think of the economy and economics in a much too narrow basis somehow imagining that they are modern inventions. But every people at every time have had an economy and the pre-contact Maori economy was clearly one that was land-based. It operated within a well-understood and managed set of principles including a rights-based approach. There was the notion of user rights rather than ownership which came in later as a Western model and a Western term. The pre-contact Maori economy was collectivist. It was based on mutual management and control rights and the occupation and use of land and other resources. It was also based on negotiated agreements between hapu and whanau that were worked out when it was deemed to provide mutual benefit to do so or when it fulfilled an obligation or a commitment between two groups of people. 
In the early period of colonisation Maori proved themselves to be very successful in adapting to the new realities of the cash-and-exchange economy imported from Europe. In fact the rapid emergence of Maori as successful producers and traders added to the pressure to alienate Maori from their lands as they successfully competed against Pakeha interests. Maori developed both a willingness and some flair for adapting and adopting Pakeha technologies expectations and needs and meeting those needs for themselves and for the new arrivals. 
Treaty settlements which are all too slowly rolling out are very much about economic opportunities but it is also worth reflecting for a moment on the broader notion of the Treaty relationship and how it is evolving in 21st century Aotearoa. I recall some years ago a Pakeha legal academic commenting with he acknowledged 20/20 hindsight that perhaps we jumped too quickly in the mid-1970s and 1980s into the settlement process before we had negotiated a national dialogue about the place the mana and the status of the Treaty. Perhaps we jumped a little too quickly into constructing mechanisms for settling claims on a case by case by case basis rather than establishing a national consensus about the rightness of the Treaty and the settlement process. It is simply now a matter for reflection and consideration but this evening in the dinner break the Greens discussed the way forward in establishing the Treaty and its role in modern New Zealand society. We clearly do not have the answers—we do not pretend to have the answers—but we have a commitment to doing what we can to see the potential of the Treaty relationship fulfilled developed and evolving over time to enhance and make possible a genuine release from the grievances of the past so that we can move on to a much more positive and productive future. Kia ora koutou. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. I begin my speech tonight by offering the gratitude of the Maori Party to the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia for all of his efforts in helping to bring the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill to this point. 
The Maori Party supports this bill which gives effect to certain provisions of a settlement signed by the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working party on behalf of Whanganui iwi and the Crown on 31 July 2009 and also protects Whanganui iwi interests in the northern part of the Whanganui Forest and the half share in the land under the Wanganui Prison. We note that under the agreement in principle Whanganui iwi were originally to receive 100 percent of the prison lands—Lismore Sands and Lismore Hills—but that now Ngati Apa will receive 50 percent of Lismore Sands and 65 percent of Lismore Hills as part of their settlement. We hope that the Crown takes the same flexible and innovative approach to resolving the difficult issue of overlapping claims between Ngati Apa and Whanganui iwi. 
We note furthermore that the deed of on-account settlement provides the working party with the opportunity to acquire a half share in the land under the Whanganui Prison and the half of the Whanganui Forest not offered to Ngati Apa. The agreement to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between Ngati Apa and the working party to address concerns that the southern hapu of Whanganui iwi had with aspects of the Ngati Apa settlement. If Ngati Apa do not purchase a half share of the land under the Wanganui Prison or the southern half of the Whanganui Forest the Crown will retain the properties until it has reached a comprehensive settlement with Whanganui iwi of their historical Treaty claims. 
The on-account settlement means that these assets will be taken into account when the Crown and Whanganui iwi enter into their comprehensive settlement. The on-account settlement is not a comprehensive settlement and therefore it is not full and final. But we well understand that the key to this settlement’s success rests in the way in which the relationships play out between Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa or Nga Wairiki. We also well realise that this matter is best resolved internally. 
The other amendment of course refers to the Southern Whanganui Cluster working party call for Whanganui to be properly spelt with an “h”. As a result the select committee recommends amending the spelling of Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest to Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest throughout the bill. Te Kenehi Mair of Whanganui iwi said in a submission to the Geographic Board that “The name of our rohe our awa and our iwi is how we are identified … Whanganui was the name given to the area by our ancestor over 600 years ago. Te reo Maori is a vital part of our nation’s culture a source of pride for Maori and a symbol of our collective identify. The name Whanganui has a whakapapa a history. It carries meaning and significance. The name must be spelt properly otherwise it loses integrity.” 
