Mahuta Nanaia: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4956] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 A tenei e tu ana ki te tautoko nga mihi kua mihia. Ka tapiri atu enei whakaaro ki era o taku hoa a Mita ki a koutou Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Koutou katoa tena koutou. 
[ 
I rise to endorse the salutations that have been expressed and to add these thoughts to those given by my colleague Mita to you Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Greetings to you all. 
] 
I wanted to add my opening comments in acknowledgment of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika comprising Te Atiawa Taranaki Ngati Tama and Ngati Ruanui and to say that after a very very long time we are at the point where we can have the second reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill and move into the third and final reading. It is a good signal. When going through  
Hansard 
 I am reminded that the recitation of history which was put on record in the first reading of this bill by the Hon Dr Cullen was one that was substantive and it will stand as a record of the legitimacy of this claim and the worthiness of continuing with a settlement for the people of Taranaki Whanui o Te Upoko o Te Ika. 
I want to highlight notwithstanding the travesty of history that has been experienced in this particular area that I think the acceptance of the necessity to move forward has been courageous. I will always acknowledge that point with those claimant groups that move forward in Treaty settlements because it is a difficult task. 
This particular claim has seen about eight general elections eight Governments seven different Prime Ministers and numerous officials. We as parliamentarians represent a smidgen of the long history associated with this claim. That should not go unnoticed because although there have been several acknowledgments of the claimant groups and the negotiators who have been involved today there have been many more who have preceded them and I know that they too will have acknowledged the people in whose footsteps they have carried out this tremendous task. 
As this is a second reading of the bill it is important to note the chronology of the recent history associated with the claim as well: the mandate of the negotiating team which was reached in January 2004; the terms of negotiation which were signed in mid-2004 during the previous Labour Government; the agreement in principle which was signed in December 2007; and the initial deed of settlement which was signed in June 2008. During June and July the post-settlement ratification process occurred and at that time 7120 registered adult members were eligible to vote out of which 2634 valid votes were cast and of those votes 2597 were in favour of accepting the deed of settlement. Within the context of that brief time line we reached a final deed of settlement in August 2008 and then this bill went to the select committee in September of the same year. 
Submissions were heard largely after the last general election. This provided an opportunity for people I guess if they had some doubt as to levels of support for opportunities for further recourse to viewpoints. The select committee was the next natural step. Although I was not on the select committee I have read the information. The committee received 16 submissions seven of which were heard. That probably is an indicator if at any point in time in the future comments are raised and this applies to many Treaty settlements in terms of there being opportunities for people to have input. As we can see the chronology of history has provided opportunities for people to engage. 
I will now talk about the select committee report on the bill and highlight two things in the report and one thing that has been mentioned by the Minister. Firstly in respect of the Ngati Tama opt-out clause the point was well made in the select committee report that this really is a precedent that the committee does not think should be set in the future. With the best intentioned efforts one would hope that various disagreements or disputes within iwi about aspects of settlements could be settled internally. I know from our own experience in Waikato-Tainui that had the opt-out provision been contemplated we might not have reached a settlement. The same thing might also have been applied to Ngai Tahu. There are many other variables that exist in contemporary modern Maori society that we cannot altogether put our finger on and we have to look at those on a case by case basis. Although I certainly understand and agree with the select committee view that opt-out clauses are not the preferred mechanism we still need to consider each Treaty settlement within the context of the dynamics and the issues that they are dealing with in and of themselves. That is the key point. 
The next point is around requests made by other iwi to have certain statements expressed in deeds of settlements with the iwi in question. I think as a general principle if the Crown acts in good faith with an iwi to negotiate the terms of that deed of settlement it is a binding agreement on those two parties. For the third parties then to ask for particular considerations to be included in someone else’s deed of settlement I think again provides some very tricky ground and sets some very difficult precedents and is perhaps not the preferred path to go down. I make that statement in particular in relation to the comments of the select committee with regard to the request for a statement of non-challenge by Ngati Toa rangatira many of whom are my whanaunga too. 
The third point I comment on is the one that was raised by the Minister in relation to the remedies of redress and the comments that he made that there will be an opportunity for Taranaki Whanui to purchase back particular properties within the Wellington central business district such as Archives New Zealand the Supreme Court and Wellington Girls’ College and then lease them back. It is up to them what they do but I urge parliamentarians to consider that if that transaction takes place future lease provisions should be treated as for any other property developer or business organisation within the city. 
There is an expectation I think sometimes unfairly put on iwi organisations Maori organisations to have a greater conscience towards the purposes of use of buildings when it is OK for private property developers but not Maori. I think some equity of treatment is an important aspect when we are looking at provisions like this because in the general public perception if iwi purchase back certain properties at market value then market rentals should be a natural consequence if they are going to lease them back. That is not often the case when dealing with Government organisations and public entities and it should be. 
Finally I acknowledge the good work and hard work of the Maori Affairs Committee under the stewardship of Tau Henare and all the committee members. I know in particular the previous Minister of Maori Affairs would want his acknowledgment and continued support for this settlement to be made in this House and also the officials of that select committee and the Office of Treaty Settlements officials. Select committee processes can often be unwieldy and very lengthy but I think there is a general accord across the House that on Treaty settlement legislation the more that we can ensure it goes through with a level of consensus across the House then the better opportunities we provide for all New Zealanders to enable iwi to get along and do the things that they do. 
Without too much more to add to previous comments I am pleased to offer these small thoughts on the second reading of this bill and endorse Labour’s continued support for the Port Nicholson Block and the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Kia ora tatou katoa.