Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill

The Māori Affairs Committee has recommended that the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill be passed with a couple of technical amendments. I have proposed a technical Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 224. This is going to make two technical amendments to clause 63 to ensure that certain properties to be exchanged as part of the vesting of the Taumata property, which is a cultural redress property, are able to be vested as intended by the deed of settlement. The changes ensure that the land exchanged for the Taumata property will, in specific circumstances, be treated as cultural redress property. That means, for example, that certain provisions of the Reserves Act will not apply when the reservation as a historic reserve is revoked, and requirements under the Resource Management Act in relation to the subdivision will not be required.

I commend the bill to the House with the minor technical amendments proposed by SOP 224, and again invite honourable members to read Part 2, Subpart 6, dealing with Taranaki Regional Council representation. If it is not word-for-word exactly the same as in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, it is, quite frankly, pretty close.

I realise that I was a bit slow in standing to take the opportunity of talking in the Committee stage of the last bill, but I will certainly take the opportunity of making reference to the issue of representation.

I know that there is already some discussion as to why we have not opposed all the other Taranaki bills, and I just wanted to explain to the Committee that the clauses in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill that refer to the membership of the council are very specific. They articulate the names of the various tribes; they are to be referred to as Taranaki iwi. That is No. 1.

No. 2—in opposing that part and supporting that reference here in the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill, we were led to believe that it was a duplication of the Local Government Act. Then, on discovery, we found that in the Local Government Act reference is made to the word “may”, whereas in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill—and again I am connecting that bill to this bill—the word that is used is “must”. So there is, in our mind, a big difference.

💬 Marama Fox: You got it wrong. It’s wrong.

I just want to make that point, irrespective of the view that some voice on the other side might have. Thank you.

Out of my respect and affection for the honourable member, I will respond. I do say this with the greatest of respect and affection, but what he said is wrong in relation to the definition of the iwi of Taranaki. I refer him to clause 97 of the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill and I also refer him to clause 75 of the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill—they look pretty much the same to me.

Then I refer the honourable member to “Iwi representation on the committee”, as provided by clause 77 of the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill. The iwi of Taranaki may nominate three people each for these positions. The council must appoint the members nominated to the appropriate committee. Then one goes across to clause 99 in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, which is exactly the same. If he goes to the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill, it is exactly the same.

I am not going to belabour the point, because we have had a good old stoush about this in the course of the second reading speeches. I certainly do not blame the member, because he is an honourable member and a very hard-working member of the Committee. I value his advice on a number of matters, particularly on that iwi to the North, so I am not going to say what I would otherwise say, were another person in the Chamber.

If that is the case, Minister Finlayson, the position of New Zealand First is that we will need to oppose that Supplementary Order Paper 224.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have not come to the votes yet.

No.

All right. We are coming to the vote now, so we have the Minister’s—[Interruption] Order! We are going to have a vote.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 224 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 63 be agreed to.

I move, That the report be adopted.