We support the bill because of the subject matter and the importance of the on-account settlement to Whanganui iwi in settling part of their historic grievances against the Crown and securing lands of cultural significance to Whanganui Maori. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak wholeheartedly in support of the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. The bare bones of the bill and what it does can be stated pretty simply and succinctly. The Crown entered into settlement negotiations with Ngati Apa and in the midst of those negotiations it was clear that there were some concerns from Whanganui hapu with aspects of the Ngati Apa North Island settlement as part of the overlapping claims consultation process. As a result of that we have got into this on-account settlement situation whereby this bill protects the Whanganui iwi’s interests in the northern part of the Wanganui Forest with Ngati Apa taking the southern part I think of the forest in their claim and a half share in the land under Whanganui Prison also going in this on-account settlement. 
What we see with on-account settlements is the Crown being able to flexibly and cleverly adapt and creatively make solutions so that iwi interests are well accommodated. “On-account” means of course that the value of the assets transferred in the settlement will be taken into account when the Crown makes an offer of redress for the final settlement of the Whanganui iwi historical claims. I suppose it is in a sense a deposit on something with the rest to come in due course when the full and final settlement for the Whanganui iwi is made. The total value of this settlement will not be known until the transfers of the properties occur. The current book value of the land offered in the settlement is as I understand it approximately $2 million. 
Another interesting fact is that this is the second on-account settlement that has been offered to the Whanganui iwi. The first was the transfer of the Wanganui courthouse with a lease-back to the Crown which occurred in 2004. So we have an on-account settlement here—if you like a deposit for the Whanganui iwi—that arose out of Ngati Apa’s work in negotiations with the Crown. That is good indeed and it is good to have been a part of this process. 
I take note of something that David Clendon said. He expressed concern that we perhaps started the Treaty settlement process too early in the 1990s and that there needed to be a fuller discourse and discussion in this country prior to doing that. I would say to David Clendon that we had to start the settlement process somewhere. We needed to get our hands dirty as it were somewhere. Now under Minister Finlayson who of course follows on from other Ministers we have picked up the pace to a big extent. We are well into settling Treaty grievances and that is a good thing indeed for all New Zealanders—Maori and Pakeha. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 A kati ake kia ora tatou kei te Whare. Hoi ano ra kua hoki mai ano ra tatou ki tenei pire e pa ana ki te iwi o Whanganui ki te Tonga me tera o nga iwi o Ngati Apa. Hoi ano ra ahua roroa te haere o tenei pire. E matorotoro haere ana i waenganui i a tatou. I tenei wa ka tata tonu na ki te mutunga o tana hikoi tana matoro a te wa ka puta na ko te ture ka oti. 
[ 
So greetings to us the House. We have come back again to this bill relating to the people of southern Whanganui and Ngati Apa. The process for this bill has been a somewhat lengthy one. We have deliberated it and taken it apart amongst ourselves. At this point its journey and deliberation is nearly at its conclusion. In time it will be enacted and then it is done 
.]  
I congratulate all the previous speakers who have spoken in support of the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. I do that because I am impressed by the level of collaboration and cooperation that there has been throughout the parliamentary process—in particular during the select committee process. During the hearing of submissions I witnessed a strong willingness to get the bill through the House. Southern Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa expressed very strongly that they had reached a conclusion on how these matters should be settled and they therefore wanted to expedite the bill without any delay. 
The problem with being as far down the speaking order as this is that one is often left with very little to say. 
Chris Tremain 
: I can’t believe that. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I thank the senior Government whip; now I will take an extra 10 minutes because the member wants me to continue speaking. 
My colleagues on this side of the House have covered all the technical aspects of the bill. They have even made reference to the addition of the “h” in the pronunciation of Whanganui. One thing I find very unusual is that before the “h” was an issue I pronounced Wanganui as Wanganui; after the “h” I pronounced Whanganui as Wanganui. I wonder to myself whether te reo Maori has a problem or written English has a problem because nothing has actually changed. I cannot work out why there is all this emotion around the “h”. We talk about the tino rangatiratanga of our te reo Maori and ona tikanga katoa yet the “h” in the English alphabet can become such an issue in the pronunciation of Maori words. Hoi ano that is my opinion and it may not be shared by too many in the south. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is such an emotional issue. 
