Paraone Pita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6385] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Madam Speaker; tena ano tatou o te Whare nei. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o te wahanga i riro mai ki a au e mihi tonu ki tena o nga hunga mai i Ngati Mutunga koutou i kawe mai i tenei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei. Na reira tena koutou. A tena hoki koutou o Ngati Mutunga e noho tonu i te wa kainga i whakarongo mai i enei o nga korero i puta mai i roto o te Whare i te ra nei. Na reira tena koutou. 
Madam Assistant Speaker by way of explanation I acknowledge not only yourself and members of the House but also those of Ngati Mutunga who are in the precincts of this Chamber and those who are at home listening to this debate. 
I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say it is a pleasure to be able to participate in the second reading of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. The bill is a continuation of the whole settlement process involving Treaty of Waitangi claims. 
What is more pleasurable about this particular bill is that it will help to bring some closure to the events of the 19th century that saw the people of Ngati Mutunga and of course other iwi of Taranaki experience one of the darkest hours in the history of our country. In respect of this claim and other Taranaki claims the Waitangi Tribunal commented that there may be no others where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time. I also reiterate what I said during the first reading of this bill which was that any latter-day settlement will not change the events of the past. 
However what is expected of Treaty settlement legislation is that it will help to compensate claimants such as Ngati Mutunga by providing some form of redress both financial and of course cultural. I say that in the context of the view expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal that “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori to restore the honour of the Government to ensure cultural survival and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.” 
We heard comments from the member from the National Party who alluded to the issue of the impact that the Adoption Act will have on the future identity of those who can claim or will be able to claim descent from Ngati Mutunga. I need to support the comments that she made because when we are talking about any particular Maori hapu or iwi we are actually talking about whakapapa—genealogy—and we are talking about blood genealogy. Unfortunately—or fortunately depending on people’s viewpoint—the Adoption Act does not necessarily provide for that unless the adoptee is a member of the wider whanau. 
 The second reading of this bill progresses the claims made by Ngati Mutunga—that is the descendants of Mutunga—and follows the consideration of submissions made to the Maori Affairs Committee. As a matter of history the day that the committee met 6 September this year was 1 day after the 140th anniversary of the confiscation of the lands that have led us to the House today. With the exception of one submitter whose opposition was to a clause that provides for the vesting of the fee simple estate in reserved land presently under its purview all submitters were in support of the bill. The particular submitter that was opposed to part of the bill was the New Plymouth District Council which was concerned that its proprietary interest would be a lesser interest than the interest it currently holds. The support for the bill was further evidenced by the iwi ballot to accept the negotiated settlement and the new body to accept the proceeds from the settlement. I say that notwithstanding the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson on Maori affairs. I suggest we will never ever get it perfect in terms of having 100 percent support for any settlement that iwi representatives enter into on behalf of their iwi. 
During the hearing of submissions on the bill representatives from Ngati Mutunga although having completed a deed of settlement entered into negotiations and accepted that the settlement was “fair in the circumstances” expressed some disquiet about elements of the final settlement. Not the least of that disquiet was about the formula used by the Crown negotiators to arrive at the quantum that was used to reach this settlement. They asserted that the total area of Ngati Mutunga’s land that was originally confiscated actually amounted to 150000 acres. That figure was confirmed on a digital calculation. However for the purposes of this and other Taranaki claims the Crown has used calculations drawn from the Sim Commission evidence and findings as a source of information in developing the quantum offer. 
Another point of disquiet was the apparent reluctance to provide the claimants with the full formula used to arrive at the quantum for this claim. An earlier speaker alluded to that issue. We did however ascertain that the size or population of an iwi contributes to the overall quantum for each claim notwithstanding the value or the size of the confiscation or the breach of the Treaty that affected that particular iwi. It was also suggested by Ngati Mutunga—and I think this does have some credibility—that had its negotiators or tribal representatives included people with a high profile then perhaps the quantum would have been more favourable to Ngati Mutunga. I say that as someone who comes from an iwi group—a hapu some might say—that does not necessarily have people of the ilk that I described. Probably that will have some impact when we come to this House with our settlement. 
Notwithstanding all of that Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga did stress that the settlement quantum was fair in the circumstances or in context but that it did not regard it as fair in reality. Its desire to accept this settlement for the sake of its future was it considered practical and pragmatic. An earlier speaker referred to the pragmatism that was exercised by the negotiators for Ngati Mutunga. They ought to be lauded but because of their youthful age compared with other negotiators acting on behalf of other tribes I suggest to the House that their acceptance of what has been offered to Ngati Mutunga will be a load that not only will they have to bear but also all their descendants will have to bear in the years to come. As the people of Ngati Mutunga reflect on this settlement none of us need to guess who will get the blame if there is any criticism of the settlement. 
From a political party viewpoint and to ensure there is consistency on our part I want to refer to the inclusion in the bill of references to the terms “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” or “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles”. As the House well knows my colleague Doug Woolerton has sponsored a member’s bill which has been referred to a select committee to have references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi deleted from the 30-odd pieces of legislation in which they appear at the moment. When I raised this issue regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi at the select committee hearing with the applicants I was led to understand from them that the principles were not an issue for them but rather the issue was the fact that there were indeed breaches of the Treaty. That then gives rise to the question of why it has been so important for the Crown to include references to Treaty principles in any settlement. New Zealand First has always maintained that in the absence of any clear definition of Treaty principles and given their absence from the Treaty itself the failure of anyone particularly Maori to request that the non-existent principles be included in legislation and the fact that the term was originally inserted to provide a mere flourish to the State-Owned Enterprises Act we do not see any need to include references to those principles. I signal to the House that during the Committee stage we will certainly be issuing a Supplementary Order Paper to seek the deletion of those references from this bill. 
Notwithstanding that New Zealand First will certainly support this bill moving to the next stage of the process. Kia ora.