Paraone Pita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18914] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Committee stage of this bill. Firstly much of the discussion so far has been about translation and I find it ironic that the people who have expressed concerns about the translation have not told us what is wrong. I suppose I have to bow in deference to the deputy leader of National who was a teacher of Maori language as I understand—and I am not a teacher—so perhaps he might want to come back to the Chamber to tell us what is wrong. I take some exception to the comments made by the previous leader of the ACT party which cast aspersions on the integrity of the Maori members of the Maori Affairs Committee. I find it very ironic that the people who were concerned about the translation of the Maori text and the quality of it have admitted that they are not fluent Maori speakers. 
Secondly I felt that some of the aspersions cast by the previous leader of the ACT party on members of the Maori Affairs Committee suggest that the Maori translation of the English was wrong. Perhaps he is presuming that the Maori text is a translation of the English text but perhaps it could be the other way round. Be that as it may I stand to support this bill which sets up a governance entity for Ngati Awa. One of the reasons why we in New Zealand First support it is that this is a decision by Ngati Awa. In fact what it will do is to change its present governing legislation from the Maori Trust Boards Act to its own Act and from that of a Maori trust board to that of a runanga. They considered that to be the best structure for them to administer the resources that they will get as a consequence of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill which was debated in this House yesterday. It provides an opportunity for Ngati Awa to change from their present situation of being an entity under the Maori Trust Boards Act to becoming a runanga and having their own legislation. 
But having said that although Ngati Awa are quite happy to transpose to a certain extent the references to hapu in the Maori Trust Boards Act I need to repeat on behalf of New Zealand First our concerns that it has not been a complete transfer. In our view new hapu have been added and some of the titles of those hapu or those divisions that have been listed in the Maori Trust Boards Act are slightly at variance with those that are listed in the settlement bill. Some of those variances are dialectal variances and do not have too much of a consequence. 
However I need again to express some concern about the fact that in the regulations supporting their entity within the Maori Trust Boards Act reference is made to one division or one hapu as they would like us to believe known as Taiwhakaea. The settlement bill refers to “NgaiTaiwhakaea II” and similarly to “Ngai Te Rangihouhiri II”. I need to ask what has happened to “Taiwhakaea I”. Perhaps the Minister might be able to enlighten members in that regard. But given that that is the case in terms of what the new entity will provide New Zealand First will continue to support this bill.