At this point in time I should also acknowledge the commitment of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson. My colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia has acknowledged him in his speech. I congratulate the Minister on supporting the bill through all stages of the parliamentary process. It needs to be acknowledged that the bill is one of many settlement bills that this Government has picked up but it is yet to actually go through a process where it not only initiates negotiation between the Crown and iwi but also completes it. I am waiting with bated breath for that to happen. Hopefully in the next 18 months we may see that aspiration manifest before us. I will not talk about any area in particular. 
I come back to the bill. Earlier I mentioned the level of cooperation between MPs particularly the members on the Maori Affairs Committee. The incredible cooperation between the Ngati Apa iwi of the North Island and the southern Whanganui iwi needs to be acknowledged. In particular I am referring to the fact that during the initial negotiations the Whanganui iwi raised the issue that they had interests in the whenua of Kaitoke Prison—in the prison site—and also a 50 percent share in forestry. Usually when these issues are raised it takes quite a bit of time to resolve them and it is not an easy undertaking. In fact some of these issues can delay settlement bills for a year or so and I have experienced such situations. Some instances still exist whereby issues of overlapping interests have been raised and have yet to be resolved. I can think of one example in particular where it has probably been a couple of years since negotiations about overlapping interests were entered into yet today they have still not been resolved. 
In terms of this settlement bill the iwi in question understood that there were overlapping interests and that they themselves had the responsibility to resolve them. They called the various stakeholder groups together with the intention of resolving the interests and achieving a win-win outcome in relation to all overlapping issues pertinent to the iwi mentioned. We have to congratulate the negotiators involved and the Crown officials who participated in facilitating many of the discussions on the overlapping interests and to congratulate the iwi and the officials on the outcome which in this case is an agreement that southern Whanganui iwi did have interests in these two particular areas. 
Contrary to what the previous speaker Simon Bridges stated this is the first on-account settlement in the Whanganui district. The Whanganui courthouse matter was not a settlement; it was outside the settlement process—but let us not split hairs over that. I congratulate the Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa on this ground-breaking decision to agree to an on-account settlement. This is the first time I have seen an on-account settlement introduced to the House by way of legislation. I was a Treaty settlements Minister for some 6 years and I do not recall a specific bill being introduced over that time to that effect. This is ground-breaking territory and everybody involved has to be acknowledged and congratulated. 
If anybody were to visit the Whanganui district and look at the countryside—at the rivers the mountains the hills the farmland and the farming operations—he or she would admire the primary sector in that area for the advances that have been made in agriculture and horticulture and other primary industries particularly forestry. But what is not apparent in the district is Maori participation in these primary sector activities. What is expected from this settlement is that Maori in the area—Ngati Apa and southern Whanganui iwi included—will no longer be bystanders watching development opportunities pass them by. In fact they will actively participate in contributing to the local economy particularly in the primary sector. 
Once again I congratulate the Minister. He has certainly picked up the challenge as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and taken on all the fine work that the Labour Government put in place. Hopefully he will be able to bring to completion much of what he has taken on board. I look forward to some of the challenges that are ahead of him. Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I take this opportunity to speak on the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. I was going to focus on some of the technical aspects of the bill and hopefully I will have time to do that a little later. 
