Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-Account Settlement Bill
Rahui Katene, MP for Te Tai Tonga
Thursday 19 November 2009

I stand today, to add to the debate on the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-Account Settlement Bill.

I welcome those of Whanganui descent who have come today to this first reading, tena koutou.

This is a Bill with a very long title and an equally complex deed of settlement.

The Bill defines the deed of on-account settlement as

“the deed of on-account settlement of historical claims of Whanganui Iwi in relation to the Whanganui Kaitoke Prison and part of the Whanganui Forest between the working party on behalf of Whanganui Iwi, the Trustees of the Pakaitore Trust, and the Crown dated 31 July 2009”.

What is perhaps missing from that very long definition is reference to Ngati Apa

And yet the origins for this on account settlement are firmly fixed in relation to Ngati Apa.

The working party referred to in the settlement was established and mandated for the express purpose of ensuring Whanganui hapu who claim interests in the Southern or Tupoho region of the Whanganui District had a vehicle for consultation on the Ngati Apa settlement.

It is, by its very nature, a settlement that is only relevant because of Ngati Apa – or more particularly those hapu of Whanganui iwi whose interests overlap with Ngati Apa.

The terms of the on-account settlement will enable the working party to a right of deferred selection to a half share in the land under the Whanganui Prison and the half of the Whanganui Forest not offered to Ngati Apa.

This right of deferred selection is subject to Ngati Apa first exercising its right of deferred selection.

Should Ngati Apa decide not to purchase those assets they will remain in Crown ownership and are likely to be the subject of future negotiations with Whanganui iwi.

Mr Speaker, as we go through the detail of the bill, it becomes more and more evident that we are talking about a sophisticated tapestry of overlapping and inter-related discussions and dialogue between Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa (North Island).

As I understand it, the way in which the Crown applies the overlapping claims process in any particular case is meant to be managed in good faith to reflect the particular situations of the groups in negotiations and those with overlapping interests.

In April this year, the Minister for Treaty Negotiations, Hon Chris Finlayson, held a major hui with iwi to encourage the various groups to identify procedural ways that they or the Crown could help to negotiate more efficiently. A key issue in the discussion was the possibility of the Crown offering more assistance to iwi with overlapping claims before the serious negotiations begin.

Overlapping claims are a significant feature of our settlement landscape. While everyone accepts that they are best settled by the claimants before negotiations with the Crown begins, it doesn’t always work out this way, and in some instances, the Waitangi Tribunal has been called in to resolve issues.

I listened very carefully on Tuesday, when my colleague, Tariana Turia, described the clear commitment of Ngati Apa to work towards ensuring overlapping interests from other tribal groups within the rohe are addressed.
The position put forward by Ngati Apa was that they would only claim areas of interest as theirs, exclusively, as long as the available research was substantial and unopposed.

I believe this is a very distinctive aspect of their settlement, and I will be interested at the select committee stage of this Bill to learn how the working party proceeded to negotiate with Ngati Apa during the process of reaching the Terms of Agreement.

Minister Turia also made some very interesting remarks today in opening this debate, in speaking to the need for enduring and meaningful relationships between iwi, before, during and after the Crown enters the rohe.

Whanganui and Ngati Apa have to live together – just as in my case, Rangitāne, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa and Ngāti Toa have all had to work out how we live together in our relationships with Kai Tahu and with each other.

In the case of Te Tau Ihu, the Waitangi Tribunal found that when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 the six iwi I just referred to had valid customary rights that overlapped the acknowledged rights of Ngāi Tahu in various parts of the takiwā.

The Tribunal found that the Crown ahd acquired these lands and resources in violation of their rights. The Crown extinguished all customary rights in the northern part of the Ngāi Tahu takiwā through a series of acquisitions, including the Wairau purchase, the Waipounamu transaction, the Arahura purchase and the Kaikoura purchase. In all these purchases, the Crown failed to fully inquire into or consider the interests of Te Tau Ihu iwi or to obtain their free and full consent.

I refer to this example because I think, in all respects, it is preferable to not try to accelerate the process, nor to have to be forced to take matters to the Waitangi Tribunal.

The wisest course of action is to have the korero, to try to settle support amongst the claimant community, and to ensure full, free and frank discussion amongst all parties.

I believe that what has been achieved in this Whanganui iwi Deed of on Account Settlement, represents a commitment to working together, talking together, settling together.

It is my understanding that the iwi concerned are satisfied with the Kaitoke prison and northern part of Whanganui forest “on-account” component of the package and believe that it effectively resolves any dispute that may have potentially occurred between Whanganui iwi and Ngati Apa.

Of course this is just the very start of the process before the Bill becomes law, and a lot of water needs to flow under the bridge before the deal is signed.

It will obviously be in everyone’s interests to get good commercial advice as to whether the prison and forest are good assets.

We understand also that the nature of the redress offered means that Whanganui will not be in a position of having to make a decision whether to select the properties for another six to twelve months following the passage of the Bill.

This is a good breathing space, to consolidate the settlement.

It is also a good period of time to ensure that nga uri o Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui, all descendants of the tupuna rohe o Whanganui, are actively consulted and engaged in the decision makring process around the on account settlement.

We, the Maori Party, look forward with great interest to watching how this settlement will pan out in action, and we are pleased to add our support to this Bill at this first reading.

ENDS

© Scoop Media