Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker tēnā hoki tātou o Te Whare. Te mea tuatahi kei te mihi atu ki tō tātou kaiwhakarite nāna i whakapūare tēnei wāhanga kia īnoi atu ki Te Runga Rawa kia hōmai wana korowai aroha kei runga i a tātou i runga ake i ngā pire e pā ana ki a ngāi tātou Te Iwi Māori i te rā nei. Nā reira ka mihi hoki ki a koe e Te Ururoa.Ka hoki mai ki ngā mihi i mihingia ki a koutou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Kei te tautoko au i ngā mihi o te tuakana a Peeni ki a koutou; e tika ana wana kōrero! Kei te mihi hoki ki tēnā o ngā hunga ahakoa ki konei ā-wairua engari horekau i konei ā-tinana rātou i rūpeke ki tua o te ārai. Nā reira e tika ana kia kaha ana i a tātou ki te mihi tonu ki a rātou.Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora tātou o tēnei ao nā reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou.[So thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us as well of the House. Firstly I commend our prayer maker who opened this part and prayed to the Almighty above to give us his cloaks of empathy and throw them over us and the bills relating to us the Māori people today. Therefore I pay a tribute to you as well Te Ururoa.I come back to the acknowledgments that were accorded to you of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. I endorse the tributes of the elder sibling Peeni to you collectively; his comments were right! I pay a tribute to that one of the number even though they are here only in spirit and not physically but have gone beyond the barrier. Therefore it is fitting that we work hard to continue to acknowledge them.Let us come back to us the living and of this world so acknowledgments accolades and salutations to you collectively.]I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we have some disquiet about the bill—not the intent of the bill because we certainly support the notion that a settlement should be made. During the process of reaching this point there have been some members of the tribe who have expressed their opposition to the bill and I think it is incumbent on us—certainly we have taken the view—to articulate some of those concerns that they have. I know they realise that the bill will pass its third reading today and therefore the responsibility going forward will be left to the iwi; however they have asked us New Zealand First to just have their concerns recorded in the record of the House. I ought to say that the comments that will be made on their behalf are what they have articulated to us. Some of those concerns have been articulated to the Māori Affairs Committee and they have certainly had the opportunity to have further discussions with those who are involved in the future administration of this settlement. So I just want to place that on record in the first instance.Before doing so I want to reiterate just what this bill is all about. Fifteen cultural sites will be vested in Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa totalling approximately 3422 hectares. The largest is of course that area known as Stony Creek which has really been the major area of contention—not only with Stony Creek but along with two adjoining farm properties that total 3045 hectares. There is a financial redress of $6.2 million in lieu of the Crown's 2007 commitment to maintain the condition of Stony Creek Station's plant and stock until transfer.If that is the total quantum that is being paid under this bill then that suggests to us in New Zealand First that the quantum is only for or in relation to Stony Creek. Is there any quantum for the other areas of the claims for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa? The settlement also provides a cultural fund of $300000 for the development and implementation of a reserve management plan for Kōwhairoa Peninsula 290 hectares of which transfers to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa as a historic reserve.Stony Creek has been according to the Crown illegally occupied for the last 10 years. The occupation results from a dispute about iwi boundaries and who should and should not be included as beneficiaries of the settlement redress. Therein lies the nub of the concern of those who oppose this bill. So it is on record. Whether it has substance or not this is where we have some concern about the part that the Crown has suggested in this bill which is that it should be left to an independent group to determine the ownership and all those issues surrounding Stony Creek.I can appreciate the Crown and the Minister having a desire to see some resolution but also I recognise that it is only fair to those who want to proceed that they should be allowed to proceed. But at the same time it should be left to those who have that concern to sort it out. I want to acknowledge Mr Peter Douglas and Ken Mair who have attempted to be part of that process to encourage a resolution prior to this day. Unfortunately they have not been able to do so but I understand they will continue to work in that vein.One of the other concerns was from a hapū called Ngāi Takiora. Their points of objection for and on behalf of their hapū are: firstly the lack of inclusion of Ngāi Takiora being the hapū of Rewiri Kaiwaka in the consultation process when historical claims from the first initial claim by Rewiri Kaiwaka were included in the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa historical account; secondly the continued use of Ngāi Takiora claimants throughout history without consultation; thirdly Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and its hapū accepting settlement of Maunga Whakaangi when the historical evidence points to Ngāi Takiora being the hapū that has mana whenua; fourthly the questionable constitution that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust engages to gain a majority and implement motions to favour Kahukuraariki Trust members; and fifthly the lack of transparency of information and process. Whether that is right or wrong that is their interpretation of the process to date and I just want to put that on the record on their behalf.While this settlement bill addresses a number of claims on behalf of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa clearly there are some people within the iwi who do not support the bill itself and therefore the settlement. But I think it is important for the post-settlement group which will be charged with taking this matter forward on behalf of its iwi to ensure that as it moves forward it takes along with it those people who oppose the bill at this stage. I ask that it give serious consideration to that. Do not read the comments of New Zealand First as opposing your settlement and your desire to move forward but rather as wanting to remind those who will have the responsibility of taking your people with you. I often quote this example. When I was appointed the chairman of my particular iwi rūnanga my dad told me: Son if you think you're going to lead your people never ever forget to look behind you because if there is no one there then you have to ask yourself: who you are leading?".So while we can commend the bill to the House we do have some reservations about the intent of it. Tēnā koe."