In the initial part of my contribution to this debate I will focus on a couple of the points that were made by previous speakers. I noted with mirth some of the comments on a number of items from my friends and colleagues on the opposite benches. Firstly to deal with the contribution of Maryan Street she waxed lyrical about her knowledge of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. I listened with amusement as she said that she took pride in the fact that the assets of the trust were once again being transferred to their rightful owners. She said that she had been part of that process and claimed that Labour was responsible for it as it was for many things. Well let me give her a little history lesson. The Crown Forestry Rental Trust was set up in 1989 and I know everything about it because I negotiated it. Even Shane Jones admits that and it is recorded in  
Hansard 
. Let me tell Maryan Street one other thing about the Crown Forestry Rental Trust negotiations. When negotiations were settled the agreement said that all forest claims would be settled within 4 years. Now here we are still settling these claims. Of course we have had Maryan and my friends Parekura and Mita waxing lyrical about— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure that the honourable member opposite is well aware that he cannot address members by their Christian names in this House. He must address them by their title the position that they hold or the constituency name. The member has on four occasions now used first names. I ask that he be brought to order. This is a House of Representatives. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When a point of order is being considered there will be silence. The member knows that and I ask that in future he use the correct name. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I must apologise to Ross Robertson who I am sure as a former Assistant Speaker knows with thoroughness the books and rules of this House. None the less I thank him for his contribution and guidance in this matter. I guess I just got carried away. The collegiality in the Maori Affairs Committee is so great that we actually use Christian names and friendly names. I must check the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 to see whether we are allowed to use Christian names in the select committee or whether we must use full names or constituency names. I just got carried away in the spirit of friendship and understanding. For that I apologise to Mr Horomia and Mr Ririnui if I have offended them. I really am sorry for having done that. 
I was sharing with my parliamentary colleagues the fact that when the Crown Forest Assets Act was passed it was agreed that the Crown Forestry Rental Trust negotiations would all be settled within 4 years. But here we are today discussing the settlement of another forest claim. 
We have heard from our friends on the Labour side of the House that this bill is another great step forward and a great reflection of the work Labour did on the bill. But the records show that in the 9 years that the previous administration sat on this side of the House it managed to do only one and a half settlements a year and it got to that level only because of the accelerated and focused attention of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Dr Cullen who clearly and for whatever reason decided that things needed to move along a little quicker than they had been moving under the Hon Margaret Wilson followed by that chappie from Taupo the Hon Mark Burton. So I think it is important to put things in perspective. 
I will also comment briefly about the contribution of the Green list MP David Clendon. My colleague Simon Bridges the constituency member for Tauranga commented on him noting that Mr Clendon was pleading for a pause to have a cup of tea. Let me share with Mr Clendon as someone who has been involved in these issues since 1984 that there is no time for a cup of tea. Maori people—iwi whanau and hapu—want to get on with it. 
Hon Member 
: My people! 
PAUL QUINN 
: No no they are not my people; I am their servant. I am just the boy at the feet of the chiefs. I think it is appropriate to understand that people are keen to move on—to get out of grievance mode to move into development mode and to get on with things. This particular bill the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill which is now before us in its second reading will be another one of the many bills that the Government has already passed in this House under this administration and under the superb leadership of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Christopher Finlayson a fine gentleman scholar and Minister. 
We should also put on record the excellent leadership that the chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee the Hon Tau Henare has contributed in terms of ensuring a harmonious relationship within the select committee and amongst its members. It is a pleasure to serve on the Maori Affairs Committee. It is a pleasure firstly because they are such fine people—gentlemen all of them—and secondly because of the work the committee does to accelerate and move through settlements so that the Maori people whom the committee aims at assisting can get on to development and into forward thinking. So with those few words I commend the second reading of this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Listeners could be forgiven for getting slightly lost through the contribution of the previous speech from Paul Quinn. If there was ever an example of 10 minutes that said very little in relation to the bill at hand that was it. 
I will raise a number of comments with regard to the second reading of this Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. Members on both sides of the House gave due recognition to a process we have in New Zealand that is second to none—that is the Treaty settlement process. Yes it was begun by National but it was continued by Labour and now National is continuing it. Both sides of the House recognise that the Treaty settlement process and the reconciliation of historical injustices throughout this country from the time that colonisation took place are necessary moves towards becoming the type of country we want to become. I do not think any particular member on either side of the House could take the moral high ground on the necessity of our continuing down this track but let me commend former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and certainly the current Minister for recognising how important that process is. Iwi relish the opportunity to go into direct negotiation to stump up with their experts—historical experts legal experts technical experts—in front of Crown negotiators to put their issue on the table to work towards a settlement and then to get to the point of presenting legislation to the House so that the process can be continued which is where we are at. 
