Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. The ACT Party supports the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill and we look forward to seeing Ngāti Maru receive the benefits which they are due as a result of breaches of contractual obligations by the Crown.It's important that this includes an apology because when we are prepared to admit that we're wrong that is often the first and perhaps the most important part of healing differences from the past. It's also important to acknowledge that this settlement relates primarily to land and to rights in water. So where the bill provides for cultural redress such as vesting 16 sites—specified in Schedule 2—in Ngāti Maru as cultural redress properties that seven sites are vested in fee simple in other words Ngāti Maru can choose to do what they want with the land when they want but nine sites to be vested as reserves. So that acknowledges that in fact there are limits in the interests in this land and recognises that in fact there are rights of other New Zealanders in this reserve land which is held for the benefit of the entire community and so that is one of the dilemmas that we face when looking at whether these settlements in fact address in the most efficient way in the most enduring way the breaches of contractual rights that the settlement is trying to remedy because it does require a balancing of property rights between the individual and collective ownership that Ngāti Maru will have over this land and the public interest for example in conservation or reserve land which has been allocated to Ngāti Maru as part of a vesting of properties as part of the cultural redress.So ACT supports the remedies largely set out in this settlement bill but we do have some concerns about certain aspects because we think actually they can be improved on. So when we looked at the statutory acknowledgments that relevant consent authorities record the statutory acknowledgment that Ngāti Maru has a particular interest in relevant resource management—resource consent applications I would assume that's because there are certain matters around land use or water rights use of water or discharges to water which Ngāti Maru has an interest in. So when others are making applications for resource consents then they would be regarded as an affected party and it's important where in the past regulatory agencies like regional councils or district councils haven't known who has an interest in particular land and water that that is recorded formally so that people who wish to make a submission should be able to where they have an interest where they have standing. But one of the concerns that the ACT Party has with the Resource Management Act—and while it's not addressed in this bill—is that too many people have standing and get to have a say about how private property owners use their land. So while it's not addressed in this bill it's important to recognise that there must be limits to who has standing. But in this case the bill provides for Ngāti Maru to have its standing formally acknowledged.Then we come to the deed of recognition where the Crown is obliged to consult with Ngāti Maru on specific matters and have regards to their views on special associations that they have with certain areas. So look that's an appropriate thing for a settlement bill to address. Then we come to the natural resources redress. That is where the settlement process potentially could be improved on because while this bill attempts to address the problems that have arisen through a breach of contract by the Crown the alienation of Ngāti Maru from their lands and natural resources the way that this bill attempts to do it and that others attempt to do it may not in fact be as effective and enduring as they could be. When we look at a joint management agreement which provides for Taranaki Regional Council and Ngāti Maru to exercise any of the local authority's functions powers or duties relating to a natural or physical resource jointly there are problems with that because rather than actually giving the property rights redress that Ngāti Maru deserve as part of a settlement this gives another form of right to make decisions over other people's property through the resource consent process. So it becomes problematic when we think Well how is it that addressing the breach of contract by the Crown with Ngāti Maru then leads to giving Ngāti Maru decision making potentially over other people's consent applications?" So decision makers in consent applications have derived their powers from democratically elected councils. Yet in this case the bill appears to confer those rights of decision making to Ngāti Maru as part of a settlement and that is not through the normal process through electing regional and district councils. Then we look at the role of iwi in monitoring the river—that is important. It's important that we develop a better understanding of the natural environment and the effects of human activities on the natural environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out repeatedly that there are huge gaps in our understanding of the natural environment and only by more comprehensive monitoring recording the data and observing discharges to the natural environment how water take and how land use affects biodiversity and affects the natural resources will we actually be able to come up with better management plans. So I think it's very important and worthwhile that Ngāti Maru have a role in environmental monitoring of the river. So on balance ACT will support this bill but it is important at this time that we actually question whether giving co-governance or joint management responsibilities and roles to Ngāti Maru—just as an example—is as effective as actually addressing the breach of property rights. Would be it be more effective rather than giving joint management to say "Well actually there's some property rights" whether it's rights and interest in water and that potentially in the future giving property rights in water would be more effective than management and decision making over how other people use the water. So the ACT Party continues to explore what is best for New Zealand what is enduring and what is efficient. In this case we will support this bill—it's progressed a long way through the House it has the support of all parties and it goes a long way to addressing the breaches of the Crown in the past. On that note ACT commends this bill to the House."