Hon Christopher Finlayson

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : National enthusiastically supports the second reading of this bill, which, as the report of the Māori Affairs Committee states, gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective, which was signed on 25 June 2008. The committee’s report—and the Minister has referred to this—records that there were 167 submissions, and the committee heard 42 of those submissions in Taupō on 6 August 2008. The committee’s report also notes the genesis of this settlement. The Central North Island Iwi Collective emerged out of a recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 2007 that the Crown give time for central North Island iwi to develop a proposal for Crown forest lands.

As I have said before, the tribunal report does not make pleasant reading. It was highly critical of the Labour Government’s conduct of the Te Arawa negotiation. It said, among other things, that aspects of the Crown’s processes of dealing with overlapping groups were inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It said the Crown failed to act fairly and impartially towards all claimants. It said: “Future settlements cannot proceed like this. The Crown cannot continue to ‘pick favourites’ and make decisions on tribal interests in isolation, based on inadequate information.” The tribunal said that the Crown’s failures in respect of consultation over commercial redress constituted a breach by the Crown of its Treaty duties to act honourably and with the utmost good faith, and failed actively to protect the interests of all Māori. The tribunal described the Crown’s failure to adapt its policy to the unique situation of overlapping cultural and commercial interests as inflexible, inappropriate, and inadequate.

On page 67 of its report, the tribunal said this: “We see Treaty settlements as critical to the future of our country. For this reason, we consider that any recommendation that a proposed settlement not proceed should be made only as an absolute last resort. However, on balance, we cannot endorse the KEC settlement in this form. We have not made this decision lightly, but we have grave concerns about the impact of this settlement on overlapping iwi, and on the durability of future CNI settlements.” So this damning report made it clear that the Labour Government had suspended the laws of averages. It got everything wrong. After 8 years of this Government, where little or no progress had been made on finalising Treaty settlements, 2007 certainly was a watershed year; doing nothing was replaced by a policy of messing up everything Labour touched.

The Minister generously referred to the leadership of Mr te Heuheu, and I endorse what he said. As a result of that leadership, ably assisted by Wira Gardiner, central North Island iwi came together and presented a proposal to the Crown. It was this proposal that ultimately led to the central North Island deed of settlement being signed on 25 June. In my first reading speech I praised the proposal, which, as the committee report said, was best summarised as being iwi-driven and regional. Stung by its litany of failures in 2007, the Crown, this year at least, did not get in the way and considered the proposal. The deed having been signed, the legislation came to the House and, as the Minister observed, has now come back from the select committee very quickly indeed.

In the course of his speech, the Minister addressed some of the issues raised by the select committee report. I endorse everything the Minister said about the hopes for a settlement involving Ngāti Rangitihi. I endorse what he said about the novel resolution process and, finally, what he said about public access.

In my first reading speech I indicated I had a real interest in the allocation model, and I want now to focus on this aspect of the bill. Several submitters opposed the commercial allocation model or the tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. They said the allocation of commercial benefits, set out in schedule 3, was disproportionate because it ignored the extensive and legitimate claims of smaller iwi, thus depriving them of their rights over customary lands. When we come to deal with Part 2, particularly Subpart 2 on allocation principles, I will say something about clauses 14 and 15. The submitters also said that the commercial allocation model should be based on mana whenua, rather than on population, and that it was important to determine who held mana whenua before commercial benefits were allocated. In response, the committee was told that the proportions derived from the commercial allocation model, and included as schedule 3 to the bill, were the result of unanimous agreement and full consensus. They also said it was appropriate that iwi, rather than the Crown, determine title to the land through a tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process, which is set out in schedule 2. It was noted, also, that all the collective iwi had to compromise. Compromise was made possible by the separation of commercial benefits flowing from the land itself.

The committee also heard submissions on schedule 2, and when we come to the Committee stage I will certainly be looking very closely at that schedule, which sets out the steps required for a tikanga-based resolution process for Crown central North Island forests land. It is a very interesting process indeed. One of the issues will be whether it will oust in its entirety the prospect of judicial review proceedings, because I am well aware of what happened after the fisheries settlement in 1992. From 1993 onwards there were debates in the courts about the allocation of quota, or the leasing of quota, and of course there was the great allocation debate that went to the Privy Council, on three occasions, I think. It is extremely important, for the timely resolution of all these matters, that schedule 2 works and that it prevents unnecessary court proceedings, but I will be saying something about whether it effectively does so when we look at schedule 2.

The committee was advised that the collective decided to separate the allocation of commercial benefits of the settlement from ownership of the land, so land is to be allocated according to the mana that iwi traditionally held and exercised over the land, determined according to tikanga. This resolution process means that iwi, rather than the Crown, are primarily responsible for determining the allocation of the title to the forest land. Officials consider that this is appropriate and will enhance the durability of the settlement, and I certainly hope they are right. The collective does not expect mana whenua allocation to be in proportion to financial allocation. Those with greater mana whenua will receive greater land allocation and, after the agreed period of 35 years, the rental streams associated with the land.

• Debate interrupted.