Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill

There is a certain air of unreality in going straight from a second reading to debating the preamble, and there is a danger that, in this air of unreality, there will be unnecessary repetition. Of course, the Committee does not want to hear unnecessary repetition from me. I must confess that my primary interest in the bill, and the area I want to speak on, is schedule 2, which is the tikanga-based resolution process for the allocation of land, so I will be reasonably brief in speaking about the preamble.

I simply say that I am particularly interested in recital (4), which talks about the way in which the allocation is to occur. It refers to the terms of the deed of trust. As we heard last night from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, almost 86.5 percent of the beneficial interest in the forests is to be held for the collective, “and the individual beneficial entitlement of each member of that Collective is to be determined by reference to the allocation process that has been agreed amongst those members and is set out in this Act.” That is a reference, first, to schedule 3, which sets out the percentages for allocation of rental proceeds. I must say that I think those percentages have been prepared to an admirable level. For example, Tūhoe are entitled to 27.2987 percent of the total, and how that was worked out, I do not know.

More particularly, I will focus on schedule 2, which deals with the way in which the allocation process is to occur. As we can see from that schedule, which I will look at in far greater detail when we get to it, there are essentially three stages. I am particularly interested in stage 3, and the effect of that type of adjudication process on the ability of courts to interfere in any decision that may be reached.

The preamble is a quite straightforward part of the bill. It sets out the background, and it sets out that the Crown and the collective agreed to negotiate in good faith, have established a framework, and have established the percentages and a means by which each individual member of the collective is to be allocated a particular portion. I think that is all I need to say about the preamble; we must move on and get to the real heart of the bill.

My colleague Chris Finlayson is right, of course: the preamble is reasonably straightforward. It is important for the fact that it lays the groundwork for the rest of the bill, and sets out that “(1) The historical CNI forests land claims … are based on historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown and the desire of [the iwi involved] to secure the return of that land”—basically, the land lying beneath the Kaingaroa Forest—“and to achieve an enduring settlement of those claims:”.

The iwi of the Central North Island Iwi Collective comprise over 100,000 individuals, and they have interests that span a major proportion of the central North Island. This settlement relates to 175,000 hectares of central North Island forest land, and has its genesis in that land and in the contention that has surrounded it for the last 20-odd years. Interestingly, the Crown Forest Assets Act was passed in 1989, so that is a long time for something to be done about this matter. I remember that Richard Prebble sat on the Māori Affairs Committee during his last term in Parliament. He was one of the main movers behind the Crown Forest Assets Act, and he shared with Māori Affairs Committee members at the time that the issues surrounding the sale of Crown forests, in terms of Māori interests—that is, the land—were meant to be settled within about 3 or 4 years. Here we are now, in 2008, and next year it will be 20 years exactly since that Act was passed.

It is important to remind ourselves of the Act that was passed then, because it sits behind the bill and its opening statements. Basically, Māori took an action to the courts, and, as a result of hard-fought and successful litigation on their part, that Act was brought in. A big part of it protected Māori interests in the land that is now part of this settlement—but not substantially, because the land interests still have to be dealt with, and some of us have referred to that in our second reading speeches. This bill deals with the commercial side of the settlement; as for the land issues in terms of allocation to the various iwi interests, that exercise is still to occur. The rentals from the licences were set aside upon the passing of the 1989 legislation, until the claims over the forests could be resolved. As I have already said, that has taken longer than anyone had ever dreamt possible. I guess we have to wonder about the development costs to Māori in terms of lost opportunities over the years, but I am very pleased that we are here today, discussing the bill and the settlement.

Recital (2) of the preamble sets out that the two parties, the Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective, agreed to negotiate in good faith. That has been referred to in previous speeches, as well. When a settlement of this type comes together in the way that this one has, with a long gestation, we may ask whether that says something about the slowness of the Crown, or about the various iwi interests not seeing a way to work together. Fortunately, those things have been worked through.

I think the preamble is fairly clear. It sets out what comes later, and we will refer to some of the issues that are raised behind the preamble as the Committee debate progresses.

Tēnā nō tātou. I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, even though we are just starting to hook into the debate, and they are really just for clarification.

I note that the preamble refers to 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest, which I suppose implies that Ngāti Rangitihi, who were a part of the collective, come under the 13.6 percent of the beneficial interest that has been tagged for remaining beneficiaries. I want to check with the Minister whether that is the case, even though Ngāti Rangitihi are not named. I know that this issue crosses over into Part 1 and into the schedules as well, in terms of named iwi, but I want to check on the issues around Ngāti Rangitihi and where their part might be in terms of that matter.

Could the Minister also give us some information about whether any progress was made at the mandate hui held over the weekend? Although I have not had submissions from Ngāti Rangitihi or any of the factions, I want to ensure that we can say that Ngāti Rangitihi’s interests have been protected, and I want to know whether there are any implications—I think I know what those implications are, anyway—if they do not meet the 24 December deadline. Perhaps the Minister could give us some outlines around that matter.

My main interest in the preamble is recital (4)—namely, the 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest, etc. I seek clarification specifically about the Ngāti Rangitihi issue. I ask the Minister to take a call and give us some feedback. Thank you.

For the benefit of the member Te Ururoa Flavell, I will be very specific in terms of his queries about the preamble to the bill. If the member looks at recital (4) very carefully, he will see that it is quite specific about the interests of Ngāti Rangitihi. He asked a question about the progress being made in resolving the issue of a mandate within Ngāti Rangitihi. I think it is too early to make any comment about that particular issue. It is an internal matter. There is a closing date for resolving the matter, but it is quite some time away yet. I think we should allow Ngāti Rangitihi the opportunity to resolve their internal matters and then come back to us and declare their position. Prior to that, I certainly do not intend to speculate.

I am sorry to labour the point, but the key issue in the discussions at the Māori Affairs Committee, and, indeed, in the submissions made to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, was that Ngāti Rangitihi was originally included in the bill. We know that there are mandate issues—that is not argued. I thank the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, for at least saying that they are ongoing. All that I want to know is whether it is clear that Ngāti Rangitihi’s interests, which are not now specifically covered in this bill, have therefore moved to the other slot. That is all I need to know.

The preamble of the bill does not specifically mention the interests of Ngāti Rangitihi in terms of the period for which the remaining beneficial interest will be held, but the member can take it as read that it is referring to Ngāti Rangitihi.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to the preamble be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Preamble as amended agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Provisions relating to transfers of assets, allocation principles, Crown agreed proportion, and DSP properties