I think the direct negotiation process that has been embarked on particularly with the Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa has raised a number of interesting learning points for both sides. But the important thing—and this is the point I want to make to members of the House—is not how many settlements we get through in a year; it is whether people feel they have been treated fairly throughout the process. Often the process can be long and painstaking. With regard to this settlement the way in which the Government has addressed the overlapping claims in Whanganui can be commended. It provides a window of opportunity to the people of Whanganui and certainly to Ngati Apa. 
If that window of opportunity is that the ownership of Kaitoke Prison will be returned to Whanganui it is absolutely in line with some of the messages from members of that iwi that they see themselves in time getting into the management of prisons and I can well understand that. Given that one of the Ministers in the Maori Party is a promoter of that particular policy in light of this settlement it is easy to understand where the window of opportunity is and to understand the logic of their thinking. However it is one thing being an owner of a prison; it is another thing managing a prison. When one is managing a prison and policies like “three strikes and you’re out” being promoted by the Government which will see more prisons being built it does not add up. I suspect that there will be more issues regarding whether as a result of this settlement Whanganui iwi or Ngati Apa will on the one hand own prisons and on the other hand actually consider managing prisons under the current policy regime of this Government. I think there is more talk to be done there and I am sure that they will want the types of policies that would see fewer Maori in prison not more and would see fewer prisons being built not more. That is a really important point. 
There are some serious challenges for the Government in moving forward with Whanganui iwi. We know that the river is a key identifier of who the people of Whanganui are and they are eager to ensure that the resolution of their river claim can be reached within this term of Parliament. Labour members are too. We would like to see that happen. I see that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is nodding his head. He understands exactly what I am saying. A substantial number of the lands that can be returned to Whanganui reside in Department of Conservation ownership. It is a challenging issue for the Government and we are eager to see how the Government responds to the very serious and comprehensive nature of the interests that Whanganui have within their particular rohe. 
I will raise one other issue. Points were made in the first reading of this bill about the potential opportunity of iwi being handed back prisons. My issue is simply this: when iwi become landlords and the Crown becomes the tenant I hope that iwi are not treated as if they do not want to generate revenue from their lands for the betterment of their people—to return revenue to their people. When it comes to simple things like rental reviews of a prison which may over time see incremental increases I hope that Whanganui iwi will not be a punching bag for any future Government. Iwi need to take on board the commercial aspect of the types of assets that are being returned to them. They must manage them for the future long-term benefit of and the return of benefits to their tribal members. On past experience that has provided some points of tension from previous settlements. I would urge understanding from across this House because it is a contentious issue. 
Members of the Maori Affairs Committee rightly rectified references to “Wanganui” in the bill to include the “h”—“Whanganui” as I would say it—and I think that is really important. It cuts to the heart of what we are trying to achieve through Treaty settlements which is resolving historical injustices and recognising historical references. If there was any type of recognition that the Government could give leadership on for Whanganui iwi it would be to include the “h” in their name. I am glad that the Maori Affairs Committee rightly saw the opportunity to correct that. I just regret that the Government did not give stronger leadership on this particular issue because the correct naming of places is a really important aspect of Maori tribal cultural identity. If in such a small small manner leadership could have been given on that particular point I am sure it would have satisfied the many representations that had been put forward by people within Whanganui. 
I will not take up much more time but I endorse absolutely the contributions made by my colleagues in the Labour team who in the previous Government had some input into many aspects of Treaty settlements. I reiterate that we too see New Zealand’s Treaty settlement process—the opportunity to go into direct negotiation—as being second to none and that has been recognised in international fora in terms of working with indigenous peoples. I am absolutely confident that where there is an opportunity here the people of Whanganui will grasp it but it will present very serious challenges for the Government going forward towards a comprehensive settlement. It will also pose challenging questions within Whanganui iwi but that is their challenge; it is not ours. All we can say at this point is that the on-account settlement is a pragmatic and I think sensible way to deal with overlapping claims in this particular area. I look forward to the comprehensive settlement for Whanganui iwi. Kia ora. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. Clearly I am not a member of the Maori Affairs Committee which considered this document but I support very much the pragmatic leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and of Tau Henare in guiding this bill through the select committee process. 
