Hon Christopher Finlayson

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Like other members who have spoken in the House this afternoon, I acknowledge the presence of the iwi of the central North Island and welcome them to the House. My National colleagues have already indicated that we will support the first reading of this bill and its referral to the Māori Affairs Committee. In doing so, National applauds the great efforts made by iwi to make this settlement possible. As is well known, this settlement was formulated by iwi, for iwi. Indeed, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations himself acknowledged that fact when, a few days ago, he said “It needs to be made clear this is not a Crown initiative.” The iwi themselves have proposed an acceptable settlement, the iwi themselves have worked together to solve issues around overlapping claims, and the iwi themselves drove one of the most detailed and comprehensive consultation programmes we have seen to date.

I do not think I need to refer at length to the severe criticisms by the tribunal of the Crown’s negotiating process in recent times. Those criticisms are well known. The point that needs to be emphasised is that out of the ashes something positive emerged, and the credit for that must go to the iwi. To quote Shakespeare in Julius Caesar—and he was not, I am sure, referring to the Waikato—“we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.” Certainly the iwi here today took the current when it served, and this settlement is the result. It is testimony to their courage and their determination.

At the risk of sounding like a cold, calculating lawyer—which is certainly not me at all—I observe that the bill raises a number of very interesting issues, and these issues are certainly worthy of detailed consideration in the select committee. I would like to outline in a reasonably superficial way some of the key provisions of the bill; the detailed comments can be made in the Committee stage.

As is customary in this type of legislation, there is a brief historical preamble, and then that leads on to certain key provisions. Part 2 is the heart of the bill. It contains provisions relating to the transfer of assets. I refer particularly to clause 6, which vests central North Island forests land in a company called CNI Iwi Holdings Ltd. This company is to act as trustee for the CNI Iwi Holdings Trust and will administer the forests land in accordance with the Act once it is passed, the deed of settlement, and the deed of trust. As is to be expected in this type of settlement legislation, there is a clause that ousts the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals, and other judicial bodies—whatever they may be—to inquire into, or make findings or recommendations in respect of, any or all of the historical central North Island forest claims, the deed of settlement, or the Act. It is important that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not excluded in so far as it is required to take certain steps that are novel and are more particularly dealt with in clause 22. I will come to that clause in a few minutes.

Subpart 2 of Part 2 is a very interesting provision, dealing with allocation principles. Those are more particularly referred to in schedule 2 of the bill. As one who was involved in the fisheries allocation debate for many years, I know how important it is to have a clear set of allocation principles and a robust process for the resolution of any disputes. In the select committee I will be particularly interested in schedule 2, which is extremely comprehensive. I will not go through any of the particular stages in detail, nor will I comment on such innovations as, for example, are contained in clause 5(2)(d) of schedule 2, which provides that “no expert advisors, including lawyers and historians, are permitted to participate directly in the … negotiations.” Nor, under the stage 3 provisions in clause 6 of that schedule, can lawyers appear before the adjudication panel that is to be established, unless all parties agree.

Some would wholeheartedly endorse those provisions—I think Dr Sharples, who spoke earlier, would probably be in that category. Many people consider that the fisheries allocation became bogged down in litigation, and that far too much money was spent on appeals to the Privy Council on preliminary questions. There was litigation every time there was a lease round; indeed, the whole process was bedevilled by litigation. One might perhaps expect me to be opposed to such provisions, but I promise the House I will study them with an open mind, bearing in mind the experience I had in the fisheries allocation litigation. The last thing anyone wants is for this process to be bogged down by judicial review applications or other forms of litigation. There is an old saying that it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation, and that certainly applies here.

I am also very interested in the new powers that are conferred on the tribunal under clause 22 of the bill. As is well known, the tribunal’s jurisdiction is primarily to hear claims and make recommendations. It can make binding orders in a very narrow set of circumstances. But here we have a new jurisdiction that involves the tribunal mediating between various parties to try to resolve a dispute. That will occur if the Crown, the central North Island iwi collective, and the other central North Island claimant agree. I applaud this innovation; I think it is a very interesting and good one, and I think it could prove to be a very useful tool for the tribunal. Clause 23 is the other jurisdictional clause, and it says that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not ousted in relation to certain claims. That relates to the other central North Island claimant and is all perfectly understandable.

I will not go through Part 3, which deals with miscellaneous provisions. As I said earlier, the detail can be addressed during the Committee stage of the bill once the select committee has looked in detail at its provisions.

Modesty probably prevented my dear friend and colleague Mrs te Heuheu from mentioning her brother-in-law, but I can mention him. Tumu te Heuheu is to be congratulated on his statesmanship in moving this settlement forward. One other person deserves special mention, and that is Wira Gardiner, because he too worked very well to bring individual iwi together after the Crown’s previous negotiating process had resulted in considerable concerns.

It is a great pleasure to have the honour of speaking in this first reading debate. Let me conclude by assuring all members of the various iwi represented here today that the National Party members on the Māori Affairs Committee are looking forward to hearing their submissions and working on the bill. It is a day when we can all be very pleased to see some progress in Treaty settlements after so many years of inaction. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. As I say, National will support the referral of the bill to the select committee.