Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill

I move, That Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to sponsor this bill on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa and the members of Ngāti Awa. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngāti Awa concerning the reconstitution of the structure and operations of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa. This bill is not just about managing a treaty settlement. It is certainly much more than that. It is also about building and maintaining capability within Ngāti Awa. For Ngāti Awa this bill provides the opportunity to succeed as Ngāti Awa. It means that Ngāti Awa are sharing the outcomes that are important to them, whatever they may be.

Leadership roles make it difficult to please everyone and to address everyone’s needs at every level. Leadership is about balance and about ensuring that enduring decisions are made in a strategic and well-managed way. This bill provides Ngāti Awa with a mechanism to lead. We know from international studies that governance structures that are culturally attuned are more likely to achieve success. We want Māori collectives to have access to governance structures that enable Māori to succeed as Māori. This bill does just that.

The current Māori asset base, historical treaty settlements, and the fisheries allocation mean that improvements in Māori governance will have a corresponding positive impact on the country’s broader economic, social, and cultural outcomes. So too will be the case with Ngāti Awa—a people who have a long history of enduring long periods of time to get to the point that they have organised—a better place, and we are there today.

This Government’s confidence to face the future is buoyed by the optimism we share with Māori—that as remarkable as these achievements have been, the best of Māori innovation, enterprise, and success is still to come, and that is what Ngāti Awa are hoping to achieve in the sense of reconstituting themselves as an organisation. But we must remember that there are many examples of our trusts and corporations that have met these same challenges before. There are numerous success stories, and we must learn from them. We must learn from the expertise that is around us and draw on the experiences that we have collectively built over the generations. I am certain Ngāti Awa will do just that.

Ngāti Awa have been strong, confident, and decisive in the sense of getting to where they are today. It is historic for them as a people, and it is historic in this House that a lot of the heavy raupatu that happened in their area will now be put to rest. We need to be thinking about the philosophies and values that guide us—for example, kaitiakitanga and the intergenerational nature of our unique assets are important to us as Māori. We need to keep reminding ourselves of the importance of succession planning and creating opportunities to ensure that the next generation does not start from scratch but is given the benefit of our experiences, as we have had the benefit of learning from those who came before us—not that we always listened. Ngāti Awa have really put in a lot of effort in consulting and discussing with their people in the sense of this reconstitution. It will enable Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to receive and administer settlement redress for and on behalf of Ngāti Awa. It will also enable the representation and governance of the full range of Ngāti Awa interests in the future.

The Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill was reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee on 18 December 2004. The bill will give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngāti Awa on 27 March 2004. To settle their historical claims arising out of the Crown’s various breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is a condition of the settlement that Ngāti Awa establish a governance entity to receive and administrate the settlement redress. This bill provides for the reconstituted Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to be that body. Under this bill Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa will become a stand-alone body corporate to be administered under the provisions of this bill and the charter referred to in the bill.

Members of Ngāti Awa have, by postal ballot, agreed to the reconstitution of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa as proposed by this bill, and have approved the charter of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa. The bill was introduced on 11 August 2004, after a huge number of Ngāti Awa people supported this reconstitution, and it received its first reading on 25 August 2004. The bill was then referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration. The select committee reported the bill back to the House on 1 December 2004. The select committee received and considered submissions on the bill: one from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, one from another Māori trust board, and three from members of Ngāti Awa. That shows us the solid support that the bill has back home.

The committee also received supplementary submissions from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa in response to issues raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill. The committee also met with submitters in Whakatāne on 14 October 2004, where all the submitters presented oral submissions to the committee. The majority of submissions received supported the purpose of the bill and were positive about the Ngāti Awa settlement.

After thorough examination of the bill the select committee has unanimously proposed three drafting-related amendments. Those amendments align the definition of customary rights contained in the bill as introduced with the definition of the same term in the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill; amend the definition of Ngāti Awa to try to accommodate the wish of the iwi to include the words “nga uri o nga hapu o Ngati Awa”; and correct a misspelling in clause 8(3)(c). I would like to thank all members of the select committee for their thorough examination of this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Again I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for the effort and commitment it showed in getting this bill back to the House in a very timely fashion. I wish to thank the following people of Ngāti Awa for the significant contributions that they have made to the development of this new governance arrangement: Hōhepa Mason, Kataraina Waiari, Te Hau Tutua, Dr Hirini and June Mead, Wira and Jeremy Gardiner, John Simpson, Aroha Mead, Taiawātea Moko Mead, Maria Battiste, Hiha Tangitu, Niki Partsh, Denis Simpson, Tāwhiao Keepa, Wairata Aratema, Te Kani Kiingi, and Robyn Bargh, and all of those who helped, especially those who are at home and not here today. Yet again, I wish to acknowledge and thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their considered examination. If it were not for them we would not be here today.

Issues that arise in the context of the treaty settlement discussions are never easy, and I acknowledge the part that each member of the committee has played in ensuring that Ngāti Awa are able to accept settlement redress once it becomes available. In particular, I acknowledge the effort that the committee has made to accommodate the wishes of Ngāti Awa. I wish to commend the committee for reporting the bill back to the House with the commentary on the bill in Māori. The promotion of te reo at this level is to be applauded. This is a significant step forward for these people. In conclusion I want to mihi Ngāti Awa again, and the rūnanga. I commend this bill to the House.

I say at the outset that I want to congratulate the Ngāti Awa people on the choices they have made in setting up this governance arrangement, and to wish them well in the receipt of their claim settlement. I hope the settlement will successfully deal with the grievance that has been felt over a period of years, and that this body will be very, very successful in providing opportunities for the people of Ngāti Awa that they were denied as a result of past grievance.

I think that is where I want to leave my comments about this particular bill. It seems to me inappropriate for Parliament to parade itself as being in some way generous in passing a bill that simply says to a group of New Zealanders: “You can exercise the choice that you have already made.” It does, to my mind, call into question the whole business of the relationship between Māori and the Crown. There are a number of people out there with leadership roles among Māori, whether that role is formal, self-proclaimed, or recognised by just the media, who do insist on saying that somehow Māori are separate from the Crown, and that in the year 2005 Māori remain an entirely separate entity from the Crown. Well, I would argue that if that were true, there would be no need for this bill to be on the floor of the House today. There would be no need to have a treaty settlement process, because, obviously, a Parliament such as this cannot decide who an iwi is, and cannot decide what someone’s tribal connections are—even though I note that the Minister had a bit of a crack at it in the fisheries legislation last year.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: You liked it.

I did not, and I did not vote for it, because I do not believe that Parliament should be stamping that sort of authority over people who make free choices. That is the fundamental difference between Parekura Horomia and myself.

So, getting back to my point here, I think the settlement process does, in fact, confirm in many, many ways that we in this country are all subject to the Crown, and, by definition, part of it, whether we are Māori, whether we want to say we are Pākehā, or whether we want to say we are Scottish, Irish, or any other such nationality. And I do ask the question of those who proclaim to someone like me that I am a Pākehā, and somehow different in this country, whether I am supposed to run around saying that I am an Irishman in exile, a Scotsman in exile, or any other nationality for that matter. I am a New Zealander, I think.

What I am simply saying is that in accepting that Parliament has a role in establishing a governance organisation for an iwi, and that Parliament has a role in confirming what a settlement to an historic grievance might be, the people receiving the payments or whatever the arrangements are—and we will be talking about those before too long—the people who are going to be part of that governance structure, are accepting that they cannot move without Parliament, and by definition they are also accepting that they are part of the Crown, and that there is one country, New Zealand, and one form of governance in this country, to be found seated in this institution.

So I do celebrate the fact that we are passing this bill, and I do celebrate the fact that we are settling a historic grievance. That is not inconsistent with anything that the National Party has had to say about matters to do with Māori up to this point and in recent times. So rather than stand here filling up the time I just want to again congratulate Ngāti Awa. I also congratulate my friends on the Māori Affairs Committee. I am very pleased they took my recommendation that the Māori text go in the front of the bill. It was a hard battle, and finally they agreed with me. But it was a reasonable thing to do. If it were not for the support of Pita Paraone, I might not have got my recommendation through. With that, I simply conclude my comments and say that the passing of bills such as this does indicate that this country has a very, very bright future, and I hope that bright future is as evident for everyone as it is for Ngāti Awa.

Ā, te mea tuatahi māku ki te mihi atu ki te rūnanga me ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Awa mō tēnei rā whakatau i tā koutou pire, te pire o te rūnanga. Kei te mihi atu nōki ki ngā kaiwhakawā o te pire i runga o te Komiti Māori o te Whare Pāremata.

[First and foremost I acknowledge the rūnanga and relations of Ngāti Awa today in respect of their bill, the rūnanga bill. Acknowledgments also to those of the Māori Affairs Committee who deliberated on the bill.]

I am just acknowledging Ngāti Awa—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want it interpreted?

I can translate my own Māori, just in case somebody does not understand what I am talking about. It is better for me to translate it using my Ngāpuhi dialect. I was acknowledging the role of Ngāti Awa, and also the support of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee.

It was indeed interesting for me to listen to what the Māori affairs spokesperson of the National Party said. He was encouraged by the fact that the lead-in to the bill is printed in Māori. I remember some of his comments when we were debating the takutai foreshore fisheries bill about anything being printed in Māori. He saw it as something that was separate, he saw it as discrimination, and I am glad he has seen the light. I have to hand it to Ngāti Awa: finally we see Gerry Brownlee seeing the light in terms of Māori issues. I hope that in the future that same light will shine upon him, and I hope it is 240 volts, not just 12 volts, so that everybody can see him! But I am encouraged by his contribution in support of this bill.

I want to be brief, also. I do not think we have to go blah, blah, to go round and round in circles and play political games about this bill. So I am suggesting that if the National Party supports it, let us get on with the business and actually empower this bill tonight. Kia ora tātou.

Ā, tēnā koe Madam Chair, ā, tēnā hoki tātou o te Whare. Ngā mihi hoki ki ngā māngai o Ngāti Awa, ahakoa horekau rātau i waenganui i a tātau ā-tinana, ā, tēnā koutou e kara mā. Tēnei tā koutou teina mai i te waka o Mātaatua, e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a koutou.

[Greetings to you, Madam Chair, and to all of us in the House as well. Greetings also to representatives of Ngāti Awa, even though they are not here in our midst. Greetings indeed to you all. It is apt that I, a younger descendant of yours of the Mātaatua canoe, should be the one extending greetings to you today.]

On behalf of New Zealand First—may I say, the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the second reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. The previous speaker said that if the National Party supports the bill, then let us get on with it. I say that we cannot get on with it unless New Zealand First supports it—and New Zealand First does support this bill.

Essentially, the bill gives a new status to the corporate body known as Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, firstly, by giving effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngāti Awa concerning the reconstitution of the structure and operations of te rūnanga; secondly, by removing its status as a Māori trust board under the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act and the Maori Trust Boards Act; thirdly, by ensuring it continues to assume governance responsibility for assets belonging to Ngāti Awa; and, fourthly, by ensuring it receives, holds, and administers the Ngāti Awa settlement redress for, and on behalf of, Ngāti Awa.

This bill is part of a long journey that Ngāti Awa has had to undertake in order to reach closure of its claims—a journey that started some 15 years ago when Ngāti Awa started negotiations on this matter. Like similar claims, these people have had to come a long way in order to reach this point today. Clearly, that is a commentary on the process of negotiation adopted by the Crown in similar circumstances in other settlements. I give credit to the Minister of Māori Affairs, who sponsored this bill, for adopting a timely approach to this bill. However, one can only be thankful that a general election is due later this year, as I have no doubt that if that were not the case, this bill would probably languish on the back-burner. Further, I have no doubt that the present member for Waiariki is certainly thankful for this timely approach.

Be that as it may, it is important that this bill is passed into law. Why? Because there is another bill affecting Ngāti Awa, and in that regard I refer particularly to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which is currently undergoing the parliamentary process. In order for that bill to progress, this particular bill requires enactment, to give effect to the terms of the claims settlement bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ngāti Awa—its principals involved in the negotiations—on submitting a structure that has been considered by the whole of the tribe, and that allows for proper governance of responsibilities on behalf of Ngāti Awa in the management of their assets. That should not come as any surprise, given the experience that the negotiators have had in the area of public service and in regard to the cultural requirements of their tribe. I take this opportunity to congratulate them, in spite of the fact that one or two of their own have expressed concerns about the process. That is not untoward, particularly in Māori circles. It allows people to exercise their democratic right.

I suggest to members of this House that the governance structures that Ngāti Awa have established may appear to some to be quite restrictive. However, it needs to be acknowledged that that is what they want, and, in fact, we should be supporting them. In that regard I have great pleasure, on behalf of New Zealand First, in supporting them.

In closure, I want to say that if this measure is an example of what Māoridom is able to do, then, in terms of the many criticisms that Māori receive from all quarters of our society, within and without, this process that they have undertaken will certainly minimise the criticism in the future. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say we support the passing of this bill concerning Ngāti Awa.

The ACT party recognises that the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill is an important bill. It is actually the legal structure that will provide the framework for the corporate body, in essence, that will receive the proceeds that have been negotiated in good faith with the Crown. The ACT party certainly recognises the critical importance of property rights. We stand, as part of our brand, on protecting property rights.

Various iwi and rūnanga have had longstanding legitimate grievances with the Crown on property rights, based on breaches of article 2 of the treaty. We are aware that the executive of the Government will be bringing to this Parliament the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill in a short time. In essence, this bill provides the legal framework and the structure that will allow an entity to be set up to manage the proceeds of that settlement in a modern world. Therefore, it is very important. However, while the ACT party wishes the rūnanga every success, we cannot support this bill, and I shall explain to the House why that is so.

I remind the House that we supported the bill going to a select committee, but we flagged in our speech at the outset what we expected to be in the bill in terms of the minimal requirement of good governance structures. For whatever reason, those issues have not been addressed. I expect that the House will pass this legislation by a clear majority, and it is with quite a heavy heart we say that we will not support it, because we would like to. But we cannot leave off the record the fact that what we are creating here is sloppy legislation. It is badly drafted, and it would not be accepted by any commercial lawyer as an acceptable governance structure for anybody managing an asset on behalf of any group, and I shall expand on that. It is for those reasons, and those reasons alone, that the ACT party will put on the record its opposition to this legislation. The definition in clause 3(1) is just a circular argument. The drafting of the bill is utterly insulting. I am amazed that the Minister with responsibility for the bill, and more particularly his officials, have not drawn those inadequacies to his attention.

The bill says absolutely nothing about how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with, and nothing about how nepotism is to be dealt with. It says nothing about the kinds of accounts and what scrutiny they will get, or what kind of independent audit there will be. [Interruption] The member says it is their business. Well, why is it not the same for every charitable group in the country? Is there one law for all in this country, or not? That is very much the point.

The bill seems to deliberately reject the Companies Act as a model. It seems to reject the Charitable Trusts Act, the Co-operative Companies Act, and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act models. They are well-established commercial models, for good reasons. It is all very well for members to say that it is their business. Well, why do we not say that to every charitable trust in the country? [Interruption] Exactly. Who dished out all the money to the Pipi Foundation? If we do not have governance structures and rules, and police those governance structures, it is not fair on the taxpayer as a whole. It is particularly not fair on the beneficiaries, the very people whom this settlement is for—the rūnanga. [Interruption] “It’s disgraceful.”, says the Minister. What is disgraceful is that he has let a flawed commercial model go through, because that is asking for trouble down the line. I am appalled that the Minister—[Interruption] I would say the same to any group—any charitable trust, incorporated society, or whatever. They need to have proper governance structures of accountability, of audit, and of how people are elected and what their terms are. It is for very good, sound reasons.

If the Minister and the Labour Government are saying that we will have two sets of laws—one for everyone else in society, and separate laws of lesser accountability for Māori settlements—then I say, good grief, are we heading for trouble! That is why the ACT party is flagging this issue. We want a robust governance structure for this settlement, but this bill does not provide it. Therefore, we will oppose the bill.

I want to make a short contribution on the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. The Greens recognise that this is a very important bill and offer to Ngāti Awa our congratulations on its efforts in getting it through as far as this. The Greens support the bill, and we are very pleased that it has come back to the House and is able to proceed. It appears that the issues raised through the select committee process in the Māori Affairs Committee were adequately dealt with, and we certainly hope that Ngāti Awa is able to achieve its ends through the structure set out in this bill.

We recognise that this bill and the structure in it is not what Ngāti Awa originally wanted. It sought for a very long time a structure that would meet its tikanga while being acceptable to the Office of Treaty Settlements. Clearly this is an example whereby that office used its power as the dominant party to force its decisions about the most appropriate structure on Ngāti Awa. That goes directly to the heart of the problems with the treaty settlement process: those to whom the reparations are to be made still have the least amount of control over the nature of that reparation. In no other system where the purpose is to dispense justice would such an arrangement be considered to be fair.

The Greens are also highly critical of the Government for putting this bill forward as a member’s bill. After forcing Ngāti Awa into accepting that type of statutory governance arrangement, one would think that the Government would at least have the good manners to make the bill a Government bill and to use Government time to pass it through the House, so that it had that prestige. That good grace was not accorded to this bill by the Government.

However, the Green Party congratulates Ngāti Awa on achieving a settlement with the Government in these circumstances. We certainly and sincerely hope that this structure will provide the people of Ngāti Awa with the means to achieve their aspirations for their iwi, hapū, and whānau. The Green Party offers to Ngāti Awa our very best wishes for the future.

I speak to the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill on behalf of United Future. I greet and welcome those from the iwi who are here in the gallery to oversee this process, and I thank them for coming. United Future understands the importance of advancing this bill as an essential prerequisite to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill, and congratulates the Minister on personally championing the issue.

It shows a huge amount of foresight that Ngāti Awa has not focused purely on the settlement it can expect but has also given sensible consideration to the governance and management of the resources it will receive. I also congratulate Ngāti Awa on determining for itself the governance structure that it felt was the best fit for it—for choosing not to reinvent the wheel but to take the current working arrangement and change the less appropriate status of a trust board for the structure that is in the bill that United Future supports today. This bill gives effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngāti Awa. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa will cease to be a Māori trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act and will instead become a stand-alone body corporate. Unlike the Māori trust boards, which have been accountable to the Crown, the new body will be directly accountable to the Ngāti Awa people. The transition planned will be smooth, with the current office holders of the trust continuing in that role until the election of representatives of te rūnanga is completed under the charter.

United Future supports this reading and will work cooperatively to ensure the timely passage of this bill and of the claims settlement bill through the House.

I am privileged to take a brief call on Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I offer my congratulations to the people of Ngāti Awa for their efforts to date, and I wish them every success for the future in the process they will undertake. I conclude with a quote from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Margaret Wilson: “Settlements help to heal real grievances. They put cultural and financial investment into often poor rural communities. This will not only strengthen tribes but also their communities and New Zealand as a whole.”

In that vein, I wish Ngāti Awa every success with this bill.

I am pleased to take a call in the report back of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I too acknowledge my whanaunga who are sitting in the gallery tonight. I say again that every time they appear here they are a model of patience and forbearance. They started negotiating their settlement back at the time when National was in Government, and it is now 2005. It is good to see them here.

In terms of this bill, I want to make some comments about the choices made by iwi regarding governance. It is interesting that yesterday the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill was introduced into the House. Ngā Rauru Kītahi has decided upon its governance structure, which I am told by the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Mark Burton, will not require legislation. That is that iwi’s choice.

The importance of this bill is that it reflects the choice of the Ngāti Awa iwi. It was hard fought for on its part, because I understand that it took some 2 years for the Labour Government to accede to its request to have specially constituted legislation that would set up its governance body. I think that is a great shame. We are acknowledging that an iwi is best placed to decide what sort of governance entity it should have to best manage its assets, but the Labour Government somehow seem to keep stalling the iwi’s wish to have its governance entity enshrined in legislation. In that regard, Ngāti Awa is similar to Ngāi Tahu and others. This measure is Ngāti Awa choice. I congratulate the iwi. This is another step in the long journey to the resolution of the injustice dealt to Ngāti Awa in the 19th century and since then.

I was a bit surprised at the contribution from the Hon Ken Shirley from ACT. He certainly made big of his concerns tonight, but I do not recall him making as big a fuss as that at the Māori Affairs Committee. Maybe I was not there at the time. If ACT feels so deeply about the bill, then I do not know why Mr Shirley did not write a minority opinion on it.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Read the introductory speech.

To read the introductory speech is one thing, but this is the report back from the select committee. The select committee process is the opportunity for members to iron out issues, although they may not be able to iron them out if nobody is of a mind to agree. I was truly surprised that the Hon Ken Shirley made such a big thing of his concerns in the House tonight. I am surprised he did not at least ask the select committee whether he could put a minority paragraph somewhere in its report. He did not do so and that is OK, but if his comments have merit—and I doubt it—he should have done that.

There is a charter attached to this bill. It is not part of the bill per se, but I believe that it sets out most of the things Ken Shirley raised this evening. In acknowledgment of the big emphasis Ken Shirley put on those things tonight, I say that if there is merit in what he says I am sure the Ngāti Awa elders and those who will be responsible for administering the settlement assets will take those comments on board. If the comments have merit and the charter does not properly meet the issues of conflict of interest, and so on and so forth, I am sure that they have it in their wit and their intelligence to do something about that. That is the key to these settlement bills—it is the key to these governance bills. This one has not come easily. It has now taken 3 or 4 years for the bill to get to this stage. It is not as though a lot of people, particularly those in Ngāti Awa, have not given a lot of thought to it.

There were some objections to the bill. Given the way the select committee handled those objections at the hearing, I trust that the objectors feel at least partly satisfied. In the end, in relation to the settlement and the governance bodies put into place to administer the settlement assets, I say that to get 100 percent agreement would be unique in this country—absolutely. We never get 100 percent agreement here in this House on anything, other than issues like the tsunami relief response and all those things, which of course we should agree on. But generally speaking, it is very hard to get 100 percent agreement. I hope that the Ngāti Awa objectors, who were few in number but, with respect, not unimportant, feel reasonably satisfied that we gave them a good hearing. I know we all worked hard to do that, and I know we will continue to do that with regard to all the settlement bills.

I support my colleague Gerry Brownlee, and I congratulate him on what he said tonight. I thought he had some very good comments to make. National is very happy to support this stage of the bill and looks forward to its final passing.

Ā, tēnā koutou kai Te Mānuku Tūtahi, nau mai, hara mai.

[And so to you of Te Mānuka Tūtahi, welcome, welcome.]

I stand to take a very brief call on this Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I had intended to speak at some length in response to the contribution of the ACT member the Hon Ken Shirley. I am sure that if he had studied the bill more thoroughly he would have realised that there are accompanying constitutions to assist Ngāti Awa in managing their post-settlement assets. But I think my whanaunga, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, has given him a sufficient verbal clipping. In Māoridom, that is what we call a real beat-up.

I want to welcome Ngāti Awa to the House today for the second reading of this very, very important legislation that will accompany the settlement legislation. As we all appreciate, Ngāti Awa have gone through a long, arduous process to establish the right type of structures they need, not only to manage their settlement assets but to ensure the fair distribution and dissemination of the benefits from those assets. Much of those benefits are very visible in Whakatāne and in wider areas at this time.

Tēnā koutou. I do not have any more to contribute to the discussion except to say that this is a huge milestone in the development of Ngāti Awa. Kia ora tātou.