Looking at this bill from the point of view of someone from across the ranges from Whanganui over in the Wairarapa I am delighted to see that in this situation overlapping claims are being protected through this bill. But I am also saddened because on my side of the hill in the territory stretching from Ngawi up through to Hawke’s Bay we have two iwi Ngati Kahungunu and Rangitane o Wairarapa who face an identical situation to the one that we have in Whanganui. The difference is that in the Wairarapa the leadership of Ngati Kahungunu cannot pull together so that the Treaty negotiation process can begin. That saddens me greatly because we have the better part of $80 million plus or minus—this being the claim that can be settled—being held up by squabbling dysfunctional leadership. I think that is really unfortunate. One of our iwi Rangitane o Wairarapa is ready to go and it is being held up by this very unsatisfactory situation. 
The second general point that I would make from the point of view of looking at the sweep of history in this country and our relationship with Pacific people is that if we had asked Pacific people 30 years ago how they felt about the relationship between New Zealand Pakeha and Maori I think people in the Pacific would have looked at us sideways. I have always felt that Pacific people judge how things are going in New Zealand by looking at the relationship between Maori and Pakeha. I would particularly urge Pacific people who are listening to this debate tonight to think about how the relationship between Pakeha and Maori has changed and improved with significantly better outcomes for both Maori and Pakeha as we move forward in this country. I hope it will be possible one day to transpose the model that we have developed for the relationship between Maori and Pakeha so that it also applies for example to Pakeha people and Niuean people or to Pakeha New Zealanders and Tokelauans or even to people of Cook Islands extraction and the New Zealand community. This is fundamentally important because we all carry the same passport and the same nationality. 
I think this is very pragmatic legislation. Protecting the interests of people from Whanganui is really important and it also means that Pacific people can judge their relationship with the Crown in New Zealand and in particular the honourable behaviour of the Crown. With those words I say I am really supportive of this bill. I think the agreement by the Crown to enter into this very pragmatic relationship can only take us forward in leaps and bounds. With those words I would like to commend entirely this bill to the House. Thank you. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Ki te Whare tena koutou. Ki te Kaikorero tena koe. Ki nga mema Paremata tena koutou. I will make a few comments as we draw to the end of the day. First I acknowledge all of the people down in Christchurch who are working to rebuild their city as we speak all of the members of Parliament down there working hard and all our friends and colleagues down there. 
I will say a few words about the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill and put it into the context of how settlements are benefiting Maori. When I am in my electorate I talk to a lot of Pakeha people and they still struggle with understanding the benefit of settlements and why the Crown is going on and on with these settlements. 
I will use a brief slot now to show an example. Probably the best example that crystallises some of the benefits of the settlements in New Zealand at the moment is the BNZ advertisements that are being portrayed on television. If we look at those ads we see that they talk about what has happened down in Kaikoura with Whale Watch Kaikoura. As the advertisements point out Kaikoura was a community with many on the unemployment benefit. They saw an opportunity with Whale Watch Kaikoura and they threw in a combination of entrepreneurism and in particular settlement proceeds that went through to Ngai Tahu as part of its settlement process. They were able to invest in a business that if the ads are to be believed—and I certainly believe them—now employs some 75 people. 
The people of that community are now employed. They are sending their children to university and they are investing in their rugby clubs league clubs and wider community through donations. They are now part of the wealth-creating engine of our economy. That is the nuts and bolts of what the settlements are about. The more we see of that and the quicker we can get through the Treaty settlement process the more we can help iwi hapu and whanau become part of the wealth-creating engine of New Zealand and the more we will get to the heart of the negative statistics that we see in this country that many of us in this House deplore. 
I am certainly in favour of these settlement bills. Today we are debating this particular Whanganui settlement which is quite a unique opportunity—and one out of the box—to make a settlement in advance with Whanganui iwi taking into account the Ngati Apa cross-settlement issues. In this case the bill settles some land issues in advance of the wider settlement with the Whanganui iwi. 
Again it is an example of the Government being extremely proactive and of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson thinking outside the square finding ways we can make settlements in advance and getting on with the settlement process. The more we do that the more we can create communities like the one that has been created down in Kaikoura. The more we can make those communities become part of the economic engine of New Zealand the better this nation will be and the quicker we will be able to put behind us the issues of past Treaty grievances. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill.