Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill

Just very briefly, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, the Māori Affairs Committee reported the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill back to the House on 2 September and recommended it be passed with a couple of technical amendments. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 215 is in my name, and it provides two technical amendments to ensure that particular third-party interests are protected through the bill. The SOP amends the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill by inserting a new clause 53(3), recording an easement in favour of the South Taranaki District Council, and making a corresponding amendment to schedule 2. That is the only real issue that arises.

There has been a little bit of a debate today about Part 2, Subpart 5, dealing with regional council representation. This is not imposed on the council. It has been drawn up as a result of discussions with the council, and it is very happy with what has transpired. It is exactly the same as the proposal set out—and I will come to it when we deal with it—in Part 2, Subpart 6 of the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill, where there was no objection. It is also in similar form in the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. So we have selective concern about race-based policy. I foreshadow that there could be a bit of excitement.

There has been no opposition to the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill; Subpart 3 of Part 2, of course, provided for the establishment of the Manawatū River catchment advisory board, a body set up involving Rangitāne o Manawatu, and also Rangitāne in the Wairarapa, to advise the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council in relation to freshwater issues. So we do have selective concern, but the fact of the matter is that this body is as a result of discussions between the various iwi, the Crown, and the Taranaki Regional Council.

There was some comment made about a referendum that was held in New Plymouth city last year. That dealt with a completely separate issue, which was the establishment of a Māori ward for the New Plymouth District Council. It was a completely different issue, and attempts to conflate them are, with respect—well, actually, with no respect—totally misleading.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 53 be agreed to.